Lenovation

Tonight, Jay Leno says good-bye to the Tonight Show.  It will be the end of an era, but not for the same reason his predecessor’s final show was.  Johnny Carson’s final bow in 1992 meant that a popular, recognizable personality was leaving the public eye; despite being consistently top-rated Leno was never so loved.  He may, however, revolutionize prime time the way Carson revolutionized late night.

When it premiers this fall, Leno’s 10:00 p.m., five-nights-a-week talk show will be markedly different from its competition.  And that may be a good thing.  NBC Universal head honcho Jeff Zucker said recently that television networks like NBC are buoyed by their cable properties – and that the demand for cheap programming and instant hits means that shows that take time to find an audience, like Seinfeld, wouldn’t make it today.

Networks must, as Zucker said, change the way they do business for many reasons.  Original dramas on cable have become more successful over the past ten years (look at The Shield, The Sopranos, Monk, and Sex and the City) and have the advantage of a revenue stream beyond advertising.  Since you pay for cable already, FX doesn’t mind if you TiVo an episode of Sons of Anarchy and fast forward through the commercials.  But your clicker is killing NBC, which relies almost solely on advertising to generate revenue, when you skip through the proud sponsors of The Office.  Shows aired either live or on tape delay – sports, news, and, of course, talk shows – offer the best advertising opportunities.

Enter Leno in prime time, and NBC has a better venue for advertising.  And, since it airs five nights a week, viewers don’t really have to choose between Leno and NCIS – they can watch NCIS one night of the week, CSI another, and Leno when there isn’t an alternative.  As he was on the Tonight Show, Leno will be television’s fallback position.

The stakes at 10:00 are a lot lower for Leno than they were when he stepped behind Johnny’s desk.  He’s a known commodity, he doesn’t have a very high bar to exceed, and he has no direct competition.  But if it works, it could mean a big win for NBC – and, like his predecessor, Leno may inspire copycats.

All the news that’s fit to crib

Maureen Dowd lifting language from a blog post for use in her column is proof that, as it has been for decades, the New York Times is the defining example of print journalism in America.  After all, this news comes less than two weeks after reporters at various papers were exposed for relying too heavily on Wikipedia to write obituaries for composer Maurice Jarre.   With the mainstream media becomes reliant on digital sources, what’s to stop the media consumer from doing the same?

Consider a short, oversimplified summary of the development of our modern media:

Media evolved as a way to let us know what the most important events of they day are; the people who owned the printing press would learn as much as they could and summarize it for the masses.  Then, to get as much information as possible, the press owners hired reporters who cultivated sources, from whom they collected information and distilled the most important parts – which was, again, summarized for the masses.

In this model, the journalist is an extremely important link in the chain of information.  There’s far too much news out there tucked away in the nooks and crannies of politics, government, sports teams, companies, movie studios, or anything other institution for the average citizen to find it all on his or her own.  Unfortunately for the journalist, this model is no longer the case.

Today, most reporters get their news from RSS feeds.  I make this point often whenever I’m asked to talk about either public relations or building a digital strategy for an organization (since nowadays, the two really go hand-in-hand).  Therefore, if you are in PR – in other words, if you want to be a reporter’s source – you have to make sure your organization distributes information over RSS feeds.  In essence, RSS feeds are the new “sources.”

And since you can go around the web signing up for just about any RSS feed you want, you have access to those sources as well.  And instead of reading about President Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee in your local paper, you can instantly see what The National Review, Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, Human Events, and a host of other media outlets from all over the political spectrum have to say about him.

All of this makes the reporter or the columnist much less useful than he or she used to be – especially when he or she is sloppy and cribs almost directly from his or her source.

Of course, this isn’t the end of journalism – the information has to come from somewhere, after all.  But it does mean that a journalist has to work harder and report information that his or her readers wouldn’t be able to find otherwise.  Like many other industries, the media must find new ways to generate value.

Catching up with John Galt

From CNN this week came news that the capitalism-themed works of Ayn Rand are in high demand.  As politicians on the right form their messages, this is worth paying attention to.

The only Rand book I’ve read is her most famous volume, Atlas Shrugged.  A 1200-page brick of a book, it was nevertheless a page-turner – and despite the set of beliefs and philosophies behind it, it was first and foremost an extremely well-written story.  Rand’s characters are interesting and her plot is compelling.

That’s exactly why big screen rumors have persisted for years – and there’s no time like now.

The genius of Rand’s social commentary is in its separation of the seemingly synonymous concepts of free market capitalism and “big business.”  She skewers lobbyists for large corporations who seek control of the cogs and wheels of government – in other words, she would have no sympathy for the automakers, banks, or other large companies parading, hat in hand, to Capitol Hill.  In Atlas Shrugged, as is the case today, big businesses are often the first to call for government involvement in the economy because they have the resources and influence to frame the policy.

And there couldn’t be a better way to deliver these messages than through compelling entertainment.  Inside-the-Beltway conservative talking heads just aren’t going to get it done.

And that may be the biggest impediment to a silver screen adaptation for Atlas Shrugged.  Despite a riveting and topical story, its core philosophy isn’t exactly in lockstep with the prevailing Hollywood liberalism.  Don’t get me wrong – there won’t be a conspiracy.  But if I’m a liberal studio executive, and all my friends are liberal studio executives, and most of my political conversations are with other liberals, it won’t take much to convince me that the only audience for Atlas Shrugged would be packs of black-clad anarchical-capitalist “Randroids.”

Perhaps a small, independent studio will take a chance on the product despite the paralyzing group think of industry leaders.  Given the story, that may be more appropriate.

Does this mean my Mom has to read a liberal blog, too?

I can’t imagine it actually coming to pass, but rumblings about reviving the inappropriately named “Fairness Doctrine” have sprung up around Capitol Hill. The Fairness Doctrine would be an FCC regulation that would force radio stations to balance their programming – so that station that plays Rush Limbaugh for three hours would have to balance it out with… um… well, whoever it is that liberals and Democrats listen to.

The impetus for the rule change is clear. Senator Debbie Stabenow claims that talk radio “overwhelms people’s opinions – and, unfortunately, incorrectly.” In other words, she’s worried about opinions she disagrees with being more persuasive. It’s completely antithetical to everything our country is founded on, but quelling dissent makes sense.

Beyond principle, though, the problems are in the details. For instance, who determines what “balance” entails? If Sean Hannity is in favor of invading Iran, is he effectively balanced by someone who is against invading Iran because they would rather invade North Korea? And how does a fairness doctrine account for “do-it-yourself” media?

The great thing about free speech is, if you disagree with what someone else is saying, you have every right to answer them and attempt to make a compelling case. Sometimes the other side has the advantage of experience and establishment – just ask any conservative reading the New York Times or watching CNN. (And incidentally – if the fairness doctrine is passed, it opens a can of worms for mainstream media.)

More avenues exist now than ever before to get a message out – which makes the fairness obsolete as well as being, well, unfair.

Bookmark and Share

Waking up about Wal-Mart

Bruce Springsteen’s Super Bowl halftime appearance came as he apologized for a promotional deal he signed with Wal-Mart to promote his greatest hits album. Springsteen feels Wal-Mart doesn’t treat its employees well.

First off, where does someone nicknamed “The Boss” get off talking about employee conditions? The boss never knows what’s really going on.

Second, there are some people Springsteen should talk to before chiding the working conditions at Wal-Mart. The first is Jason Furman, a key economic advisor to President Obama, who wrote a paper calling Wal-Mart “A Progressive Success Story” for providing low-income workers with affordable goods.

The other is Charles Platt, a blogger who gave an insider’s account of life behind the smiley face as an actual Wal-Mart employee. I think it’s been a while since Springsteen found himself inside a Wal-Mart, so I’ll take Platt’s word on what the working conditions are like.

Most of the criticisms about Wal-Mart come from unions – who would love to siphon off union dues from the paychecks of Wal-Mart’s millions of employees. The bad news for them is that Wal-Mart and its employees have a good thing going – even if the Boss doesn’t know it.

Bookmark and Share

Sunday Funnies: Dennis Miller on the Inaugural Concert

Making the rounds last week was video of Dennis Miller on the O’Reilly Factor, criticizing Young Jeezy and Jay-Z for their racially charged diatribe during pre-inaugural festivities.

I’ve always found Miller funny, but give him credit. In 2003, Miller became an outspoken supporter of the War on Terror. Now, I don’t want to get off on a rant here, but circa 2002 the pro-Bush, Republican bandwagon was so crowded that it made last week’s Obamafest look like the Australian outback after a nuclear winter. And among the intelligentsia, this was less-than welcome news; Miller was so reviled as a turncoat that some wondered if he was some Dr. Moreau-esque genetic amalgam of Benedict Arnold, Alger Hiss, and Lando Calrissian. Some on the right even questioned whether Miller’s outspoken conservatism (though he eschewed the conservative tag) was more a finger-in-the-wind capitalization on the post-9-11 zeitgeist from someone who had just gotten booted from the Monday Night Football booth.

But things change and today the only place on TV talking positively about Bush is the Home and Gardening network. For someone in Miller’s position, it would have been easy to embrace Obama’s hope and back away from previous support for Republicans under the mantra of independence.

Yet Miller stuck to his guns – and revealed much about his outlook by proclaiming high hopes and well wishes for Obama even while admitting he didn’t support his candidacy. Miller isn’t a politico: Like most people, he has an informed opinion, but also like most people he isn’t boxed in by an Attica-like ideology that confines “open thinking” to one daily jaunt to the prison yard that is echo-chamber opinion press you always agree with. If the casual political observer like Dennis Miller is still more conservative than liberal based on an understanding and acceptance of principles, there might by a chance to win back the rest of America.

Of course, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Bookmark and Share

ESPN is run by 13-year-old girls

News broke last night on ESPN.com that Dallas Cowboys Tony Romo and Terrell Owens may be having a spat. According to an anonymous source, Owens is “jealous of the quarterback’s relationship with tight end Jason Witten.” Two segments on the conflict ran at the top of Sportscenter.

Based on ESPN’s coverage of the story, Owens might as well have complained about Romo and Witten not calling him before they went to see High School Musical 3. The Cowboys are playing well, slated to make the playoffs despite losing Romo for three critical mid-season games, and both Romo and Owens have been productive.

I’m no Cowboys fan, but I can recognize an overblown story for what it is. It must have been a slow news day for ESPN.

Bookmark and Share

Shooting themselves in the foot?

Dolphins linebacker Joey Porter’s comments about the Plaxico Burress situation underscore the fact that every story has two sides. And fellow Giants wide receiver Steve Smith probably wished he had a gun when he was robbed at gunpoint a couple weeks ago outside his gated community in New Jersey.

Many gun rights groups would probably tell you they wish this story would go away, since it’s tough to make a black professional athlete into a hero. But this offers an opportunity for groups like the NRA and Gun Owners of America to get in front of the story – and with a new administration on the way in, it would smart to frame the story as positively as possible.

Given that Burress flaunted many values groups like the NRA hold dear – by all accounts, the gun was improperly licensed at best and he clearly didn’t have the safety on – they can still condemn his action, which they should. However, rather than issuing a hollow criticism of a public figure, they could follow it up by offering free gun safety courses at NFL training camps.

The NFL would likely turn them down, but gun rights groups could at least say they made an effort to help players handle firearms responsibly – and in the process, earn some much-needed positive press.

Bookmark and Share

All the news that’s fit to click

I wouldn’t have even noticed a difference in the New York Times‘s online layout this morning if it hadn’t been for Mashable calling attention to the new “Extra” layout. In addition to publishing their own stories, the Times links to related stories published by other news outlets and blogs.

This isn’t groundbreaking – other news sites have used the “aggregator” strategy for years. But by listing other news outlets, the Times embraces its role as a true online news source, focusing more on providing relevant information than on feeding users an exclusive diet of Times-generated content. It’s another example of how, in the modern media environment, control and influence are not necessarily synonymous: by giving putting other news sources at your fingertips, the Times paradoxically makes its own site a more valuable news source.

With old-school newspaper circulation failing, America’s most iconic newspaper is showing that old dogs can learn new tricks.

Bookmark and Share