Without a doubt I am supportive of humanitarian aide, but it does not make one ounce of sense to spend public money to assist individuals who make bad decisions. This issue comes to our attention almost daily, and it is the top of the news as the California wild fires blaze across the western mountains, as they do yearly.
I cannot think of anything worse than losing your home and all your possessions. Your Commander, however, is vehemently opposed to providing taxpayer supported money to bail-out individuals who make unwarranted or just plain dumb judgments, and then expect the government to bail them out. It is well established that wild fires occur annually across the west, and the situation is significantly worse when there are dry seasons. When someone builds their home on a mountain top or in a canyon, they are in danger of losing their home to wild fires. Don’t you wonder if they considered the statistical danger of building in those locations? When you build in a dangerous location just what is the justification for the government to provide funds to rebuild those homes on the same site?
I believe that both state and federal governments hold some responsibility for permitting the homes to be built in those fire susceptible locations, and they also hold some responsibility for bowing to special interests that prevent proper management of the forests. Trees and shrubs should not be permitted to grow close to the homes; underbrush should allowed to be cleared; but environmentalist influences have obstructed common sense actions. It is only a matter of time before some lawyer files a law suit against the Forest Service or the Sierra Club for causing the loss of the homes.
We once lived along the Atlantic Ocean in the lovely Key Colony complex on Key Biscayne, Florida. One year the weather was very bad, and there was substantial beach erosion. Shortly thereafter the federal government spent millions of dollars to dredge sand from off-shore and pump it back to restore the beach in front of our building. The next year the bad weather returned, and the beach eroded again, and the millions of dollars originally spent was a total waste. Guess what? The federal government replenished the beach again! If you choose to live close to shore, it stands to reason beach erosion will occur, and thus you should not expect to automatically receive federal support. Private insurance is the answer, not a public handout.
The same is true of the massive expenditures in New Orleans. The city is below sea level, and will flood every time there is an unusually severe hurricane. It happened with Katrina four years ago, and it will happen again. Why should public dollars be spent to rebuild a city that will flood again?
Humanitarian support is one thing, but wasteful expenditures to satisfy voters who make foolish judgments are something else. I do not support propping up individuals who cannot exercise common sense. If one elects to build for a great view of the mountains or the sea shore and you lose your home, then that is the price of the view. If you choose to rebuild, do it with your own money or find someone who will insure your property. Really it is just that simple, and why do you deserve to be entitled to a government handout for your lack of common sense? No wonder we have massive federal debt, because we continue to throw good money after bad.
It has been a long time since politics and common sense co-existed in our land. When we look at our history, common sense and politics has not worked hand in hand since our Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution and look where that has gotten us in the years that have followed.
COMMANDER GRANGER
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
ANOTHER AMERICAN EMBARRASSMENT
As the United States government goes around the world telling other countries and their leadership how to conduct their affairs we continue to permit our own governance to exhibit hypocrisy.
At the top of our Congressional leadership we have House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who have become two of the most hypocritical partisan government officials in modern times. Repeatedly each has used the harshest language against their opposition despite the fact that they once promised open non-partisanship with their new Democratic majority controlled House and Senate operations.
Your Commander is totally embarrassed to have these two obstructionists representing my interests and our government to the entire world. For two elected officials who have taken an oath of office to function ethically, and in a partisan manner, we have seen just the opposite behavior. Just answer one question for me. Why have Pelosi and Reid not forced their respective Ethics Committees to render a judgment concerning Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) or Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) failure to meet their tax obligations? Apparently it is more important for them to protect their majority votes than to enforce ethical and legal behavior.
That's just the tip of the iceberg insofar as too many of the current Washington crowd are concerned. Improprieties abound within the Beltway!
How can there be any legitimacy to anything the United States proposes world-wide when we have such complicit Congressional leadership? We all should look with shame upon the voters of both California and Nevada for permitting these two corrupt federal government individuals to continue to feed at the public trough.
COMMANDER GRANGER
At the top of our Congressional leadership we have House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who have become two of the most hypocritical partisan government officials in modern times. Repeatedly each has used the harshest language against their opposition despite the fact that they once promised open non-partisanship with their new Democratic majority controlled House and Senate operations.
Your Commander is totally embarrassed to have these two obstructionists representing my interests and our government to the entire world. For two elected officials who have taken an oath of office to function ethically, and in a partisan manner, we have seen just the opposite behavior. Just answer one question for me. Why have Pelosi and Reid not forced their respective Ethics Committees to render a judgment concerning Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) or Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) failure to meet their tax obligations? Apparently it is more important for them to protect their majority votes than to enforce ethical and legal behavior.
That's just the tip of the iceberg insofar as too many of the current Washington crowd are concerned. Improprieties abound within the Beltway!
How can there be any legitimacy to anything the United States proposes world-wide when we have such complicit Congressional leadership? We all should look with shame upon the voters of both California and Nevada for permitting these two corrupt federal government individuals to continue to feed at the public trough.
COMMANDER GRANGER
Friday, September 4, 2009
WHO CAME UP WITH THIS STORY ASSIGNMENT?
In March of this year two young American television reporters from Al Gore’s website Current TV were arrested for illegally crossing into North Korea from China. Our airwaves were swamped with sympathetic stories voicing grave concerns about their safety while incarcerated since their March 17th arrest and subsequent sentence to 12 years of hard labor.
First of all my ears perked up wondering just why they were in this isolated section of China, and what was the significance of the story they were supposedly investigating. Current TV says they were reporting a story about the plight of North Koreans who have fled to China to escape poverty and repression. It is believed that particular focus was on North Korean women and children. Anyone who has read anything about Asia knows that women have been mistreated and abused in the Orient for centuries.
Al Gore’s ultra-liberal Current TV is at best an insignificant operation with virtually little or no interest on the national or international scene. One wonders just why Gore or any organization would send two naive reporters to this dangerous location with inadequate security.
There is an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal that provides some insight, but also raised the questions that I am addressing:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125186269001778477.html
Having read this article and an AOL report (9/3/09) that indicates the journalists do not feel they can discuss the full details of their experience at this time raises my further suspicions. Do you suppose that some damn fool actually sent these reporters on a mission expecting or planning for them to be captured? Oh, and a book deal in the works?
Frankly, I am beginning to believe that they thought they would get publicity for their sponsoring organization (Al Gore's Current TV), and that the American government would get them out quickly. If that is true, and I cannot prove it, they were certainly fooled and had the hell scared out of themselves.
At best, the story was a minor one considering all the things going on in this troubled world. Someone endangered these reporters, and caused the American government to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get them released. I suspect that my cost estimate is far short of the true number, but ex-President Bill Clinton came riding in on his white charger, and pulled them back to safety. Al Gore was waiting on the airport tarmac with a supercilious grin on his face to welcome his simpletons back to civilization. Our country was again made to look foolish, and don’t think for one minute that North Korea didn’t get something of significance for the return of the sentenced American prisoners.
This story has much more to be disclosed, and we may never really learn the true answers to my suspicions. I do believe that Laura Ling and Euna Lee were pawns. Was this entire fiasco worth it? Al Gore, and Current TV should be billed by the American government for every single cent this embarrassing fool-hardy mission cost the taxpayers. Some investigative agency should get the true facts and somebody should be held accountable, but as is all too frequent these days do not hold your breath for any action.
Ling and Lee could have been killed, and the crazed government of North Korea could have manipulated this incident into a major catastrophe. Does anyone wonder why our main-stream media has dropped this story completely after heaping praise on one of their favorite liberal sons, ex-President Bill Clinton? Who ever sent these journalists on this dangerous assignment should be identified and held accountable.
COMMANDER GRANGER
First of all my ears perked up wondering just why they were in this isolated section of China, and what was the significance of the story they were supposedly investigating. Current TV says they were reporting a story about the plight of North Koreans who have fled to China to escape poverty and repression. It is believed that particular focus was on North Korean women and children. Anyone who has read anything about Asia knows that women have been mistreated and abused in the Orient for centuries.
Al Gore’s ultra-liberal Current TV is at best an insignificant operation with virtually little or no interest on the national or international scene. One wonders just why Gore or any organization would send two naive reporters to this dangerous location with inadequate security.
There is an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal that provides some insight, but also raised the questions that I am addressing:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125186269001778477.html
Having read this article and an AOL report (9/3/09) that indicates the journalists do not feel they can discuss the full details of their experience at this time raises my further suspicions. Do you suppose that some damn fool actually sent these reporters on a mission expecting or planning for them to be captured? Oh, and a book deal in the works?
Frankly, I am beginning to believe that they thought they would get publicity for their sponsoring organization (Al Gore's Current TV), and that the American government would get them out quickly. If that is true, and I cannot prove it, they were certainly fooled and had the hell scared out of themselves.
At best, the story was a minor one considering all the things going on in this troubled world. Someone endangered these reporters, and caused the American government to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get them released. I suspect that my cost estimate is far short of the true number, but ex-President Bill Clinton came riding in on his white charger, and pulled them back to safety. Al Gore was waiting on the airport tarmac with a supercilious grin on his face to welcome his simpletons back to civilization. Our country was again made to look foolish, and don’t think for one minute that North Korea didn’t get something of significance for the return of the sentenced American prisoners.
This story has much more to be disclosed, and we may never really learn the true answers to my suspicions. I do believe that Laura Ling and Euna Lee were pawns. Was this entire fiasco worth it? Al Gore, and Current TV should be billed by the American government for every single cent this embarrassing fool-hardy mission cost the taxpayers. Some investigative agency should get the true facts and somebody should be held accountable, but as is all too frequent these days do not hold your breath for any action.
Ling and Lee could have been killed, and the crazed government of North Korea could have manipulated this incident into a major catastrophe. Does anyone wonder why our main-stream media has dropped this story completely after heaping praise on one of their favorite liberal sons, ex-President Bill Clinton? Who ever sent these journalists on this dangerous assignment should be identified and held accountable.
COMMANDER GRANGER
TIME TO PRIVATIZE THE POSTAL SERVICE
The business model for the United States Postal Service has changed just as it has for newspapers, and radio/television stations. Those original models all have been permanently impacted by numerous inventions, but most significantly by the rapid expansion of internet business transactions.
If you’re interested in learning an in-depth understanding of the Postal Service, I suggest that you take a look at the interesting details covered in a Wikipedia report.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service
I could go into all kinds of details such as reporting that our first postal service dates back to February 1692 when King William and Queen Mary empowered Thomas Neale to settle parts of his majesties’ colonies in America, and creating a postal service was part of those instructions. Actually it was our old friend Benjamin Franklin who created our current Postal Service in Philadelphia on July 26, 1775.
Today the Postal Service has bloated to over 760,000 employees with 32,741 offices along with the largest civilian fleet of vehicles totally 260,000 units. With a projected operating loss of $7 billion for fiscal year 2009, suggestions have been made to seek approval to reduce the number of days mail is delivered and to close 300 postal offices. Shockingly, nothing was indicated about reducing the size of the staff. The USPS has been losing money for years, and the future looks bleak without continuing support from taxpayer funding.
Frankly, the proposed action is really a band aid, because it does not address the true problems. There is a union mandated contract requiring a $7 billion obligation to fund current and future retiree health benefits. The planned cutback in delivery days and the closing of offices ignores the fact that the volume of mail has now dramatically dropped, because of competition from FedEx and UPS. Additionally, the dramatic increase in receiving and paying bills, receipt of company annual reports, and internet e-mails and greeting cards via the internet means that the Postal Service has far less work and too many employees and outlets. If there is less work to be performed why would they not reduce the employee count?
The truth of the matter is that our political leadership will not take the appropriate action to reduce the size of the union employees. With over 760,000 potentially obligated voters, don’t expect the current Congress to take the appropriate action.
Our Postal Service should immediately be seeking competitive bids that will lead to being privatized ASAP. But, don’t hold your breath, because what is $7 billion to Congress when they are throwing Trillions of dollars around as if they were nickels. Do you think Congress would possibly take any action that would jeopardize their re-election or union donations? Logic says they should cut the staff dramatically if they are to fulfill their oath of office.
True leadership makes the hard decisions, but Congress does the Washington Two-Step. Please remember these continued inept actions come Election Day November 2010.
COMMANDER GRANGER
If you’re interested in learning an in-depth understanding of the Postal Service, I suggest that you take a look at the interesting details covered in a Wikipedia report.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service
I could go into all kinds of details such as reporting that our first postal service dates back to February 1692 when King William and Queen Mary empowered Thomas Neale to settle parts of his majesties’ colonies in America, and creating a postal service was part of those instructions. Actually it was our old friend Benjamin Franklin who created our current Postal Service in Philadelphia on July 26, 1775.
Today the Postal Service has bloated to over 760,000 employees with 32,741 offices along with the largest civilian fleet of vehicles totally 260,000 units. With a projected operating loss of $7 billion for fiscal year 2009, suggestions have been made to seek approval to reduce the number of days mail is delivered and to close 300 postal offices. Shockingly, nothing was indicated about reducing the size of the staff. The USPS has been losing money for years, and the future looks bleak without continuing support from taxpayer funding.
Frankly, the proposed action is really a band aid, because it does not address the true problems. There is a union mandated contract requiring a $7 billion obligation to fund current and future retiree health benefits. The planned cutback in delivery days and the closing of offices ignores the fact that the volume of mail has now dramatically dropped, because of competition from FedEx and UPS. Additionally, the dramatic increase in receiving and paying bills, receipt of company annual reports, and internet e-mails and greeting cards via the internet means that the Postal Service has far less work and too many employees and outlets. If there is less work to be performed why would they not reduce the employee count?
The truth of the matter is that our political leadership will not take the appropriate action to reduce the size of the union employees. With over 760,000 potentially obligated voters, don’t expect the current Congress to take the appropriate action.
Our Postal Service should immediately be seeking competitive bids that will lead to being privatized ASAP. But, don’t hold your breath, because what is $7 billion to Congress when they are throwing Trillions of dollars around as if they were nickels. Do you think Congress would possibly take any action that would jeopardize their re-election or union donations? Logic says they should cut the staff dramatically if they are to fulfill their oath of office.
True leadership makes the hard decisions, but Congress does the Washington Two-Step. Please remember these continued inept actions come Election Day November 2010.
COMMANDER GRANGER
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
MAY TEDDY KENNEDY REST IN PEACE
There is no doubt that your Commander rarely agreed with the positions espoused by Senator Teddy Kennedy, but I would be hypocritical if I did not agree that he was a significant force in our government for many years. Since his long anticipated passing last week the airwaves have been dominated by coverage of every aspect (both good and bad) of his seventy-seven years.
As a subscriber to a television insider newsletter called "Newsbluezette," I found its Editor’s comments about the coverage to be interesting and on the spot. Referring to Boston TV and cable news outlets he said’ “…they are deep into all-hands-on-deck, balls-to-the-wall, round-the-clock smotherage of the death, private memorial, and funeral of Senator Edward Kennedy.”
Also my local newspaper ran an interesting poll:
“For what will Sen. Ted Kennedy be most remembered?”
Campaign for presidency – 0%
Efforts at health care reform – 18%
Youngest son in prominent political family – 16%
Chappaquiddick – 67%
Frankly, I was a little surprised by that poll’s results, but I guess that in this time in our history we tend to be more interested in a person’s shortcomings rather than their achievements. The August 29th Washington Post ran an extensive story with a headline “He Remains the Man MANY Love to Loathe.” They pulled no punches in reviewing his many indiscressions along with his legislative initiatives.
There is no doubt that Teddy was dealt a very heavy burden with the tragic passage of sisters and brothers as well as the heavy handed reputation of his legendary Father. It is not my role to judge Teddy Kennedy, because in meeting his Maker final judgment has been rendered.
It is an interesting coincidence of history that Teddy’s funeral celebration started on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s famous “I Have A Dream” speech forty-six years ago. (8/28/63)
I sometimes wonder why there are so many devout liberals who happen to come from very financially well-off families or have achieved mega-financial independence. Just consider a few such as John Kerry, David Rockefeller, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Bobby Kennedy. One wonders if they feel guilty for being so privileged and try to make up for that guilt with their liberal causes. I also suggest that you do not see those liberals living within the poor or under-privileged communities, because they go home each night to enclaves of privacy, security, and the good life. Hyannis Port is certainly not a hang-out for the poor or minorities.
Hopefully, Congress will take to heart the fact that Teddy Kennedy was historically willing to reach compromises to secure passage of important legislation. He was willing to take baby steps to reach his goals and that approach certainly is most appropriate to achieve improvement of the pending Health Care legislation. If, in fact, true, bipartisan compromises can be reached and a palatable Health Care Bill passed, Teddy’s legacy just might be properly embossed in the history of our great nation.
Teddy paid a heavy price for his behavior and he was an imperfect human being, just like all of us. To have lived for over one year with the full knowledge that he had inoperative brain cancer must have been hell on earth. It is now time for all of us (his supporters and opposition) to extend deepest sympathy to his family and to say…REST IN PEACE.
COMMANDER GRANGER
As a subscriber to a television insider newsletter called "Newsbluezette," I found its Editor’s comments about the coverage to be interesting and on the spot. Referring to Boston TV and cable news outlets he said’ “…they are deep into all-hands-on-deck, balls-to-the-wall, round-the-clock smotherage of the death, private memorial, and funeral of Senator Edward Kennedy.”
Also my local newspaper ran an interesting poll:
“For what will Sen. Ted Kennedy be most remembered?”
Campaign for presidency – 0%
Efforts at health care reform – 18%
Youngest son in prominent political family – 16%
Chappaquiddick – 67%
Frankly, I was a little surprised by that poll’s results, but I guess that in this time in our history we tend to be more interested in a person’s shortcomings rather than their achievements. The August 29th Washington Post ran an extensive story with a headline “He Remains the Man MANY Love to Loathe.” They pulled no punches in reviewing his many indiscressions along with his legislative initiatives.
There is no doubt that Teddy was dealt a very heavy burden with the tragic passage of sisters and brothers as well as the heavy handed reputation of his legendary Father. It is not my role to judge Teddy Kennedy, because in meeting his Maker final judgment has been rendered.
It is an interesting coincidence of history that Teddy’s funeral celebration started on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s famous “I Have A Dream” speech forty-six years ago. (8/28/63)
I sometimes wonder why there are so many devout liberals who happen to come from very financially well-off families or have achieved mega-financial independence. Just consider a few such as John Kerry, David Rockefeller, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Bobby Kennedy. One wonders if they feel guilty for being so privileged and try to make up for that guilt with their liberal causes. I also suggest that you do not see those liberals living within the poor or under-privileged communities, because they go home each night to enclaves of privacy, security, and the good life. Hyannis Port is certainly not a hang-out for the poor or minorities.
Hopefully, Congress will take to heart the fact that Teddy Kennedy was historically willing to reach compromises to secure passage of important legislation. He was willing to take baby steps to reach his goals and that approach certainly is most appropriate to achieve improvement of the pending Health Care legislation. If, in fact, true, bipartisan compromises can be reached and a palatable Health Care Bill passed, Teddy’s legacy just might be properly embossed in the history of our great nation.
Teddy paid a heavy price for his behavior and he was an imperfect human being, just like all of us. To have lived for over one year with the full knowledge that he had inoperative brain cancer must have been hell on earth. It is now time for all of us (his supporters and opposition) to extend deepest sympathy to his family and to say…REST IN PEACE.
COMMANDER GRANGER
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
NO ONE TO BLAME BUT THEMSELVES
Historically the newspaper and broadcasting business has been a highly profitable endeavor. Today we hear almost daily of local newspapers printing their last editions and television stations filing for bankruptcy. Publishers and General Managers are rubbing their hands together and stroking their brows in anguish because their products and jobs are going away.
Broadcasting & Cable Magazine recently reported that local broadcast revenue is down a previously unheard of 27%, while network TV was down 5.8% and syndication was down .7% during the first half of this year. Local automobile advertising was down a whopping 54.5% while auto dealer advertising was off 43.6% in the same period.
Graduate schools in the towers of learning across the country are conducting case studies to analyze these figures and failures. I can save them all a lot of time and investigation, because there is nobody to blame but the leadership of these businesses. Obviously, the economic turn down is one fact, but the operational model for newspapers and television has changed due to a dramatic increase in competition from cable and computer usage and the inevitable advertising dollars chasing them. The days of obscene profits from newspaper and TV are long over, and the ownerships failed repeatedly to take appropriate action as the profile of their business shifted over the past 15-20 years.
Your Commander can speak with some authority, because he was there during the heydays of profit, but that was a time when there were only three network television stations in a market, and there were actually many smaller markets where there was only one television station serving the entire market place. The same was true in the newspaper business, but then came cable television, 24 hour news channels, satellite broadcasting and the then unknown world of the internet.
Those new ventures all seemed very speculative and they were foolishly disregarded as competitors that had little or no chance to succeed. Today we know that newspapers, television stations, and the networks failed to adjust to the changing competitive forces. The expression “adapt or perish” comes to mind and it is certainly valid when you consider what has happened over the last twenty years.
The newspaper industry has failed to establish a revenue producing format that will attract users to their internet sites. It is a matter of fact that young adults are not reading newspapers because the internet is portable with Blackberry and I-Phone. Today our youth are into Facebook, Twitter and/or blogs. When you look at your shrinking newspaper you will note that one of the biggest sections in the paper today is the Obituary section and even the Classified Section is smaller. With less readership and subscriptions the revenue volume and advertising lineage is plummeting downward. More and more cities and towns are becoming single paper or no paper towns. Only USA Today and the Wall Street Journal, having created a special niche, enjoy increased readership totals as well as revenue success. Newspapers must determine a way to increase their readership and revenue. Currently it appears those goals may be achieved with on-line editions that require paid subscribers.
The television business model has changed, too with dramatic increases in competitive viewing alternatives, such as cable, satellite, and all the competitive forces that confront the newspapers. Production costs have grown dramatically over time and when you have fewer viewers you can no longer absorb the syndication, production, and personnel expenditures. Something has to give and to date it is shrinking personnel and product quality with an increase in reruns of old successful programs. None of those “solutions” led to increasing profitability. There are two ways to survive: cut back to a profit or grow your business to a profit. Television has thus far not found a way to successfully do either.
How this happened is a fair question. Most stations were started and owned by local families who owned newspapers and/or radio stations in their respective markets. It is my theory that as the value of the properties grew, there was great interest in selling the stations at 20 times cash flow or more. Original owners were getting older and were advised to begin to put their finances in order. Banks were aggressively pushing both buyers and sellers to make deals and the banks, in turn, prospered with big commitment fees in the range of $400,000 or far more just to arrange the financing. Many stations sold several times over 10 years or so and each time there were additional commitment fees, which just added to the debt leverage. Ultimately the audiences started to plummet and the debt burden became unsustainable, and that is where many stations are today.
During my years in station management I worked for four different ownerships. Three were highly leveraged with a constant goal of greater profit ratios. One was owned by a very successful operator who had a flagship station in Las Vegas that made huge profits, and thus it took the pressure off the other stations in the group to operate over-aggressively. That one group truly did function in the public interest, convenience and necessity as is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandate.
As an old timer from the good old days of huge profitable television operations, I believe we did ourselves in by greed. Few owners took the long-term view and lived for only today. Television increasingly airs far too many commercials, less quality programming, a reduced standard of ethically appropriate program standards, and a fails to adapt to the changing competitive environment. Seven and eight commercials on a break are excessive! The number of commercials in a thirty minute newscast has reduced the amount of actual news presented to viewers to about 20 minutes, if that. Programs now running in syndication, such as Two and A Half Men are very funny, but should not be scheduled from 7 to 8PM, and products such as Viagra, Kotex, etc. should not be running during times when young impressionable children are in the audience. Programming and network television executives are totally responsible for the dramatic erosion in the quality of their product due to financial greed.
Tragically, the industry push for viewers has led to the reduction in moral responsibilities. The cable competition can create and air highly volatile programs that the networks cannot due to FCC regulations.
Remember, too, that today’s television networks are owned and operated by huge publicly held corporations. The days of influential strong-willed leaders such as William Paley, General David Sarnoff and Leonard Goldenson are gone. Were they still with us today the industry would be healthier, because they had long held views and integrity.
Your Commander predicts that in the future we will see far fewer newspapers in print, and more on-line newspapers in a majority of markets. Ultimately we will pay for that on-line information and much more.
Television’s future is bleak too, because we will see more and more stations going black due to a lack of financial solvency. There will be more and more pay to view options that will provide an increase in commercial free viewing, but you will see more and more inappropriate content, also. Some people think I may be nuts, but I believe that within five years we will see open nudity and sexual acts on our televisions delivered by cable.
At the same time we are experiencing change, we will see a leveling off in the number of viewing options. I suspect that a 500 cable universe is just about all that the market can support. As I have already predicted in an earlier report I believe one of the major television networks will drop their affiliates and move totally to a cable environment.
What does the future hold? I wish I knew, but it already is vastly different from what we grew up with. Will it be improve is a better question, but I doubt that old timers like me believe that the prospects for betterment are very good. Even cable fails to deliver quality live programming like “Playhouse 90.” Do you ever wonder why it seems that our past is now more appreciated? Thankfully, some things will never really change.
COMMANDER GRANGER
Broadcasting & Cable Magazine recently reported that local broadcast revenue is down a previously unheard of 27%, while network TV was down 5.8% and syndication was down .7% during the first half of this year. Local automobile advertising was down a whopping 54.5% while auto dealer advertising was off 43.6% in the same period.
Graduate schools in the towers of learning across the country are conducting case studies to analyze these figures and failures. I can save them all a lot of time and investigation, because there is nobody to blame but the leadership of these businesses. Obviously, the economic turn down is one fact, but the operational model for newspapers and television has changed due to a dramatic increase in competition from cable and computer usage and the inevitable advertising dollars chasing them. The days of obscene profits from newspaper and TV are long over, and the ownerships failed repeatedly to take appropriate action as the profile of their business shifted over the past 15-20 years.
Your Commander can speak with some authority, because he was there during the heydays of profit, but that was a time when there were only three network television stations in a market, and there were actually many smaller markets where there was only one television station serving the entire market place. The same was true in the newspaper business, but then came cable television, 24 hour news channels, satellite broadcasting and the then unknown world of the internet.
Those new ventures all seemed very speculative and they were foolishly disregarded as competitors that had little or no chance to succeed. Today we know that newspapers, television stations, and the networks failed to adjust to the changing competitive forces. The expression “adapt or perish” comes to mind and it is certainly valid when you consider what has happened over the last twenty years.
The newspaper industry has failed to establish a revenue producing format that will attract users to their internet sites. It is a matter of fact that young adults are not reading newspapers because the internet is portable with Blackberry and I-Phone. Today our youth are into Facebook, Twitter and/or blogs. When you look at your shrinking newspaper you will note that one of the biggest sections in the paper today is the Obituary section and even the Classified Section is smaller. With less readership and subscriptions the revenue volume and advertising lineage is plummeting downward. More and more cities and towns are becoming single paper or no paper towns. Only USA Today and the Wall Street Journal, having created a special niche, enjoy increased readership totals as well as revenue success. Newspapers must determine a way to increase their readership and revenue. Currently it appears those goals may be achieved with on-line editions that require paid subscribers.
The television business model has changed, too with dramatic increases in competitive viewing alternatives, such as cable, satellite, and all the competitive forces that confront the newspapers. Production costs have grown dramatically over time and when you have fewer viewers you can no longer absorb the syndication, production, and personnel expenditures. Something has to give and to date it is shrinking personnel and product quality with an increase in reruns of old successful programs. None of those “solutions” led to increasing profitability. There are two ways to survive: cut back to a profit or grow your business to a profit. Television has thus far not found a way to successfully do either.
How this happened is a fair question. Most stations were started and owned by local families who owned newspapers and/or radio stations in their respective markets. It is my theory that as the value of the properties grew, there was great interest in selling the stations at 20 times cash flow or more. Original owners were getting older and were advised to begin to put their finances in order. Banks were aggressively pushing both buyers and sellers to make deals and the banks, in turn, prospered with big commitment fees in the range of $400,000 or far more just to arrange the financing. Many stations sold several times over 10 years or so and each time there were additional commitment fees, which just added to the debt leverage. Ultimately the audiences started to plummet and the debt burden became unsustainable, and that is where many stations are today.
During my years in station management I worked for four different ownerships. Three were highly leveraged with a constant goal of greater profit ratios. One was owned by a very successful operator who had a flagship station in Las Vegas that made huge profits, and thus it took the pressure off the other stations in the group to operate over-aggressively. That one group truly did function in the public interest, convenience and necessity as is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandate.
As an old timer from the good old days of huge profitable television operations, I believe we did ourselves in by greed. Few owners took the long-term view and lived for only today. Television increasingly airs far too many commercials, less quality programming, a reduced standard of ethically appropriate program standards, and a fails to adapt to the changing competitive environment. Seven and eight commercials on a break are excessive! The number of commercials in a thirty minute newscast has reduced the amount of actual news presented to viewers to about 20 minutes, if that. Programs now running in syndication, such as Two and A Half Men are very funny, but should not be scheduled from 7 to 8PM, and products such as Viagra, Kotex, etc. should not be running during times when young impressionable children are in the audience. Programming and network television executives are totally responsible for the dramatic erosion in the quality of their product due to financial greed.
Tragically, the industry push for viewers has led to the reduction in moral responsibilities. The cable competition can create and air highly volatile programs that the networks cannot due to FCC regulations.
Remember, too, that today’s television networks are owned and operated by huge publicly held corporations. The days of influential strong-willed leaders such as William Paley, General David Sarnoff and Leonard Goldenson are gone. Were they still with us today the industry would be healthier, because they had long held views and integrity.
Your Commander predicts that in the future we will see far fewer newspapers in print, and more on-line newspapers in a majority of markets. Ultimately we will pay for that on-line information and much more.
Television’s future is bleak too, because we will see more and more stations going black due to a lack of financial solvency. There will be more and more pay to view options that will provide an increase in commercial free viewing, but you will see more and more inappropriate content, also. Some people think I may be nuts, but I believe that within five years we will see open nudity and sexual acts on our televisions delivered by cable.
At the same time we are experiencing change, we will see a leveling off in the number of viewing options. I suspect that a 500 cable universe is just about all that the market can support. As I have already predicted in an earlier report I believe one of the major television networks will drop their affiliates and move totally to a cable environment.
What does the future hold? I wish I knew, but it already is vastly different from what we grew up with. Will it be improve is a better question, but I doubt that old timers like me believe that the prospects for betterment are very good. Even cable fails to deliver quality live programming like “Playhouse 90.” Do you ever wonder why it seems that our past is now more appreciated? Thankfully, some things will never really change.
COMMANDER GRANGER
PAT CONROY DESERVES TO BE #1
The #1 book on the best seller list this week is Pat Conroy’s new novel SOUTH OF BROAD. This fictional story is about a group of young people who grew up in Charleston, South Carolina.
My great Editor and I frequently vacation in the beautiful low-country of South Carolina, and we love everything about this unique part of America’s south. Architecture, food, southern hospitality, the weather, and the god-given landscapes all make the low-country a memorable and pleasurable vacation spot.
Conroy, a local resident, has captured the charm of South Carolina with his wonderful ability to tell a story. Few authors have his unusual ability to make you smell the fragrances of the flowers as he walks his readers along the streets of Charleston. While I must warn you that the story is quite dark, it is a wondrous read. I highly recommend that you pick-up a copy of SOUTH OF BROAD. Conroy’s latest best-seller is another sweet charmer just as is southern hospitality.
COMMANDER GRANGER
My great Editor and I frequently vacation in the beautiful low-country of South Carolina, and we love everything about this unique part of America’s south. Architecture, food, southern hospitality, the weather, and the god-given landscapes all make the low-country a memorable and pleasurable vacation spot.
Conroy, a local resident, has captured the charm of South Carolina with his wonderful ability to tell a story. Few authors have his unusual ability to make you smell the fragrances of the flowers as he walks his readers along the streets of Charleston. While I must warn you that the story is quite dark, it is a wondrous read. I highly recommend that you pick-up a copy of SOUTH OF BROAD. Conroy’s latest best-seller is another sweet charmer just as is southern hospitality.
COMMANDER GRANGER
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)