The TV News Thread (Spoiler-Free, Please)

So [watching it] on air is related to the saps and the dips**ts who can't figure out how to watch it in a superior way.

Maybe my reading comprehension is really bad, but it reads to me like he's insulting people who are too dumb to be able to use a DVR.

And went on to say how it's getting to the point where "watching the show on the air is relegated to the poor saps and dip****s who can't figure out how to program their DVR's".

Even more so.

Was "related" a mistype in the first quote?
 
Maybe my reading comprehension is really bad, but it reads to me like he's insulting people who are too dumb to be able to use a DVR.



Even more so.

Was "related" a mistype in the first quote?
The second one you quote-quoted was a repeat of the same thing. It was Kring attempting to quote how he was quoted.

In any case, what I think he's saying is that he's been quoted as saying that he's blaming DVR and online streaming for cannibalizing ratings and that he's losing ratings to the people loyal enough to watch it on air.

Who he happened to call saps and dip****s.

What the quote does is frame the onliners and DVR-viewers as elitists, and the on air people as pathetic Luddites.

He's basically being positioned as someone who feels that the only real ratings support are those who are 'forced' into that position due to their techno-illiteracy.

At least that's what the misquote says about Kring.

But what he actually means is that DVR-viewing and online downloads are a GREAT way to watch shows with greater convenience and all that, and it's so convenient that its a mystery anybody puts up with on air viewing.

Unfortunately, he still makes use of derogatory language that doesn't help him in ANY way.

But the debate that is at the core of Kring's words, is not whether he demeans the audience or not, I think, (no matter which interpretation you choose, he's demeaning SOMEONE) but that he doesn't want to alienate the online and DVR people, which constitute such a large viewing demographic for Heroes.

And it's THAT which makes him double back on his words.
 
But what he actually means is that DVR-viewing and online downloads are a GREAT way to watch shows with greater convenience and all that, and it's so convenient that its a mystery anybody puts up with on air viewing.

Huh. That's how I read it. And I agree.

Some people just want to be pissed off, and they'll pick stupid things to be pissed off about. I didn't think it was that big of a deal.
 
Huh. That's how I read it. And I agree.

Some people just want to be pissed off, and they'll pick stupid things to be pissed off about. I didn't think it was that big of a deal.
Me too. Also, it's a mystery that networks still choose to measure a show's popularity via Nielsens, but then again they've really no other convenient tool to do so that also measures its profitability (since after all, the whole point of the system is to measure how many people are seeing ads). Still it's no excuse. It should be reason enough for TV to start developing well-defined profit models and measurement systems.

In any case, Kring's problem right now is that he just chose the most PR-unfriendly way to make a 'correct' point.
 
Me too. Also, it's a mystery that networks still choose to measure a show's popularity via Nielsens

You'd think that they would figure out some way of dealing with this, because shows are going to get cancelled that shouldn't be because the industry doesn't know how to deal with new technology like this.

I'm surprised the producers aren't doing more to promote this, seeing as how they are potentially losing work.

Kind of sad actually. The movie industry is as bad as the music industry - deathly afraid of technology and too stupid and stubborn to evolve and adapt.
 
The Nielsen thing drives me INSANE. I always get end up arguing against some know-it-all about this who insists it wouldn't be cost-effective for all those boxes, but in this day and age that's completely untrue. A chip the size and cost of a cell phone transmitter would do it and the data would be worth ten times whatever it cost. Then you get the liberal who insists the government shouldn't be allowed to track what they're watching. Then take it out! It's not against the law! Are you out of your mind!

The worst was when Arrested Development was getting cancelled and there wasn't a damn thing anybody could do about it because the "tell your friends" thing doesn't matter unless they have a Nielsen box. And you know what the worst part is? EVERYONE I KNOW WATCHES AND LOVES THAT SHOW, EVEN AT THE TIME. EVERYONE. The raitings can't possibly have been anywhere near as low as they thought.
 
Last edited:
The Nielsen thing drives me INSANE. I always get end up arguing against some know-it-all about this who insists it wouldn't be cost-effective for all those boxes, but in this day and age that's completely untrue. A chip the size and cost of a cell phone transmitter would do it and the data would be worth ten times whatever it cost. Then you get the liberal who insists the government shouldn't be allowed to track what they're watching. Then take it out! It's not against the law! Are you out of your mind!

The worst was when Arrested Development was getting cancelled and there wasn't a damn thing anybody could do about it because the "tell your friends" thing doesn't matter unless they have a Nielsen box. And you know what the worst part is? EVERYONE I KNOW WATCHES AND LOVES THAT SHOW, EVEN AT THE TIME. EVERYONE. The raitings can't possibly have been anywhere near as low as they thought.

Then again your talking about FOX who has cancelled countless great shows. Recently cancelled King of the Hill, Firefly, Family Guy etc. There was this one awesome show I used to watch about an american detective who was transferred to london to be a detective. God that show was awesome. I forget what it was called though.
 
Then again your talking about FOX who has cancelled countless great shows. Recently cancelled King of the Hill, Firefly, Family Guy etc. There was this one awesome show I used to watch about an american detective who was transferred to london to be a detective. God that show was awesome. I forget what it was called though.

I believe it was called Kenn Eddie or something along those lines
 
ABC is exploring the worlds of TV news, politics and genius 11-year-olds in its latest batch of drama pilots, while it's apocalypse now for NBC, according to Variety.

NBC has greenlighted the post-apocalyptic drama pilot Day One, from Heroes scribe Jesse Alexander.

The hourlong takes place following a catastrophic global event that destroys the world's infrastructure. Action centers on a small group of survivors.

Universal Media Studios is behind Day One. Alexander's credits include Alias and Lost.

The Alphabet net's I, Claudia centers on the world of a young prosecuting attorney who, viewers learn, will one day be a contender for the presidency.

In present-day I, Claudia, however, lead character Claudia McIntire is more concerned about her love life than her career.

Also at ABC, Grey's Anatomy creator Shonda Rhimes is giving the TV news beat another try. Having twice attempted to develop a drama about war correspondents, Rhimes is now exec producer on Inside the Box, set in a D.C. network news bureau.

Richard E. Robbins, a news producer wrote the script, which centers on a female news producer and her colleagues. Betsy Beers is also attached.

ABC additionally picked up an untitled pilot from Daniel Cerone (Dexter), about a Savannah police detective who discovers, after his father dies, that he has an 11-year-old brother with a genius IQ.

The detective winds up partnering with his young brother, who helps him solve crimes. Show is based on the Argentinian series Brothers and Sisters. Cerone is exec producer.


I'm interested in Day One even though it's been done before because I'm sure Alexander will be able to inject something new or unique into it.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top