On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:24 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Darren Glass <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> And I think right here is the crux of the problem, and the reason why I >> am willing to give NBC far more credit than many people seem to. There are >> some viewers who want to view sports as a news-like event. There are >> others who want to view it as entertainment. Trying to please both groups >> (and everyone in between) is very difficult, if not impossible. >> >>
> I can accept that NBC wants to treat their primetime show as entertainment > in order to earn back as much of their huge financial investment as they > can - they need to attract more than just sports fans if they are going to > do that. But at its core the Olympics *are* sporting events - there is a > line that bounds basic integrity that, if crossed, makes the whole thing > meaningless, even from an entertainment point of view. If not, NBC could > save a hell of a lot of money by just airing an extended version of "So You > Think You Can Dance?". > > But here's the thing -- it doesn't make the whole thing meaningless to me. Or rather, if there is a line that would do that then NBC is still well on the good side of that line. Your mileage clearly varies. But I would guess that I am actually somewhat in the middle of the viewing audience in these regards. Put another way, I think that a significant portion of the NBC Olympics audience is perfectly happy to treat it as "So You Think You Can Dance" and gets annoyed at people who put the results out in real time just as they would get annoyed if the NY Times went ahead and printed the winner of next season's SURVIVOR. Are these people right or wrong for feeling this way? That question doesn't have any real meaning to me. But I would guess that they exist in significant numbers and you (and others) trying to badger me into caring isn't going to do any good. > There must be a lot of people who feel the same way about baseball that > you feel about the Olympics. Indeed, it is possible that they could > significantly increase ratings for Braves games if they played all games > during the day and then broadcasted them, edited, in a one hour slot during > primetime. > They could do this. And it would upset me just like what NBC is doing upsets you. I'm guessing that someone has made the calculation that this would alienate more people than it would attract and that is the reason that they don't do this. > Your position is not just intellectually inconsistent, it is practically > inconsistent, in the terms that you identify as important to you - namely > spoilers. > I don't really understand what you mean by this. All I am saying is that if all anyone cared about was what I wanted then all news outlets and everyone online would refrain from putting the winners out until primetime in whatever time zone I am in, so that I have a chance to watch spoiler-free. I am, however, an adult who realizes that the media world doesn't revolve around me or people who think like me. And therefore I tolerate (and dont even really whine about too much) the fact that lots of people are watching these events earlier than I am and wanting to talk about them. Whether you think these Olympic spoilers are "fair game" or not does depend on whether you think of the Olympics as a news event or an entertainment event (or somewhere else on that spectrum), and my point is simply that there are people in both camps. NBC is trying to have its cake and eat it too by compromising to both crowds. And I think that with a few notable missteps they have been doing a pretty good job considering the degree of difficulty. dg -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
