thedailywhat: NBC Response of the Day: NBC — aka, “The Only Television Network On Planet Earth To Not Show Important Events Live” — defended their decision to delay and heavily edit Friday night’s Olympic opening ceremony. Their reasoning: American audiences couldn’t comprehend such a large spectacle in real time, especially via streaming video. Here’s the official word from an NBC spokesperson: It was never our intent to live stream the Opening Ceremony or Closing Ceremony. They are complex entertainment spectacles that do not translate well online because they require context, which our award-winning production team will provide for the large prime-time audiences that gather together to watch them. NBC was also heavily criticized over cutting a tribute to terrorism victims, including the 2005 London bombings, in favor of an interview between Ryan Seacrest and swimmer Michael Phelps. Their explanation for that decision isn’t much better: Our programming is tailored for the U.S. audience. It’s a tribute to [producer] Danny Boyle that it required so little editing. At least they complimented Danny Boyle. [metafilter] A unified field theory that accounts for 1) NBC’s seemingly last minute decision to renege on (what I thought, anyway, was) a promise to livestream the opening ceremony, 2) cut it down the night of the taped broadcast, AND YET 3) seem so unprepared and out of sorts while the spectacle was unfolding: I think NBC just took it for granted that whatever Danny Boyle would opt to do, it would be easily recognized and understood by their broadcast team and on-air talent. It’s like that they forgot that the United Kingdom is FOREIGN COUNTRY, not some America with a funny accent. And they almost seemed taken aback that a British film director staging a British opening ceremony in London would even dare to do something uniquely British.  Honest to God, I literally think that NBC just didn’t think they needed to do much planning and when it finally happened that they were staring at the ceremony, they were like, “What’s going on? Why is this like, some kind of celebration of a foreign country’s traditions?” Ha, and most people “pay tribute” to Danny Boyle by watching his movies in their entirety. PS: Isn’t it sort of insidious that NBC was like, “Oh, London’s experience with terrorism…we don’t want our stateside viewers coming away with the idea that it was as authentic as their own?”
View Separately

thedailywhat:

NBC Response of the Day: NBC — aka, “The Only Television Network On Planet Earth To Not Show Important Events Live” — defended their decision to delay and heavily edit Friday night’s Olympic opening ceremony. Their reasoning: American audiences couldn’t comprehend such a large spectacle in real time, especially via streaming video. Here’s the official word from an NBC spokesperson:

It was never our intent to live stream the Opening Ceremony or Closing Ceremony. They are complex entertainment spectacles that do not translate well online because they require context, which our award-winning production team will provide for the large prime-time audiences that gather together to watch them.

NBC was also heavily criticized over cutting a tribute to terrorism victims, including the 2005 London bombings, in favor of an interview between Ryan Seacrest and swimmer Michael Phelps. Their explanation for that decision isn’t much better:

Our programming is tailored for the U.S. audience. It’s a tribute to [producer] Danny Boyle that it required so little editing.

At least they complimented Danny Boyle.

[metafilter]

A unified field theory that accounts for 1) NBC’s seemingly last minute decision to renege on (what I thought, anyway, was) a promise to livestream the opening ceremony, 2) cut it down the night of the taped broadcast, AND YET 3) seem so unprepared and out of sorts while the spectacle was unfolding: I think NBC just took it for granted that whatever Danny Boyle would opt to do, it would be easily recognized and understood by their broadcast team and on-air talent. It’s like that they forgot that the United Kingdom is FOREIGN COUNTRY, not some America with a funny accent. And they almost seemed taken aback that a British film director staging a British opening ceremony in London would even dare to do something uniquely British. 

Honest to God, I literally think that NBC just didn’t think they needed to do much planning and when it finally happened that they were staring at the ceremony, they were like, “What’s going on? Why is this like, some kind of celebration of a foreign country’s traditions?”

Ha, and most people “pay tribute” to Danny Boyle by watching his movies in their entirety.

PS: Isn’t it sort of insidious that NBC was like, “Oh, London’s experience with terrorism…we don’t want our stateside viewers coming away with the idea that it was as authentic as their own?”

thedailywhat:

TV Show Promo of the Day: J.J. Abrams — of Alias, Lost, and Fringe fame — is at the helm of Revolution, a new drama set in a post-apocalyptic world 15 years “after the lights went out” — or when a mysterious electromagnetic pulse threw humanity back into the 19th century, without cars, phones, or (gasp!) the Internet. Premieres this fall on NBC.

[devour]

My only concern with the show is that obviously a good portion of every episode will be spent watching every character except the dude from MAD MEN meticulously grooming themselves with straight razors. Or did the mysterious EMP also affect hair follicles?

Paula Froelich: The real problem with the #WHCD and political coverage

paulafroelich:

1. Politicians have become the new celebrities
2. Like celebrity coverage, political coverage has become fawning, facile and obsequious, so that the organization or reporter cn brag about their “connections” or who they had dinner with.
3. Back when I was at page six, if someone 

wanted to work there I would always ask, “are you friends with any celebrities? Do you want to be?” if the answer was in the affirmative, the candidate wouldn’t get the job because if they. Are your friend, or want them to be YOU CAN’T COVER THEM 
4. There should be a THICK line, not a thin one, between a reporter and their subject.
5. Real questions aren’t being asked for fear of not getting another interview. I would rather have a tv show with no guests than ones with idiotic, pandering questions full of half truths.

YO YO YO THERE YOU GO @PFRO. This. Especially #5. Allowing powerful people to trade on access to themselves is one way the press goes upside-down on the public trust. Everyone’s terrified of not landing the big “get.” (It’s awfully silly, considering they’re still mainly “getting” John McCain, who is the Beltway’s version of the neighborhood bicycle.) Being scared that your guest won’t come back is so backwards-thinking. If they refuse to come on your show, you put your show on the air and you call them stone cowards. You put their name in the street. You tell your viewers that so-and-so is afraid to face you. And you escalate by calling them out in newer and more infuriating ways.

“They never called me for comment!” Yeah, FUCK YOU. 

There’s a newsman out in Vegas named Jon Ralston who is on the other side of the spectrum from David Gregory. In the 2010 cycle, he landed an interview with Sharron Angle. In an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review, he explains how he got “access.”

—-

So how did you get your interview with Sharron Angle?

I asked for it [laughs]. The interview came soon after the primary, when they were getting pounded for not doing mainstream media interviews. Someone from her campaign came to me and said, you’re the guy who’s known for doing the toughest interviews, we’re going to do you and that will shut everybody up.

Did they make any attempt to limit the scope of the interview?

Not at all. They know me and they know that that would be fruitless.

—-

They know me and they know that that would be fruitless. That is how it’s fucking done.

Top