Why are NFL TV ratings down?

Posted on November 7, 2016 by bvanrysdam

Something strange is happening with the NFL. No, it’s not that the Dallas Cowboys have a shot at playing in this year’s Super Bowl at NRG Stadium with a backup quarterback, but rather TV ratings are down.

How down? Ratings giant Nielsen is reporting Monday Night Football is down 20 percent. Sunday Night Football is off by 18.5 percent and Thursday Night Football is down 21.8 percent.

The NFL is blaming the “unprecedented” interest in the presidential election, but someone who knows a little about sports and broadcasting has a different theory.

Back in 2014 when the NFL signed an eight game Thursday Night Football deal, Mark Cuban predicted that the NFL was overreaching and would soon see an implosion.

“I’m just telling you: Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. And they’re getting hoggy,”said Cuban. “Just watch. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. When you try to take it too far, people turn the other way. I’m just telling you, when you’ve got a good thing and you get greedy, it always, always, always, always, always turns on you. That’s rule No. 1 of business.”

Now to be fair, there could be many reasons for the decline if viewership.

Games are filled with commercials and penalties and take way too long to play. Back in 2013, The average length of a game was three hours and 12 minutes and included 20 commercial breaks with more than 100 ads.
The match-ups have been terrible. When the announcers are talking about whether or not they make their beds in the fourth quarter of the Tennessee – Jacksonville game, you know it’s a snoozer.
Smart phones give fans access to game information with real time scores, stats and news without having to watch the actual game.

Granted we are only talking about a handful of games so far, and now that the election is here and the World Series is done, ratings could return to last year’s numbers. Still one wonders how worried the league is over what could be a ratings tremor, or seismic shift.

What the hell was she thinking?

Posted on November 2, 2016 by bvanrysdam

The longtime Democratic strategist Donna Brazile was shown the door at CNN (technically she resigned, but the saying “don’t let the door hit you in the ass when you leave” comes to mind).

Brazile, who enjoyed offering her opinions on politics like Kim Kardashian likes selfies, was a mainstay for the network for many years. While you might not agree with her opinions, most reasonable people could respect her intelligence and knowledge of current events. So what happened?

Brazile informed/leaked/tossed a bone to the Clinton campaign about a question they could expect during a Democratic primary debate. CNN claims no one from their channel tipped her off, and suggested it came from TV One host Rolando Martin who co-moderated the debate or someone affiliated with Martin.

Not mincing words, CNN president Jeff Zucker reportedly called her actions “unethical” and “disgusting” In an editorial meeting.

This calls into question the practice of news organizations hiring partisan operatives. Their loyalties are not to the network, but more to their parties and candidates. While they may have educated opinions, that’s all they are; opinions.

“CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate,” a CNN spokeswoman said Monday. “We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor.”

While not surprising, it continues the narrative that what we see on so-called “news” channels, really isn’t news. It’s a bunch of talking heads who enjoy trying to be the smartest person in the room.

See you on the radio

Posted on August 29, 2016 by bvanrysdam

Charles Osgood announced he is retiring this fall from his “Sunday Morning” program on CBS Television. For those of you unaware of this gem of a broadcaster, shame on you. You have missed out on what could be argued, the greatest storyteller of all time.

Notice I did not say journalist. Osgood was a master at informing his audience of events in a way that drew you in and would not let you go. It today’s world of shrinking ratings and fragmented audience’s Osgood delivered the goods. “Sunday Morning” continues to be a ratings leader, with a year-to-date audience of nearly 6 million viewers, it consistently tops rival Sunday morning news shows.

I first heard him on the radio where four times a day, Osgood found stories to share with his listeners; from major national news, to human interest essays. His ability to use words to paint pictures left all of us who wanted to write for a living feel inferior.

When I heard he was leaving TV, but would continue to host The Osgood File, I wondered if radio stations still even carry it. It had been years since I heard it in Houston. Sadly, I discovered Houston is one of two top 10 markets where the program is not broadcast (Atlanta is the other).

Somehow, stations in NY, Los Angeles and Chicago can spare four minutes so that their listeners can learn and be entertained by the man known as the CBS News “Poet in Residence”.

Blurred lines

Posted on May 6, 2016 by bvanrysdam

They have gone too far.

I admit, I’m a fan of Modern Family. I think it’s cleverly written and I find myself actually laughing out loud, but all that has changed after this past episode.

Part of the storyline involved Phil Dunphy, a loveable goofball, using his knowledge of real estate to foil an evil character’s attempts at taking advantage of a family member. I found myself cheering him on as he landed blow after blow on the unsuspecting person.

Turns out she was not the only unsuspecting person. That scene was part of a new advertising strategy by the National Association of Realtors. Yes, they actual paid for a scene that made real estate agents look valuable.

I totally get that today’s TV’s viewing habits are radically different than even five years ago and advertisers are having a hard time reaching consumers. Recording programs and zooming past the ads are becoming more and more the normal rather than the exception, but has it really come to this? I can understand paying a show to have an actor drink a coke (product placement), but to actually help write a script?

It looks like the sales department has moved smack dab into the writer’s office.

In the public interest?

Posted on April 5, 2016 by bvanrysdam

Scrooge would be proud

Something interesting is taking place in the world of journalism. The world is buzzing about the release of the Panama Papers which reveled prominent world leaders hiding millions of dollars in offshore accounts and avoiding paying taxes.

(It was also hard to believe there was gambling going on at Rick’s Place in Casablanca).

The fallout has already begun with Iceland’s Prime Minister resigning after the leaked documents showed his wife owned an offshore company with big claims on collapsed Icelandic banks. More resignations are expected as the U.S.-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) reveal more names from the more than 11.5 million documents leaked from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.

This poses an interesting question for ICIJ and other journalists. Is it ethical to use stolen materials to publish a story, even if it is in the public’s interest to do so?

Back in 1971, Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers which showed how the Johnson administration systematically lied, not only to the public, but to congress as well about the Vietnam War.

Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy, espionage and theft of government property, but the charges were later dropped after prosecutors investigating the Watergate Scandal learned that the staff members in the Nixon White House had ordered the so-called White House Plumbers to engage in unlawful efforts to discredit Ellsberg.

Much like the Panama Papers, Ellsberg took the papers and released them to the N.Y. Times. At the time, Ellsberg said:

I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision.

The Times v. United States is generally thought of as a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint. Its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents.

There is big difference between classified documents and documents from a business, but the point ends up being the same; should the press use material that was stolen and not authorized?

The press faced a similar question when former CIA employee Eric Snowden leaked classified information from the National Security Agency to journalists with stories appearing in The Guardian and The Washington Post. Snowden has been called a hero, whistleblower, patriot and traitor.

I am all for outing the bad guys, but do two wrongs make it right? I guess that, once again is determined by what side of the fence you are sitting on.

Sucking the oxygen out of the room

Posted on April 5, 2016 by bvanrysdam

Like many Americans, I am watching the primary season with great fascination. After months of campaigning, candidates taking swings at each other (and in some instances, their wives) and generally looking very tired (I still have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to be president) the road to the White House continues.

It seems that the one constant is reporters asking the candidates, ‘what do you think of what Donald Trump said/did’? I understand why they ask the question. Talking about The Donald pumps up the ratings. Viewers/readers/listeners are drawn to anything related the TV reality star like the proverbial moth to a flame. I get that.

What I don’t get is why the other candidates (especially Cruz and Kasich) answer the questions. If I was offering advice, I would have them respond with something like, ‘thank you for your question, here is my plan to fix/improve (insert topic here).

The conversation is being dominated by what Trump says, what Trump does and what Trump wants, which is great for Trump, but not so great for the others. They need to tell us why their ideas are right for America.

Reporters and editors might not like this, and you do run the risk of getting less airtime and coverage, but how much value do you think they are currently getting talking about an opponent. It makes sense when your opponent attacks you and mentions you by name, but I would otherwise steer clear.

I am reminded of Mitt Romney during a debate at the last presidential election. The reporter chided Romney for not answering his question. Romney’s reply? ‘You can ask the question any way you like and I can answer it any way I like’.

If it bleeds…it leads

Posted on March 2, 2016 by bvanrysdam

Yesterday was a big news day here in Houston. There was Super Tuesday where many candidates were vying for their parties nomination.

Another big story was astronaut Scott Kelly returning to Houston after spending a record 340 days in outer space.

So when I woke up this morning, I was excited to catch up on all the news until I turned to ABC-13. Their 5:30 a.m. newscast began, not with the election coverage and not with Scott Kelly’s triumphant return. No, they decided the #1 story was regarding a chuck wagon race driver being thrown from his wagon during last night’s Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo.

Being the respected Houston’s News Leader, the station did warn us the video was very graphic and might be disturbing to some views, but we’re going to show it anyways. I am not trying to make fun of the accident. I realize someone was hurt badly and I trust they will make a full recovery, but this is the lead story?

Did no one in the newsroom say, “Hey wait a minute. Wasn’t there some kind of election last night?”

Maybe the unfortunate rodeo mishap allowed the station to have a reporter do a live shot from the scene (I’m sure all the fun at the Red Neck Country Club was over by then), but as ESPN (who is owned by the same company as ABC-13) would say; “Come On Man!’