Monday, November 05, 2007

TV Dinners

TV.  Television.  Do you watch it? Or are you embarrassed to say you do? Instead, do you talk about streaming, PVR and DVR, time shifting, downloading and only then get to the rehashing of the latest “Idol”— in whatever country/language/format you happen to watch it.

Radio. Ah, radio. Remember that old fashioned medium? No doubt you listen to satellite radio; or Web radio; or radio over your IPod or Zune—none of us would admit to even having that ancient box—would we?

There you have it. Imagine if we didn’t have the Web – where would TV be? Or radio...?

The operative words are “watch” and “listen.” The bottom line that is still what we do. We watch and listen.

And what is it that we watch and listen?

Content?

And what kind of content?

See where I am going?

We are still caught up in the old fashioned argument of is it TV or Web delivered or magic.  The bottom line (need a new cliché) at the end of the day…(Thank God for clichés) someone, somewhere, is writing, producing and distributing stuff we want to watch—stuff that many, many people want to watch.

I’m not talking about the 15mgs of fame that clog up our e-mails and populate You Tube and the like. I know, I know, some of it is really great, but those who are serious are looking for pay contracts so that they can really create and produce great programming that millions will watch.

It’s time we paid attention to what the difference is between a delivery channel and the things that fill it. Between media and content (McLuhan needs to be revised)…between what fashion tells us we should say and what we really do in our own private space.

Which of course leads me to a quote I saw this week:

Do you realize if it weren’t for Edison we’d be watching TV by candlelight?
~Al Boliska

So if it wasn’t for the Web we’d be bird watching? Or only reading books?

Or put another way:

If it weren’t for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we’d still be eating frozen radio dinners.
~Johnny Carson

Anyway, food for thought…

What do you think?

Posted by David on 11/05 at 10:01 AM
(7) Comments • Permalink

  1. Interesting to mention this on the first day of the writer's strike. They have to show re-runs of live talk, because live talk (late night or daytime junk) can't be done without the writers. I guess content is the thing.

    Posted by phyllis  on  2007-11-05 16:42:46

  2. I recall watching TV some programs (quite a few) where the only thing I remember is that I can't remember the program. That included some good programs (I think). [This sometimes created an eerie "de ja vu" (or was that "du ja ve") if I manage to actually see something twice, for the first time]. Was I captured by the technology? Were the writers manufacturing "bubble gum" for the brain? Was I just not really engaged much? Don't know. But I don't think I've had the same issue with any book I've ever read. Tom.

    Posted by Tom Osborn  on  2007-11-06 02:14:06

  3. At this stage ..I am more concerned with Johnny Carsons educashon (sic) ..surely the television must be credited to that great Brit, John Logie Baird! Which leads on neatly to another web related question..wiki style- , does the loudest web voice mean history can change before our very eyes on the web? Google "who invented TV" and check out which countries sites say what!!! Ahh the internet.. national propoganda, sorry pride, without boundries.

    Posted by Nick Annetts  on  2007-11-06 03:04:03

  4. TV and other new media have a lot of potential. I feel that its only being used inappropriately that we feel disgruntled. As a media, we sure have made right advances, its just the direction that needs to be put right. I mean I see my two year old daughter learn differentiate between a baboon and a monkey thanks to National Geographic. It is certainly the "choice" that makes the difference, use the new media to help you and your family grow than just consider it bad because it needs you to change.

    Posted by Prashant Gandhi  on  2007-11-06 05:32:45

  5. The question of questionable info on the web as content is worthy of a full discussion -- we have been trained to belive media sources -- despite cynacism -- yet the web, in and of itself, is not about the third party endorsement of trusted entity -- schools are wrestling with this too in terms of papers and such. So all content is not equal and all truth is not true.

    Posted by david sable  on  2007-11-06 12:52:01

Page 1 of 1 pages