-
They will fill the schedule with infomercials.
Pax Article (http://\"http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA526901.html?display=Breaking+News\")
-
[start extremely bad sarcasm]AAHHHHHHHHHH! I'M GONNA MISS SHOP 'TIL YOU DROP, BALDERDASH, AND ON THE COVER! AHHHHHHHH![/end extremely bad sarcasm]
Figured it'd happen sooner or later. Pax is sloooooooowwwwwwly sinkin' to the bottom.
[hears loud crash in background]
I take that back, it's crashed already. :-P
For those who are having that sarcasm moment mentioned above in a more serious fashion instead of foolin' around, warm up the VCRs is all I can tell ya. :-P
-
So we've now got an all-infomercial channel? Why even bother having a network in the first place?
-
[quote name=\'goongas\' date=\'Apr 21 2005, 05:49 PM\']They will fill the schedule with infomercials.
Pax Article (http://\"http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA526901.html?display=Breaking+News\")
[snapback]82784[/snapback]
[/quote]
Guess I'll stop prepping for the "On The Cover" Ultimate Tournament of Champions. :)
Tim H.
-
Gee, that's nothing new. Pre-PAX, Channel 68 (that's the local channel here) was.........all infomercials all the time.
-
Many Pax-owned stations that signed on prior to Pax's launch in 1998 carried infomercials by day (as part of Paxson's "InTV" network), and Worship in late-nights.
Pax was a great network -- until they replaced their daytime line-up with infomercials. These days (other than the games), there's no reason to watch Pax.
-
There may be a glimmer of hope in Cleveland....
My guess is that as long as PAX-23 is originating from the same building as WKYC-Channel 3, the NBC affiliate, they will still air their local Akron/Canton newscasts at 6:30 & 10PM.
So PAX in Cleveland will only be airing *23* hours of infomercials. Maybe that could be their new slogan...
"PAX-23 -- That's how many hours of their infocrap we'll air each day."
Why would PAX air straight infomercials 24/7? If it's to make money to pay their utility bills, then why not just let the stations go dark? You'd think it would be cheaper that way.
-
You'll recall that Bud Paxson's vision for the network was all about "family friendly" programming and sensibilities. I think it was a noble experiment motivated by pure intentions.
But perhaps the next time we hear the outcry from those who clamor about "family values" on television there will be a greater understanding that in a free enterprise system, under private ownership, operating under the traditional advertiser-supported model, it's apparently not sustainable.
Until the church or the federal government subsidizes "family friendly" programming it seems that a programming service dedicated to serve that loud but apparently minority segment of the audience is doomed. Now, if all of those who are so vehemently outspoken on the matter want to pony up the $1 billion+ that it cost PAX...
Otherwise, I guess the sitcoms will have more and more sexual innuendo, the dramas will be bloodier and sexier, and more people will eat bugs and vote each other off the island.
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
I wonder what's going to happen to the Mrs. America and Mrs. World pageants?
Yeah, yeah, I know..."who needs 'em when you got the internet and can download..."
Sorry, I don't go there.
-
Not to get too far off-topic, but as was asked earlier: why have a station that shows only infomercials? Channel 38 in Detroit is mostly infomericals and is occassionally a dumping ground for shows that aren't picked up by a network affiliate (62, the current CBS affiliate used to do this as well). Is it actually profitable, or at least a venture that breaks even?
-
Why would PAX air straight infomercials 24/7? If it's to make money to pay their utility bills, then why not just let the stations go dark? You'd think it would be cheaper that way.
[snapback]82806[/snapback]
Pax's daytime "lineup" right now consists of Beverly Hillbillies reruns whose prints have been so worn out it is completely unrecognizable, movies with equally poor print quality, etc.
Pax could have been a good network. But so much that could have put it on the map (remember the Millennium Live show that they promoted so much - but was yanked at the last minute after the producers ran out of funds?) was scrapped or were just abject failures. Eventually, Pax became known as the Diagnosis Murder network.
Many long-time people from the ATGS days remember the Reel to Reel Picture Show disaster. Maybe it was a foreshadowing of what would happen to Pax.
Brian
Bing Crosby was named after an Allman Brothers Band song? (That was On the Cover, BTW.)
-
I also assume that Pax will also drop re-broadcasts of NBC affiliate newscasts, too (as most Pax stations run re-broadcasts of NBC station newscasts, since Pax is owned by NBC, right?).
-
[quote name=\'brianhenke\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 01:27 AM\']
Pax's daytime "lineup" right now consists of Beverly Hillbillies reruns whose prints have been so worn out it is completely unrecognizable, movies with equally poor print quality, etc.
[snapback]82833[/snapback]
Actually, that line-up of BH reruns are most likely just on your PAX station. A good deal of stations (including the one I have) air nothing but infomercials during the day. You lucked out and see something BESIDES infomercials. Even if it's worn-out Beverly Hillbillies.
And as for your foreshadowing, I agree. What's the story with that again, people won on there but never got their prizes?
-
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 12:30 AM\']
[quote name=\'brianhenke\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 01:27 AM\']
Pax's daytime "lineup" right now consists of Beverly Hillbillies reruns whose prints have been so worn out it is completely unrecognizable, movies with equally poor print quality, etc.
[snapback]82833[/snapback]
Actually, that line-up of BH reruns are most likely just on your PAX station. A good deal of stations (including the one I have) air nothing but infomercials during the day. You lucked out and see something BESIDES infomercials. Even if it's worn-out Beverly Hillbillies.
And as for your foreshadowing, I agree. What's the story with that again, people won on there but never got their prizes?
[snapback]82836[/snapback]
The producer of Reel to Reel went bankrupt (the show lasted six weeks despite getting the highest ratings on Pax's daytime lineup (anyone remember Great Day America or Woman's Day with Phyllis George?)), and the winning contestants had to tell Paxson Communications that they hadn't been awarded their prizes, and Pax had to pay a lot of money to get them to the winners (many of the show's celebs hadn't been paid for their appearances, as well). In addition, Peter Marshall wasn't paid a cent for hosting the show, telling Steve that "it's a shame" he was involved in it.
I got Pax in early 1999, and by then Reel to Reel was gone.
Brian
The Jehovah's Witnesses distribute Mad magazine?
-
[quote name=\'brianhenke\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 01:56 AM\']
The producer of Reel to Reel went bankrupt (the show lasted six weeks despite getting the highest ratings on Pax's daytime lineup (anyone remember Great Day America or Woman's Day with Phyllis George?)), and the winning contestants had to tell Paxson Communications that they hadn't been awarded their prizes, and Pax had to pay a lot of money to get them to the winners (many of the show's celebs hadn't been paid for their appearances, as well). In addition, Peter Marshall wasn't paid a cent for hosting the show, telling Steve that "it's a shame" he was involved in it.
I got Pax in early 1999, and by then Reel to Reel was gone.
Brian
The Jehovah's Witnesses distribute Mad magazine?
[snapback]82837[/snapback]
[/quote]
Oh my....I'd forgotten all about those two talk shows.....It's funny to think that the channel started its broadcast day at noon, now it starts at 5 or so. I still remember seeing the Close-Up in the TVG for PAX's debut.
I remember hearing about the contestants not being awarded their prizes, but not about Peter Marshall not being paid....That's something else.
I expect this channel to be yanked from a lot of cable systems in due time (on cable systems who carry the national feed like mine), but maybe the local affiliates will do something else instead of carry all those infomercials.
-
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 09:17 AM\']I expect this channel to be yanked from a lot of cable systems in due time (on cable systems who carry the national feed like mine), but maybe the local affiliates will do something else instead of carry all those infomercials.
[snapback]82846[/snapback]
[/quote]
I also only get PAX via cable. Oddly enough, I don't get OTC and "Balderdash" (replaced with, you guessed it, infomercials). They did air here when both shows were in primetime.
Yeah, go ahead and raise a glass to PAX. They'll be gone sooner or later. Last one out, shut off the lights -- assuming no one's missed bills to the power company. :)
-
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 10:17 AM\']I expect this channel to be yanked from a lot of cable systems in due time (on cable systems who carry the national feed like mine), but maybe the local affiliates will do something else instead of carry all those infomercials.
[snapback]82846[/snapback]
[/quote]
Most of the Pax stations are O&Os, not affiliates, so I suspect they'll carry mostly infomercials if that's what's on the national service. I'd like to see each station keep whatever regular programming is unique to it -- Orioles games in DC and Yankees games in Buffalo, for example -- but I'm not optimistic.
Wonder if this means my signed copy of Bud Paxson's book will be worth anything. Probably not, but I can hope, can't I? :-)
-
Round two:
NBC Universal said Paxson's plan to abandon network programming and to replace it primarily with paid programming, "constitutes a breach of the contractual agreements between NBC Universal and Paxson."
And guess who ALMOST flew to Floriday every 2 weeks to announce "Reel to Reel"?! Never mind salary, I'd still be looking for reimbursement for my airfare!
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 06:17 AM\']I expect this channel to be yanked from a lot of cable systems in due time
[snapback]82846[/snapback]
[/quote]
If it's an over-the-air signal in your market it cannot be dropped from your cable line-up. It's called "must carry".
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 11:11 AM\']
If it's an over-the-air signal in your market it cannot be dropped from your cable line-up. It's called "must carry".
Randy
tvrandywest.com
[snapback]82851[/snapback]
[/quote]
AFAIK, mine's the network feed and not a local. Good thing Harrisburg never got a PAX station of its own.
-
Yeah, go ahead and raise a glass to PAX. They'll be gone sooner or later. Last one out, shut off the lights -- assuming no one's missed bills to the power company. :)
Blah, you just had to mention the power bill, didn't ya? [files for bankruptcy to try to get out of paying the damned $695,485.21]
*ducks from flying objects for awful attempt to be funny*
Wonder if this means my signed copy of Bud Paxson's book will be worth anything. Probably not, but I can hope, can't I? :-)
I'll give ya $0.02 for that book. :-P
If it's an over-the-air signal in your market it cannot be dropped from your cable line-up. It's called "must carry".
I believe mine's a local feed.......WPXA-14 Atlanta (I think I got the call letters or whatever they're called.......not exactly sure lol).
Oh Randy, thank goodness you didn't waste your time on that Reel to Reel show. Saved your great announcing voice for much better shows. :-D
-
Well, I guess that's the end of America's Funniest Home Videos on PAX. Pretty much the only reason for me to tune in these days.
-
[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 11:11 AM\']If it's an over-the-air signal in your market it cannot be dropped from your cable line-up. It's called "must carry".
Randy
tvrandywest.com
[snapback]82851[/snapback]
[/quote]
Hmmm...then why hasn't my college's cable service been carrying the local PAX affiliate? It does come in quite clearly over the air where I live (moreso than the local Big Five affiliates, as a matter of fact). Oh well, I guess there's no reason to care anymore. :-D
-
[quote name=\'FeudDude\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 12:45 PM\']Hmmm...then why hasn't my college's cable service been carrying the local PAX affiliate? It does come in quite clearly over the air where I live (moreso than the local Big Five affiliates, as a matter of fact). Oh well, I guess there's no reason to care anymore. :-D
[/quote]
If I may....don't many colleges, hospitals, and hotels have their own line of "service", and thus get to choose what is offered?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 10:16 AM\']If I may....don't many colleges, hospitals, and hotels have their own line of "service", and thus get to choose what is offered?
[snapback]82871[/snapback]
[/quote]
Bingo. "Must carry" is about the public cable system that has the local utility franchise. It does not apply to private condo developments, hosptials, hotels, etc. Last time I visited a friend in the hospital he had only 5 channels, and two were all sponsored medical stories. It's enough to make you want to get healthy real fast!
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 02:16 PM\'][quote name=\'FeudDude\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 12:45 PM\']Hmmm...then why hasn't my college's cable service been carrying the local PAX affiliate? It does come in quite clearly over the air where I live (moreso than the local Big Five affiliates, as a matter of fact). Oh well, I guess there's no reason to care anymore. :-D
[/quote]
If I may....don't many colleges, hospitals, and hotels have their own line of "service", and thus get to choose what is offered?
[snapback]82871[/snapback]
[/quote]
Private cable systems definitely aren't regulated in the same way. I know that when I stay in hotels in Boston and in New York, several of the (usually higher-numbered) UHF channels typically aren't available on the TV in the room.
-
One could say PAX gave up on entertaining programming years ago...
-
Thanks for the clarification, everyone. I always found that interesting, considering how my college's cable system carries just about every other local station (including some UHF ones). But of course, the ratings have proven that there's not a big demand for PAX among this age group.
-
Out of all the TV markets serving myself and all family members, mine is the only one in which PAX is only on cable. It'd be nice if they'd move GSN to analog (or at least Oxygen or Hallmark), but I'm not holding my breath.
Ch. 48 in Cedar Rapids might see about becoming a sister station to the UPN affiliate in Waterloo if its signal isn't strong enough to reach down there. Ch. 39 in Des Moines ought to see about going UPN itself.
Finally, there is Ch. 50 in Kansas City. Since it's unlikely that they'd ask KCIT in Amarillo TX to allow them to once again let those letters be used for a K.C. indie on Ch. 50 and more or less pick up where financial troubles left them back in 1971, my guess is that--unless they can find a new use for the station what with 38 The Spot already popular--they *could* simply let it go dark and give that frequency to the area's WB station currently using Ch. 62, which could be lopped off the UHF frequency list according to what the FCC might want to do.
-
The beginning of the end for Pax was Jeff Sagansky's leaving. At least the guy had experience dealing with Hollywood types, which Paxson didn't have.
The whole network had futility written all over it--but Paxson will probably still scam Byron Allen out of a ton of money to unload it on him, so what does he care? He's not a broadcaster--he's a wheeler-dealer. He'll probably try to start another shopping channel for those people who miss Miss Tootie and Slots of Fun now that HSN has become semi-respectable. Can you give me a toot for my grandmother in Colorado Springs, Bud?
-
[quote name=\'DjohnsonCB\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 02:16 PM\']they *could* simply let it go dark and give that frequency to the area's WB station currently using Ch. 62, which could be lopped off the UHF frequency list according to what the FCC might want to do.
[snapback]82894[/snapback]
[/quote]
What is the FCC planning on doing with the frequency occupied by a channel 62? Here in the Catskills, we used to have WTZA on Channel 62, but they switched call letters to WRNN several years back and became a mostly-infomercials station. They also put a transmitter in Nyack to get to New York City so they could get on the cable systems there. However, as of several months ago, I don't get a signal over the air on Channel 62.
WRNN, however, is still on the DirecTV local channels....
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 10:46 PM\']
What is the FCC planning on doing with the frequency occupied by a channel 62? Here in the Catskills, we used to have WTZA on Channel 62, but they switched call letters to WRNN several years back and became a mostly-infomercials station. They also put a transmitter in Nyack to get to New York City so they could get on the cable systems there. However, as of several months ago, I don't get a signal over the air on Channel 62.
WRNN, however, is still on the DirecTV local channels....
[snapback]82954[/snapback]
[/quote]
Although I never had WTZA, that channel brings back such memories. I remember The Times-Herald Record paper doing an article on the two new channels; 62 and WOLF-TV 38 from Scranton. I used to want 62 back when they were a true independent, carrying reruns and such.....
ObGameShow: WTZA carried "Dark Shadows", which was yanked for "Password" when it originally aired on ABC. ;)
-
I should have tried to explain it a bit more in depth. I'd heard it mentioned that the FCC was considering dropping analog broadcast channels higher than 59, just as they had done years ago with Chs. 70-83 which were underused, this time to make room for digital broadcasting, possibly multicasting. Not sure if this was supposed to be accomplished if and when they turn off the analog signals for good.
-
[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 10:11 AM\']NBC Universal said Paxson's plan to abandon network programming and to replace it primarily with paid programming, "constitutes a breach of the contractual agreements between NBC Universal and Paxson."
[snapback]82851[/snapback]
[/quote]
2005 has not been a good year thus far for NBC/Universal as far as cable networks go:
• DirecTV drops Trio from its lineup in early '05 -- DirecTV said that NBC/Universal wasn't sure of the future of Trio at that point, so DTV got rid of 'em.
• I though I had heard rumours of either CNBC or MSNBC running way behind their cable competitors, and I thought I heard talk that they might scale back or eliminate some if not all of their programming.
(if anyone can add current info to the above events, please do so).
• And now NBC/U is getting screwed by Paxson. Granted, CBS/Viacom is not having the best of times with their Mini-Me Network called UPN, but maybe NBC can buy & control a nightly block of programming, kinda like the non-infomercial block that's going on now.
-
NBC is just upset that they won't have the inventory to sell. They're not averse to infomercials. Have you ever seen CNBC on the weekends?
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' date=\'Apr 23 2005, 10:23 AM\']• I though I had heard rumours of either CNBC or MSNBC running way behind their cable competitors, and I thought I heard talk that they might scale back or eliminate some if not all of their programming.
(if anyone can add current info to the above events, please do so).[/quote]
CNBC. John McEnroe's talk show got a 0.0 rating several times during its (thankfully) short run. Recently, CNBC has started rerunning NBC's reality shows during primetime, specifically The Apprentice and The Contender.
Tim didn't mention this, but it shows how crappy '05 has been at NBC/Universal--NBC is now the 4th watched broadcast network.
NBC--The "BC" stands for "We'll be see-in' ya at the unemployment line".
-
[quote name=\'FeudDude\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 12:45 PM\'][quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 11:11 AM\']If it's an over-the-air signal in your market it cannot be dropped from your cable line-up. It's called "must carry".
[snapback]82851[/snapback]
[/quote]
Hmmm...then why hasn't my college's cable service been carrying the local PAX affiliate? It does come in quite clearly over the air where I live.
[snapback]82868[/snapback]
[/quote]
I thought the station in question must first *want* to be a must-carry station first. Then once it is a must-carry station, then whatever they wish to air gets onto a cable channel. But I had also thought that the terrestrial station had to pay an annual fee to the cable channel to continue it's "must carry" status.
Therefore newer or 'low power' stations (possibly including some PAX affiliates) may not want to be a 'must carry' if the cable system isn't already airing them as a courtesy. When I had lived near Akron about 6 years ago, we had Cablevision. There was a Channel 67 in Canton that had been on the air for over a dozen years before Cablevision had to carry it as a 'must carry' on their lineup. By that time instead of an independent programming channel, they became HSN.
I also believe there is a low-powered channel combo in the Cleveland/Akron Area that is still not a 'must carry' on some of the cable lineups though their stations (Channels 29 & 35 -- The Cat) have been around for over 10 years.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' date=\'Apr 23 2005, 10:58 AM\']I thought the station in question must first *want* to be a must-carry station first. Then once it is a must-carry station, then whatever they wish to air gets onto a cable channel. But I had also thought that the terrestrial station had to pay an annual fee to the cable channel to continue it's "must carry" status.
[snapback]83018[/snapback]
[/quote]
No -- each full-power station has to choose whether it wants to be "must carry" or to demand compensation for carriage. Typically the major network affiliates demand compensation, sometimes as a direct payment but usually in some other form; without said compensation, the cable or satellite system can't carry the channel. (Viacom, for example, requires cable systems to pick up some of its less popular cable networks in exchange for the right to carry the CBS-owned stations.) Less popular stations, like Pax, home shopping and religious channels, choose must-carry status; the cable and satellite systems have to carry them but the stations can't demand anything in return.
A station chooses compensation if it believes it can get something from the cable/satellite provider, and must-carry if the provider isn't likely to carry the channel otherwise. After a certain number of years (five? six? I can't recall offhand), the station can change its status if it so chooses based on the demand for its programming. Only PBS stations can't make the choice; their carriage is governed by different rules, and they can't demand specific compensation in return.
Therefore newer or 'low power' stations (possibly including some PAX affiliates) may not want to be a 'must carry' if the cable system isn't already airing them as a courtesy. When I had lived near Akron about 6 years ago, we had Cablevision. There was a Channel 67 in Canton that had been on the air for over a dozen years before Cablevision had to carry it as a 'must carry' on their lineup. By that time instead of an independent programming channel, they became HSN.
I also believe there is a low-powered channel combo in the Cleveland/Akron Area that is still not a 'must carry' on some of the cable lineups though their stations (Channels 29 & 35 -- The Cat) have been around for over 10 years.
Low-power stations can't demand must-carry or compensation by themselves. If a low-power station is owned by a full-power station, the latter can demand carriage of the former as its compensation. (In Syracuse, NY, for example, the cable system carries low-power UPN affil WSTQ as part of its deal to carry NBC affil WSTM.) Sometimes the cable system will carry a low-power station out of fear that subscribers will defect to satellite, since DirecTV does carry many low-power channels (particularly UPN affils) that it knows its subscribers want. And other times, as is the case where I live, the low-power channel will pay the cable system outright for carriage.
-
[quote name=\'hmtriplecrown\' date=\'Apr 23 2005, 09:48 AM\'][quote name=\'TimK2003\' date=\'Apr 23 2005, 10:23 AM\']• I though I had heard rumours of either CNBC or MSNBC running way behind their cable competitors, and I thought I heard talk that they might scale back or eliminate some if not all of their programming.
(if anyone can add current info to the above events, please do so).[/quote]
CNBC. John McEnroe's talk show got a 0.0 rating several times during its (thankfully) short run. Recently, CNBC has started rerunning NBC's reality shows during primetime, specifically The Apprentice and The Contender.
Tim didn't mention this, but it shows how crappy '05 has been at NBC/Universal--NBC is now the 4th watched broadcast network.
NBC--The "BC" stands for "We'll be see-in' ya at the unemployment line".
[snapback]83016[/snapback]
[/quote]
CNBC does ok from what I understand during the day. They get decent ad revenue because of their targeted audience. The ratings aren't what they were during the tech boom, but I think they are ok. At night is another story, that I am not that familiar with.
MSNBC primetime is not doing well. Keith Olberman now loses to Nancy Grace of CNN Headline News. Before he was only losing to Paula Zahn and Bill O'Reilley.
-
In flipping through my on-line guide for my local PAX station, the Balderdash/On The Cover hour has been replaced with Bonanza starting tomorrow (Monday). The Pyramid/Shop and Pyramid/Feud hours were still intact.
--Mike
-
[quote name=\'hmtriplecrown\' date=\'Apr 23 2005, 09:48 AM\'][quote name=\'TimK2003\' date=\'Apr 23 2005, 10:23 AM\']• I though I had heard rumours of either CNBC or MSNBC running way behind their cable competitors, and I thought I heard talk that they might scale back or eliminate some if not all of their programming.
(if anyone can add current info to the above events, please do so).[/quote]
CNBC. John McEnroe's talk show got a 0.0 rating several times during its (thankfully) short run. Recently, CNBC has started rerunning NBC's reality shows during primetime, specifically The Apprentice and The Contender.
Tim didn't mention this, but it shows how crappy '05 has been at NBC/Universal--NBC is now the 4th watched broadcast network.
NBC--The "BC" stands for "We'll be see-in' ya at the unemployment line".
[snapback]83016[/snapback]
[/quote]
It seems that since Friends left, it took NBC's success with it. Is Joey even in the Top 20? How about ER? That was the #1 show for a couple of years in the late-90s (ObGameShow: Millionaire dethroned it in 99-00), and now I don't even think it's in the Top 10 anymore.
Matter of fact, isn't CBS' Thursday lineup running circles around "Must See TV"? (Survivor: Boise, CSI original recipe, Without a Trace)
In flipping through my on-line guide for my local PAX station, the Balderdash/On The Cover hour has been replaced with Bonanza starting tomorrow (Monday). The Pyramid/Shop and Pyramid/Feud hours were still intact.
They were still on? Our PAX affil. replaced it with a simulcast of WAVY's news some time ago. Why? I have no clue.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Apr 24 2005, 08:42 PM\']
It seems that since Friends left, it took NBC's success with it. Is Joey even in the Top 20? How about ER? That was the #1 show for a couple of years in the late-90s (ObGameShow: Millionaire dethroned it in 99-00), and now I don't even think it's in the Top 10 anymore.
Matter of fact, isn't CBS' Thursday lineup running circles around "Must See TV"? (Survivor: Boise, CSI original recipe, Without a Trace)
[/quote]
(Information Courtesy the year-to-date ratings posted on the ABCMediaNet site available HERE (http://\"http://abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=041905_04\") and HERE (http://\"http://abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=041905_05\").
Overall season to date, as of last week:
CBS' Thursday Shows:
CSI Original Recipe is #2 on the Season
The Two Survivors this season are 5/6 (I do NOT get why two seasons of survivor, airing in the same slot, are counted different...yes they take place at different locations, but they're the *same* show)
Without a Trace is #7
Whereas:
Apprentice 2 was 13th..but Apprentice 3 is 21st (Average: 17th)
ER is 17th overall in Year to Date ratings
Joey is currently 41st
Will & Grace is currently 43rd
-
[quote name=\'goongas\' date=\'Apr 24 2005, 10:26 PM\']MSNBC primetime is not doing well. Keith Olberman now loses to Nancy Grace of CNN Headline News. Before he was only losing to Paula Zahn and Bill O'Reilley.[/quote]
Further proof that there's not much justice in the world, as Olberman's news program is consistantly quality stuff. It's probably too low-key in comparison to the shout-fest cable yackers, and his humor is a little dry for some tastes. Still, it's got an ingeniously simple structure that allows him not to be tied down to a single subject, the way he was the first time he went into the news game and everything was All Monica, All The Time.
-
[quote name=\'Seth Thrasher\' date=\'Apr 24 2005, 09:55 PM\']The Two Survivors this season are 5/6 (I do NOT get why two seasons of survivor, airing in the same slot, are counted different...yes they take place at different locations, but they're the *same* show)
[snapback]83172[/snapback]
[/quote]I've long forgotten where I read it, but isn't there a rule saying if you change the rules of a competition show (like Survivor), you have to change the title? If so, this might be part of why Survivor: Vanuatu and Survivor: Pulau are counted as two separate shows.
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Apr 24 2005, 08:42 PM\']Survivor: Boise[/quote]I'll bet a cyberpenny on that making the CBS schedule by January 2009 at latest. :-)
ObGS: Probst hosted a real gs once.
-
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Apr 24 2005, 11:54 PM\']I've long forgotten where I read it, but isn't there a rule saying if you change the rules of a competition show (like Survivor), you have to change the title? If so, this might be part of why Survivor: Vanuatu and Survivor: Pulau are counted as two separate shows.
[snapback]83183[/snapback]
[/quote]
No -- that was something Steve Beverly came up with (he claimed it was an FCC regulation), and it's easily debunked. See:
Dream House
Scrabble
Password Plus
Play the Percentages
High Rollers (1974-76)
Tattletales
The Joker's Wild (CBS run)
Card Sharks
And probably a zillion other examples -- these are just the ones I can think of quickly.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Apr 24 2005, 09:07 PM\']No -- that was something Steve Beverly came up with (he claimed it was an FCC regulation), and it's easily debunked. See:
[/quote]
And if you need a reality show, see The Apprentice, with the second-season-forward "exemption" clause.
But hey, why do you possibly need to check your facts, unless you're claiming to be an actual jour- oh, wait.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Apr 24 2005, 11:44 PM\']And if you need a reality show, see The Apprentice, with the second-season-forward "exemption" clause.
[snapback]83187[/snapback]
[/quote]
And if you don't want a clause, then see Idol, American. Don't watch too much of it, though.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 12:07 AM\'][quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Apr 24 2005, 11:54 PM\']I've long forgotten where I read it, but isn't there a rule saying if you change the rules of a competition show (like Survivor), you have to change the title? If so, this might be part of why Survivor: Vanuatu and Survivor: Pulau are counted as two separate shows.[/quote]
No -- that was something Steve Beverly came up with (he claimed it was an FCC regulation), and it's easily debunked. [/quote]
I think this rumor really heated up when Greed changed to Super Greed. Seems that there were a lot of folks saying that they were required to change the name because of the change in the prize structure. As David says, that's obviously absurd.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 12:02 PM\'][quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 12:07 AM\'][quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Apr 24 2005, 11:54 PM\']I've long forgotten where I read it, but isn't there a rule saying if you change the rules of a competition show (like Survivor), you have to change the title? If so, this might be part of why Survivor: Vanuatu and Survivor: Pulau are counted as two separate shows.[/quote]
No -- that was something Steve Beverly came up with (he claimed it was an FCC regulation), and it's easily debunked. [/quote]
I think this rumor really heated up when Greed changed to Super Greed. Seems that there were a lot of folks saying that they were required to change the name because of the change in the prize structure. As David says, that's obviously absurd.
[snapback]83209[/snapback]
[/quote]
The first time I heard the claim was when ABC was about to introduce Super Millionaire, though Greed was mentioned in the thread (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2930&view=findpost&p=26980\") in question.
-
According to this msnbc.com article (http://\"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7593620/\"), the FCC is announcing that analog transmissions of broadcast signals are to end on December 31, 2006--if 85 percent of households have digital sets. Something tells me they won't reach that figure in time. :)
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 11:34 AM\']According to this msnbc.com article (http://\"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7593620/\"), the FCC is announcing that analog transmissions of broadcast signals are to end on December 31, 2006--if 85 percent of households have digital sets. Something tells me they won't reach that figure in time. :)
[snapback]83211[/snapback]
[/quote]
All thanks to an act signed way back under the Clinton administration, no?
Backhanded slaps aside; exactly what good does this do; except force consumers to eventually buy a new digital TV, thus increasing the country's GNP?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 09:39 AM\'][quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 11:34 AM\']According to this msnbc.com article (http://\"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7593620/\"), the FCC is announcing that analog transmissions of broadcast signals are to end on December 31, 2006--if 85 percent of households have digital sets. Something tells me they won't reach that figure in time. :)
[snapback]83211[/snapback]
[/quote]
All thanks to an act signed way back under the Clinton administration, no?
Backhanded slaps aside; exactly what good does this do; except force consumers to eventually buy a new digital TV, thus increasing the country's GNP?
[snapback]83212[/snapback]
[/quote]
Mark Cuban has an interesting and fairly compelling argument as to why this is good for a lot of people on his blog (http://\"http://www.blogmaverick.com\").
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 12:19 PM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 09:39 AM\'][quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 11:34 AM\']According to this msnbc.com article (http://\"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7593620/\"), the FCC is announcing that analog transmissions of broadcast signals are to end on December 31, 2006--if 85 percent of households have digital sets. Something tells me they won't reach that figure in time. :)
[snapback]83211[/snapback]
[/quote]
All thanks to an act signed way back under the Clinton administration, no?
Backhanded slaps aside; exactly what good does this do; except force consumers to eventually buy a new digital TV, thus increasing the country's GNP?
[snapback]83212[/snapback]
[/quote]
Mark Cuban has an interesting and fairly compelling argument as to why this is good for a lot of people on his blog (http://\"http://www.blogmaverick.com\").
[snapback]83219[/snapback]
[/quote]
Of course, as he himself states, he has a vested interest in the whole thing, but it is an interesting argument.
-
What is the FCC planning on doing with the frequency occupied by a channel 62? Here in the Catskills, we used to have WTZA on Channel 62, but they switched call letters to WRNN several years back and became a mostly-infomercials station.
Yep...I visited relatives in Albany back in 95, and was surprised at what little non-infomercial programming Ch. 62 was carrying...local news, a primetime movie, the unsuccessful syndie revivals of The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew Mysteries that aired during the 95-96 season, and that was about it.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")