I Miss Entertainment on Broadcast TV

Whatever happened to entertainment?

It's not like the world isn't bombarded by an endless 24-hour news cycle. It is. NBC, Fox, and CNN all dominate the national news scene in this country, and the fact that some digital networks are dedicating themselves to news is kind of irksome. The broadcast networks have really dropped the ball on subchannel development in the new digital order because they've completely abandoned entertainment.

Despite what Fox News, CNBC, and Headline News tell you, news is not entertainment. It's news. The major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox) are owned by Disney, NBC Universal, CBS Paramount, and News Corp, monolithic entertainment companies with a vast library of shows, movies, and specials for all ages.

The thing isn't that they can't create outlets airing those shows but rather they won't. Why won't they? The television industry is cheap. Even before the depression started, the television industry is powered by cheap, overpaid individuals with no talent who don't want to pay folks with talent, whether it be writers, artists, or actors. They've embraced the internet and cable television so they wouldn't have to give residuals to those who created the products the shows' owners get paid for.

The digital television agenda seems to be awarding the television industry for something they didn't do. Older programs are disappearing from the airwaves, replaced by more modern fare, which is disheartening because not everything modern is good and not everything old is bad. A profit could be made from airing programs, plus it could actually rejuvenate the broadcast television market (something the whole digital television movement should accentuate often and always).

The government ads are promoting new channels, but broadcast networks outside the top 25 markets (with the exception of public broadcasting, ION, and affiliates owned by the big four networks) aren't really pushing the idea beyond one channel. And the broadcast industry continues to be defined by news rather than entertainment. Because it's cheaper? Because it's an outlet to showcase their political and social viewpoints? Because they want a reason to keep their news divisions and remain relevant?

I'd rather see classic comedies and dramas than 24-hours of news. And I know I'm not the only one.

Comments

E.A. said…
I'm for a latter point you made. They are for news because it's cheaper, and because it's profitable when they charge advertisers rates inconsistent with the quality of the program that the ads are supporting.
3/09/2009 10:13:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MeTV TOONS: A Few Pre-Launch Thoughts

Image
  On June 25, 2024, Weigel Broadcasting and Warner Bros Discovery are launching MeTV TOONS, an over-the-air broadcast network devoted to classic animation featuring the best of the best.  You'll have the usual suspects from the Warrner Bros library including Looney Tunes, Tom and Jerry, Scooby-Doo, The Flintstones, Yogi Bear, Top Cat, The Jetsons, The Smurfs, Jonny Quest, and Wacky Races .  You'll also find some shows that rarely get the airplay or shine from the studio like Silverhawks, Police Academy, Challenge of the Go-Bots, The Mask, and Beetlejuice and surprising shows like Freakazoid. In addition, you'll have some popular shows from other studios like Woody Woodpecker, Betty Boop, Casper the Friendly Ghost, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Underdog, Speed Racer, Thunderbirds, and The Real Ghostbusters. With a lot of support from historians like Jerry Beck and talent like Bob Bergen, MeTV TOONS is a dream come true for older classic animation fans who felt abandoned by kid-sk
Read more

Let's Ride This FAST Car... toon Network Concept (Part 2)

Image
Three channels. That's all the Cartoon Network brand needs to expand into FAST media. Three channels. Why three? Because with nearly 30 years of original programming, you can't put it all in one place. That's why you don't see much of the library on television nowadays. Cartoon Network itself has a limited lineup, and they're hyper-focused on the younger demographics and push more modern shows. They tried to put some of the older CN library on Boomerang, but it was buried in late-night slots.  Plus, most major TV markets don't have Boomerang on their cable lineup. You'd think they'd try to get wider distribution deals, but I think Time Warner just gave up more than a decade ago. And yeah, I put the blame on Time Warner.  Not AT&T and WarnerMedia. Not Warner Bros Discovery. Hell, not even AOL Time Warner.  I'm putting much of Boomerang's lack of carriage on Time Warner. But I digress. With the Checkered Past block on Adult Swim, some of the ol
Read more

What to Do with WBD's Networks?

 If you've followed Thoughtnami over the past 20 years, thank you for your patronage and your support . It's so great to be back writing posts like this after all of these years. It feels more natural and less constrictive than tweets and occasional posts across social media. You also know that when it comes to one particularly Hollywood media company, I have a love-hate relationship with them. And that studio has had many names during the course of those two decades. AOL Time Warner.  Time Warner. WarnerMedia. Warner Bros Discovery. And they've all been called "the most poorly run media company" by me throughout those two decades. Now, granted, I may be a little hyperbolic with that statement. They're really not the most poorly run media company (looking at you both, Paramount Global and Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment), but considering the two years the current management team of David Zaslav (President and CEO), Gunnar Wiedenfels (Chief Financial O
Read more