Out of the Newsroom

Just to make myself plain at the beginning of this, contrary to popular belief held by some, I am not really a social animal. Don’t get me wrong, I like the company of others well enough, but I’m much more a fan of smaller, more intimate gatherings–rather than getting all decked out for some kind of a major night on the town.

So a few weeks back, my employer asked if I’d be willing to attend a function on its’ behalf, to receive an award. Given the public nature of what we do, this is a pretty regular occurrence and I’ve been fortunate not to have to do that much of it, so feeling guilty about not doing my part to help out–I said yes.

Then I was told that the event was actually a “ball”, I began to have some regrets. The words “black tie preferred” didn’t help my qualms much either, but I actually own a tux–so it wouldn’t be that bad. Plus the station had a table, so there would be other colleagues there as well.

Of course, being somewhat hesitant about the whole thing, I failed to realize that the reaction of my spouse having to go to this kind of affair would be glee about having to go to anything called a “ball”.

And it turned out that she already a dress for such an occasion, which seemed fortunate. But the dress, and the occasion, would need new shoes.

Well, of course it would.

The big event was last night, the annual “ball” for The St. Patrick’s Day Parade in New Haven. Held in the historic Yale Commons, at the university of the same name.

You should know that the parade is a very big deal. Some 200,000-plus show up for it each year, making it easily the biggest one day spectator event in the state.

We arrived on time for the 7:30 reception with my colleague. By colleagues, I mean to say that we are talking about six professional women who were dazzling in their evening attire. And of course, one schlump in a tuxedo.

But as we were checking our coats, one of the organizers of the event said that because of the whole award thing, that Denyse and I would have to be “piped in”. What? Yes, we would mean entering in a line of dignitary type folks including the Mayor, the Congresswoman, the officers of the organizing committee, etc. All being announced and marched in to soundtrack of…bagpipes.

OK, so that wasn’t expected. But march in we did, and no more than we finally got to our table and I began sprinting to the bar–when they announced my name and began presenting the awards–the first going to the TV station.

(Nothing like sprinting from the bar over to the podium at the very start of the evening’s festivities. Fortunately I hadn’t gotten a beverage yet…)

Award presented, mercifully short acceptance remarks given, and back to the table I go. And finally to the bar, at long last.

I don’t remember much after that, except for this: It was a great evening, put on by an amazing group of really wonderful people, all in a place that looked a bit like something out of Hogwarts Castle of “Harry Potter” fame.

And I got to enjoy a fun time with some great folks I work with. Denyse got a night out, plus a fabulous new pair of shoes out of the deal (which of course hurt her feet by the end of the night.)

So much for me not being a fan of a big formal night on the town. Lesson learned.

(Plus, I’m told I don’t look that bad in formal wear. Proving that there is no accounting for taste.)

Brian Stelter, media columnist of The New York Times tweeted a link to this “Economic View” column in the Times on February 27th by Professor Richard H. Thaler of the University of Chicago.

“The Buried Treasure In Your TV Dial” (click on that title to link to the column)

Now, I probably don’t possess the mental intellect or knowledge in economics or behavioral science that Professor Thaler has at his disposal. Plus right up front, I acknowledge that I have more than just a vested interest in the topic, since working in broadcast television has been my professional life for most of the thirty-five years I have been getting a paycheck.

But I can’t help but respond to Professor Thaler’s “proposal that sounds too good to be true” because of course, despite the enticing headline that suggests that this modest little idea would solve all of America’s major problems, it is in my opinion flawed on so many levels.

Thaler’s premise in his Times column is to end the system of free over-the-air television broadcasting in the United States, and forcing everyone to get their television from either Cable or Satellite delivery. Then by selling off, at auction, the radio frequencies that are currently occupied by the nation’s television stations, would create a massive economic windfall and in turn allow the growing national deficit will be wiped out–along with everyone getting better cell phone service, especially for those data hungry new “smartphones”, all with fewer ugly cell towers dotting the landscape.

Who could argue with that?

The professor even goes for a “slam dunk” when he suggests that this idea could solve our nation’s health care crisis by having wireless spectrum available for the promise of new long-distance medical technologies that would only be possible utilizing these radio waves.

At first read, particularly for those “people who don’t like “American Idol”", It really does seem like this plan might be “buried treasure” in the air that we can’t see–but one that could hold a treasure chest with billions of dollars and improve everyone’s quality of life.

Heck, I almost wanted to sign up for this plan, until I remembered a couple of things that the good Professor chose to gloss over a bit.

First of all, it’s already been done once.

In the transition to Digital Television that we all lived through in 2009, a good chunk of the channels that television used to use to deliver a signal were spun off to different purposes, including better two way radios for police and fire departments, a new private pay service to deliver television to mobile devices, and oh yes–to make more space available for the wireless companies who deliver your cell phone signals.

A quick reminder here, as Thaler also points out, that the “airwaves” belong to everyone. They are public property, and anyone who uses them has to get a license to do so from the federal government through it’s agency in the Federal Communications Commission, also known as the FCC.

Did you happen to notice that your cell phone bill went down because the private companies that use the public airwaves to deliver their service got additional capacity from the airwaves that you and I own?

Me neither.

Professor Thaler goes on to make the case that the spectrum allocated to television broadcast is used inefficiently, with only 17 percent of it actually allocated by the FCC for full-powered television stations. Add in that 91 percent of the population now gets their television from cable or satellite and the conclusion by Thaler, built on top of a proposal for better spectrum allocation from Professor Thomas W. Hazlet of George Mason University is that we are using a lot of prime radio spectrum (the good Professor calls it “beachfront real estate”) is being wasted on the small percentage of the population unwilling to pay for their television reception.

No mention is made by the Professor that the wireless companies have been using a lot of real estate on either end of “the beachfront”. Instead he suggests that we could sell off the rest of this property along the beach because “we must make better use of the existing space…And the target that looks most promising in this regard is the spectrum used for over-the-air television broadcasts.”

For a moment, you might wonder if Mr. Thaler is also a real estate broker. He isn’t, but he is an investment speculator of another sort. We’ll get back to that in a moment.

If you are one of those luddites who still doesn’t pay a monthly charge for your television reception it is OK, because Thaler’s proposal is that you would get a special low cost deal or maybe even the television equivalent of “food stamps” to make sure that your television sets were hooked up to some kind of service like…cable or satellite.

There’s the second problem.

The Professor’s pitch chooses to ignore the idea that broadcast television itself is already wireless. You don’t have to have your big flat screen television hooked up to anything other than an antenna to get full High Definition pictures. Plus, on the horizon are a whole wave of devices that will deliver the idea that you should be able to watch television wherever you might want to. If you can carry a wireless telephone in your pocket, why not a television? There will even be devices that allow you to do both, but of course that might mean that you have to pay a wireless phone company for the ability to watch television on that device.

If the mobile televisions could tune in the already existing television signals, you could get a whole range of the most popular channels people already watch, for that best monthly price of all – free.

And of course, let’s not forget this idea of Professor Thaler’s probably kills off your local television stations as a viable business.

Thaler acknowledges that local broadcasters might oppose his modest proposal, because they are “likely to contend that they are providing a vital community service in return for free use of the spectrum that was put in their hands decades ago.” He then goes on to coyly suggest the question of “whether the local news or other programs are vital services is up for debate…”

Well yes, Mr. Thaler, the idea that the local stations in Hawaii went on the air for hour after hour yesterday to inform the people of Hawaii about the potential threat of a Tsunami wave hitting the islands wasn’t of anyone’s vital interest. The television stations that went on the air for days before and after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, to serve the citizens with crucial information weren’t vital in the least. And the thousands of other hours that local broadcasters have devoted to covering local news and public interest programming aren’t vital, even though the federal government requires that local broadcasters operate in a regulated fashion as “a public trustee in the public interest.”

Did anyone notice if the cable or satellite companies were providing this vital service in these situations?

Is it vital that more Americans get their news from television than any other source? And that local television news routinely has larger audiences in each of the communities they serve over any national networks?

Or that local television stations provide more public service and free airtime to local causes than any cable or satellite companies ever have? Have you ever seen DirecTV or Dish doing something good in your local community?

Let’s not even mention that until quite recently, Cable and Satellite providers didn’t even pay local television stations for taking their over-the-airwaves signals and reselling them to their subscribers–and even today still balk at paying fair rates for the stations their viewers watch the most.

Of course, it is easy to see that I have a vested interest in considering Professor Thaler’s endorsement of finding “buried treasure” by scrapping the current system of over-the-air television. I am a life long broadcaster, who gets his salary to support his family and send his kids to school based on the work that I do at a local television station.

What isn’t as easy to see is that Professor Thaler is also the founder of a “Asset Management Firm” where he is “setting strategic direction and enhancing the research and investment processes”.

Whether or not that means he has a more vested interest in this “treasure hunt” of an idea that he claims is even better than the ‘free lunch’ that it appears to be…isn’t so readily apparent.

We might do well to remember what you’ve always heard about the promise of “a free lunch” or “buried treasure”.

Over the past few days, I’ve been struck by the unfair nature of the subjective decision. When personal opinion weighs more than the apparent facts. The opposite of the objective decision.

The first example was Friday night, when I happened to watch a few minutes of the Winter Olympics in Vancouver. I had really made an effort to avoid the games, and I’ll explain why in a moment. But there was nothing else on, and I was sucked in by the story line of American speed skater Apollo Ohno winning the most medals of any Winter Olympian.

Ohno skated an amazing semifinal where he literally had to jump over other skaters who had fallen to make it to the final medal race. In the final, he appeared to be headed for a fourth–and last place finish, when two of the skaters ahead of him went down, leaving Ohno to finish behind the Candian favorite, Charles Hamelin, apparently capturing a silver medal.

But wait, a Canadian referee reviews the video replay and determines that Ohno will be disqualified, because the American put his hand on the hip of third place Canadian skater Francois-Louis Tremblay. Trmeblay then falls, and the decision is that Ohno had caused the fall. I’ve watched the video a bunch of times, and in the ice skating-meets roller derby style of short-track speed skating, I don’t know how you can objectively say one way or the other if Ohno caused Tremblay’s fall.

So a subjective decision costs a great athlete an Olympic medal. Heaven knows its not the first time, and it is why I just can’t watch most of the Olympics anymore, because of the politics of subjective judgement. It isn’t always who finishes first, often it is about what the judge or referee from whatever country happens to think. Even if the judge is from the same country as the competing athlete is from.

A similar judgement struck closer to home on Saturday at my younger daughter’s cheerleading competition. Her team ended up finishing in second place to a squad that clearly didn’t have as clean a routine, so when the coach got the team’s score at the end of the meet, we learned that the judges had taken off five points as a penalty for our team’s routine running three seconds over the maximum 2:30 time on the floor. This knocked their first place total score down to a second place one.

I know, I can hear you say “rules are rules”, and I agree with that premise. But there is more to consider in this situation. Her team was the second team of the day to perform. The organizers of the competition didn’t have their act together at the beginning of the event, and they sent our team out on the floor before the judges had completed scoring the first team to perform (the ones who finished in first place, of course). So our team ends up standing “frozen” for their start for about three minutes before being announced and their music being cued to play.

It caused the appearance of a false start, which created a much longer than normal “wait in the starting blocks”, if you will. So now the timing of the routine becomes a subjective call. And thus the penalty for going three seconds long costs the better performing team a first place finish.

The weekend continued this theme, when my older daughter received a letter from a major university rejecting her from the graduate school program she applied to. Again, I get it–they had thousands of applicants and precious few spots to fill, so some people had to be excluded in the process.

But how do you do that without an interview, or even a phone conversation? How do you evaluate a person simply from a piece of paper or two? Again, I get it–that is how the world works. Maybe a person doesn’t have the qualifications or experience being sought, so that becomes an easy decision. But what happens when all the qualification are there? Then it is a matter of a subjective decision by someone, who you hope is acting with the best of intentions.

By now, you’ve probably concluded that this is just a rant from an over-protective father who can’t stand to see anything bad happen to his daughters, and there probably is some truth to that conclusion if I am candid with myself.

But in none of these cases was there a massive overreaction. We didn’t stage a public protest or start screaming at the cheerleading competition. I’m not threatening to send off nasty letters to the clearly inept university. Heck, even Apollo Ohno was smiling when he had the audacity to point out in the interview after his race that it seemed a little odd how the race was decided.

He then went on to anchor a relay team that won the US a bronze medal, making him our Winter Olympian to win the most medals ever.

And yes, I know there will be other cheerleading competitions and universities for both of my daughters and I will continue to be “a homer” for them, as they learn the valuable life lesson of what is fair isn’t always what happens in the end.

But more and more, I get the sense that what is fair isn’t what is happening in so many parts of our collective dialogue. These days it is so much more about the politics of derision, rather than any push to serve the public. We’re more into listening to the screeds of talk radio mouthpieces than we are into hearing from anyone who might have a thought on the other side of an issue. We’re more likely to throw out hateful speech as online graffiti under the virtual darkness of an anonymous post on the internet.

It is much easier to be subjective, when it serves our own cause. Objectivity requires at least the consideration that there might be another side that is more righteous than the one we take.

I’m just wondering if maybe there is room for a little more objectivity in all aspects of our lives.

It’s been a few weeks since I’ve written here.

There are the usual reasons, all of which really just come down to the fact that sometimes, life just goes that way. Oh sure, I’ve sat down a couple of times to write something pithy about something silly.

And I just haven’t finished any writing that I have started. Because sometimes, life just goes that way.

Work has been a bit crazier than the normal. February is a particular time of stress in the TV biz. It’s winter, so the weather has been…well, winter weather. Older daughter has been snowed in at her University, which hasn’t held classes for a week. Younger daughter has been sick and pushing to get through to her break next week. (Which reminds me that I haven’t done any prep for Valentine’s Day yet, either.)

And then there was last Sunday.

It’s hard to write about Sunday, because it was one of those days where being in the news business isn’t easy. Working in a business where you routinely deal with the details of some of the worst parts of life is made a bit more palatable by the fact that you are usually dealing with stories of people that you don’t know. It makes the whole staying objective thing a good bit easier.

But sometimes in the course of covering the story, you learn the names are ones you know.

On Sunday morning, an explosion at a still-under-constuction power plant in Middletown, shook a good portion of Connecticut. Within minutes, the phones in the newsroom lit up and we began working on covering one of those stories that quickly eclipses something as ordinary as a Super Bowl Sunday. When it was over, five men working at the plant during a routine procedure were gone. One of them was Raymond Dobratz of Old Saybrook, the father of three sons. His oldest, Erik Dobratz, is our Sports Producer at WTNH.

I never had the pleasure of meeting Ray Dobratz, and from all accounts–I really wish I had. Hartford Courant sports writer Jeff Jacobs wrote a story about him that everyone should read (click this link to do so.)

But I know his son as a hard-working professional, a solid colleague–and an all around good guy.

When he was still with us, my own Dad told me that the one of the best compliments a man could get, was to just be called “a good guy.” He also thought that the best thing a father could do, was to teach his son how to be just that, a good guy.

Ray Dobratz did that for his son Erik, and now of course, Erik will do the same for his son, Keegan.

Because sometimes, no matter how unfair it seems, life just goes that way.

My thoughts and prayers are with Erik and his entire family.

Today, our creative newsroom gave the story the simple, but quite accurate title: “iPad-demonium”

For the technology driven obsessives, like myself, it was pretty much the case. After months of speculation, leaks, tidbits, teases, and plain old anticipation–run up to a fever pitch–Apple CEO Steve Jobs strolled on the stage of the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in San Francisco today.

He was there to show the invitation-only crowd “the next big thing.”

Though for once in the now storied series of these Steve Jobs presentations, there was no big surprise. Except maybe for what the thing was going to be called.

Because the thing, you see, was pretty much well-known ahead of time. Apple’s latest creation was going to be a “tablet” style device. A blank slate, if you will. An electronic pad with a screen.

This was widely known–or at least, widely expected.

Jobs acknowledged this by showing a quote from The Wall Street Journal that quipped, “the last time there was this much excitement for a tablet…it had commandments on it.” The Journal, not known for the same penchant of bombastic headlines as The New York Post, wasn’t being all that cute. The pitch for this thing was way past the fever stage.

So when he, of ever consistent black mock turtleneck and jeans wardrobe, whipped out the new “iPad”, there wasn’t a loud gasp in the room. Enthusiastic applause broke out, to be sure. Even a solitary wolf whistle.

The gasp would come later.

In his lead up to this moment, Jobs said something that would stick with this observer as the whole definition of why the iPad was created and–in the same thought–why it is likely to be as notable and revolutionary as it older siblings, the iPod and iPhone.

He said that a device that exists somewhere between the nearly ubiquitous “smartphone” (a category of product that Apple’s iPhone certainly redefined, if not completely re-invented) and the essential modern tool, the laptop (which Apple also had a major hand in defining–if not inventing, as Jobs claimed.)

Going on, he added that a device that filled this gap between these two “classes” of devices, needed to be, in his words, “Far Better at Some Key Things.”

There it was. Call it the commandment that defined this new device:
“Thou shalt not attempt to be all things to all people, but rather thou shalt be far better at some key things.”

And the key things, it turns out, are the ones that most people need most of the time from “an electronic gizmo” that is neither the one that goes in your pocket to make calls on, nor the one that goes in your backpack to do your homework on.

No, this new, new thing was to be in between those two digital tools that exist now in so many lives. And so, as Jobs put it, it had to be far better at some key things.

Those things include, browsing the web, doing email, viewing photographs, watching videos, listening to music, playing games and reading electronic versions of books (“eBooks”). The seven things that most people, probably do most often via the internet.

Thinking about my use of my laptop or my smartphone (both of which are from Apple), it certainly is the way I use those two devices and the internet. And I’d likely speculate that would be the case for you as well.

Unless your religious beliefs cause you to shun electricity for whatever reason.

So even as the internet began to crackle with people pointing out that the name “iPad” sounded unfortunately like an Apple-made line of feminine “personal products”, if you’ll allow, it was becoming clear that the device was going to be very specifically focused on doing these key functions and would not attempt to be all things to all people–despite the inopportune comparison to the stone pads…er, tablets that Moses carried down from the mountain with those ten commandments.

Like anything Apple has made since….well, since Apple came into being, the iPad is designed within an inch of its life. Actually, it’s only 0.5 inches thick, so that would be within a half-inch of its life. I haven’t actually seen or touched one in person yet (my invite to this shindig was apparently lost in the mail, I suppose.)

But damn, I can’t wait to get my hands on one. Much like the first images of the iPhone when it was presented for the first time by Steve Jobs about three years ago, the design of this new thing just begs to be seen in person and touched.

Because that is when I, and probably you too, will decide if we have to have one.

Because my friends, that is exactly what happened with the iPhone. The pictures, the videos, the details were all quite intriguing. But when you actually held an iPhone in your hands, you were pretty much sold. In this case, the tactile–both how the device feels in your grubby mitts and how it feels to touch the screen and interact with the device–will be the ultimate pull here.

And then your mind will snap to reality and you’ll begin to process the next important question: Can I afford to get one of these? Because that has been the biggest single knock on Apple since…well, again since Apple moved into being. The company’s un-stated, but obvious position is that it makes great stuff that is priced at the premium price point.

So everyone, including myself, was prepared for the sticker shock to come. As the presentation ground on, well over an hour…Steve Jobs threw out the detail that drew some audible gasps in the auditorium that turned into loud applause.

That the iPad’s starting price would not be the $999 that many people had feared. Not even the $799 that I had speculated might be an aggressive pricing to jump start this new, new thing that not everyone might instantly recognize that they would have to have. Not even the $699 that it might be priced if this were a late night Ron Popeil informercial.

But only $499 for the base model with the smallest amount of storage inside (16 GB).

Adding a cellular 3G data radio to the unit, so you will be able to access the internet almost anywhere will add another $130 to the price. Additional storage (memory) goes up to 64 GB and pushes the price up for top end model with all the features to a more sobering, yet still relatively reasonable $829 price tag. (Reasonable considering the technology and the cost of the hardware.)

Will you have to have one? Possibly. Will you want to have one? Probably. Before you scoff at that notion, consider whether three years ago you would have had to have a cell phone with no buttons on it, that could go on the internet or play your music collection? Because nobody thought the iPhone was going to be a must have.

And earlier this week, Apple reported that it sold some 8.7 million iPhones.

In the last quarter.

So that brings us to me answering the question I have been asked about a hundred times since 2:30pm yesterday–and that I have been pondering pretty much non-stop for the twelve hours since. Am I going to get one?

The answer? If the iPad is far better at doing some key things that I do everyday of my digital-centric life now, then the answer is probably.

But if this iPad is, as Senior VP of Design at Apple Jony Ive put it in Apple’s promotion video: “when something exceeds your ability to understand how it works…it sort of becomes magical”, the the answer is definitely.

Because I saw this exact reaction happen last year when I showed my Mom an Amazon Kindle for the first time. As a life long lover of books and reading, she was delighted and amazed by what the Kindle could do. So given that reading eBooks is just one of the seven “key things” that the iPad can do. And it does it in full color, with video and music available too?

I’d tell Mom–and anyone else who asks–that they probably should hold onto to their hats…or their hair for that matter. Once it gets into our hands and we have a chance to experience the magic for ourselves, the iPad could blow us all away.

On Wednesday, January 27th, there will be two major addresses that many people will be following quite closely.

One will be the President’s State of the Union, the other will be a CEO introducing a new product.

Oddly, either could change the financial state of this country, if not the world.

Or not, as the case may be.

But when the CEO is Steve Jobs of Apple, the product isn’t just any new product.

The expectations of what Jobs will unveil are as high as they have been for anything in recent memory. From the company that has changed the way we work with computers, the way we enjoy our music and the way we use our cell phones…the expectations are very high about what is widely believed to be a “tablet” style device. Some have even dubbed it “the jesus tablet”.

The speculation has been rampant for months. That will come to an end at 1pm EST on Wednesday, which will be when Jobs takes the stage. The President will have to wait another 7 hours after that for his turn.

Reports are that Jobs calls whatever he is going to talk about as “the most important thing I’ve ever done.” One wonders if Mr. Obama is thinking the same way at this point.

The good news for Jobs…he won’t have the talking heads on Fox, CNN, MSNBC and all the rest of the 24-hour chatfest outlets talking about what he says for hours on end.

He’ll only have to worry about CNBC, G4 and a whole bunch of blogs. Not that they are any picnic to deal with.

Here’s hoping that both can wow their audiences.