Jeffhs
Super Member
The NBC television network has gone so far downhill since GE acquired it from RCA twenty-three years ago it isn't funny. The programs are worse now than I can ever remember (and I've been watching NBC as long as I can remember), the news programming leaves a lot to be desired from a production standpoint (where on earth did NBC ever find Brian Williams and his staff of field reporters?), and NBC's websites for their O&Os (owned and operated television stations) now look like something the cat dragged in. I'm not kidding about the last. The graphics, the wording of the reports (why do they and everyone else in the media have to write in abbreviations no one outside the business understands, in addition to using a lot of slang and so on that doesn't belong in formal writing?) and other things I won't go into here are terrible.
Today's NBC television network is nothing like the NBC I used to watch when I was growing up. NBC says its new website designs for its O&O's, not to mention the manner in which the news items on the site are written and presented, are "edgy" (whatever that means) as all get out; well, I think the network has lost sight of their real mission. NBC's news organization has only one job: to report the day's news in a professional manner. It seems to me that the network's idea of "professionalism" is so far off base it isn't funny; as I said above, the use of popular street slang on the websites and even in the national news program, among other things, is about as unprofessional as one can get without being outright ridiculous.
NBC-TV has sunk as low as a national TV network can sink, IMHO. I'm amazed they are still around. I realize this is the 21st century and NBC, as well as the other two commercial networks (I am purposely ignoring The CW and MyTV because they are not major television networks) have sunk to a level of un-professionalism that, again IMHO, gives network television a bad name; the whole thing, however, still bothers me mightily. If it were not for NBC Nightly News' "Making a Difference" segment, which is almost always the last item on the newscast and is the only so-called "good news" on this network news program (ABC, CBS and PBS do not have such a segment on their national newscasts), I would have given up on NBC for news long ago.
The only television network (and it really isn't a network; they call their affiliates "member stations") that's worth watching these days, again IMHO, is PBS, but even they aren't the same network they once were. The local affiliate of PBS in Cleveland (and another PBS channel from out of the area I get on my cable) is nothing but children's programming in the daytime (whatever happened to the educational programs they used to have for northeastern Ohio's schools weekdays from eight a. m. until around three p. m.?).
The nighttime and some weekend programming on PBS is better. The nature shows, in particular, are well done--I only wish the National Geographic programs were on the local PBS station a bit later than they are, but I guess I can tape them on my VCR and watch them at my convenience anyway; however, some of the local programming still leaves a lot to be desired. For example, a Sunday afternoon local public-affairs program on the Cleveland PBS station, "The State of Ohio", while very informative, has a moderator whose voice and manner of speaking I do not care for; however, I still watch the program because I am interested in what is going on in Ohio, in the area in which I live and beyond. The people she interviews are not, for the most part, well versed in public speaking either. I have never in my life heard so much stuttering and stammering (not to mention, again, the excessive use of street slang on the program, which is unbecoming, IMHO, of professional adult employees of the media) on a television program. These people are on a TV program, a political interview program, that is seen over PBS affiliates all across Ohio, for crying out loud; their slipshod manner of speaking, again IMHO, belies whatever expertise and/or knowledge they may have in and of the issues they discuss.
Good grief. I sometimes (most of the time) wonder if this situation is ever going to change, or are we doomed to years or decades of slipshod production techniques, moderators and guests on interview shows who cannot speak worth a darn and/or have voices or faces that clearly do not belong on television, and ZZZ-rated programming on the nation's television networks? Recent advances in TV technology have brought us much better pictures and sound through digital broadcasting than we could have ever imagined with analog, but the programming over those airwaves leaves a lot, and I mean a heck of a lot, to be desired.
Please don't get me started on the TV stations' practice of referring to themselves only by their call letters; this is a pet peeve of mine. This practice means nothing to the average viewer (tell me honestly, who actually says "I'll watch such-and-such program on W..." instead of saying the channel number, as they used to before cable and the so-called "five hundred channel universe"?) unless he or she knows on what channel on his or her TV to find the station. Those little logos at the corner of the TV screen that show the station's callsigns and/or networks help, I guess, but one still needs to know what dial number the station is on, as it is different on every cable system in the country. However, I wonder about the fancy graphics some stations use for these logos. For example, the PBS station in Cleveland, for reasons that elude the devil out of me (I may never know why they do it), actually highlights on its logo, in blue, the first letter (W) of the station's call sign. The PBS logo is there, but it is so small one could miss it.
I don't know what the station's callsign (WVIZ) actually stands for, if anything. However, that's another matter. I only bring that up because many PBS stations' call letters do stand for a slogan, such as Chicago's WTTW (Window To The World), et al. How anyone could make a slogan out of the letters WVIZ, however, is beyond me; personally, I think it would be downright impossible. The only thing I can think of is that the station's call letters might stand for some obscure Latin expression, but even that is only a guess. Thank goodness the stations' logos are where they are on the nation's TV screens; they are easily ignored, and I'm sure many if not most viewers, myself included, often forget they are even there. NBC's peacock logo, for example, is almost transparent and very small, so it is all too easy to miss. CBS's and ABC's logos are also transparent, but they are larger than the peacock so they are much easier to notice; however, since they are at the lower right corner of the TV screen most of the time, I'm sure many viewers ignore them, since most of the time their attention is focused on the center of the screen.
Some listings on cable-TV systems' websites are downright wrong, with the errors going undetected, not to mention uncorrected, for months until someone points them out. For example, I called Time-Warner Cable a few weeks ago after noticing an error on their website's TV listings for their Lake County, Ohio cable system which has been rebuilt for the digital age, as have all Time-Warner systems. The error was a misplacement of the Cleveland PBS channel on the website, which had the station listed on channel 2; in actuality it is on channel 10 in this area, with channel 2 being a home-shopping channel from out of town. I was told the matter would be resolved; I took them at their word, although I haven't yet looked at the site to see if the error has been corrected.
I realize that things change all the time, but sheeeeesh--the dumbing down of the nation's TV networks in the 21st century takes the ever-lovin' cake. Broadcasting the programming in high definition and 5.1-channel stereo sound (whatever the latter means) doesn't help matters much. I remember seeing a cartoon in an old (late 1960s) issue of Electronics Illustrated magazine, in which a young child was standing in a playpen and staring at a wide-screen (I mean wide--the thing must have been 50 inches diagonal or more) wall-mounted TV. (Talk about being ahead of the times!) On the screen was a test pattern from a local TV station, and the kid was screaming his head off in horror. The cartoon was presented on the magazine's "letters to the editor" page, and the letter itself ended with the sentence, "Heck, even a (television) station (test) pattern will frighten our children!" The point was that the size of the screen only intensifies the effect of a program on viewers, especially children or babies, often scaring the latter out of their wits; it doesn't necessarily make the programming any better.
However, back to the issue of technology and its effect (or the lack of it) on today's poor excuses for television programming: High-definition video, home-theater stereo surround sound, and other innovations in television technology are inescapable products of the 21st century, but they haven't and do not improve, IMHO, the actual quality of what we see on our TV screens. The networks and their local affiliates are no longer operated solely for the entertainment of their viewers; rather, they are big-money businesses whose only interest is the bottom line. This is also why we are seeing those seemingly endless strings of commercials on network TV. There are far too many commercials in between segments of programs, and some of those commercials are downright annoying. One such commercial (which airs on NBC during the nightly news and may be on the other two networks as well), for the prescription medicine Celebrex, for example, I swear is two minutes long! How can advertisers expect viewers to sit through a long harangue like that?
I don't think they can, realistically speaking. Most people, myself included, mute the sound on their TVs or change channels when commercials are on, and unmute the audio when the program resumes; this has been going on for generations, as long as there have been remote controls for TVs. Before I got my first remote-control TV in 1989, I used to put my hands over my ears when the commercials were on; a very crude substitute for a mute button, I know, but it worked for me.
Hollywood and the producers of network television programming, however, are already working on a system that would prevent viewers from skipping commercials on shows recorded using DVRs; I think broadcast and cable TV programming may be next. I wouldn't be surprised if Congress, some day in the not too distant future, enacts a law that would require TV stations to carry a signal which would electronically jam viewers' remotes during commercial breaks, rendering the mute button inoperable during that period of time.
The next step may be to ban mute buttons from TV remotes altogether. The advertisers must protect their bottom line, and they can't do that if their commercials are not heard or even seen. Something must be done to make certain these commercials are not ignored, or else the networks and their affiliates will suffer in a very major way. Viewers may not (almost certainly will not) like it if such a system is eventually put into place, but again, the networks and local affiliates need desperately for their commercials to be heard and seen if they are to survive, especially in this down economy.
Will the foregoing ever actually happen, or is it just a pipe dream? I honestly don't know. I think, however, U.S. and Canadian TV viewers will continue to mute their TV sound during commercials as they always have, and Congress (or any other government entity) will be powerless to stop them.
Now that I think of it, the idea of electronically jamming the mute function on TV remotes by the use of signals transmitted from local TV stations may be and probably is outlandish, and the concept itself seems almost impossible. People, by and large, don't like hearing or seeing TV commercials; this is a fact, and they will do anything in their power to ignore them (in this case pressing the mute button on the remote). I know someone, however, who almost never uses the mute button on her remote control; she can actually ignore TV commercials, the news, and can even talk on the telephone (!) with the sound on. (Often, when I talk to this lady on the phone [she is my late father's widow], I can very plainly hear her television in the background--not loud enough to be obtrusive, but noticeable nevertheless.) She is an exception to the rule, though; as I said, most of us push the mute button almost out of force of habit when the commercials begin, and do not unmute the sound until the program resumes. This has been, as I said, going on in North American living rooms as long as there have been remote controls, so Hollywood, the networks, and the local affiliates that bring the networks' programming to the American people had better get used to it, if they aren't accustomed to it already.
Today's NBC television network is nothing like the NBC I used to watch when I was growing up. NBC says its new website designs for its O&O's, not to mention the manner in which the news items on the site are written and presented, are "edgy" (whatever that means) as all get out; well, I think the network has lost sight of their real mission. NBC's news organization has only one job: to report the day's news in a professional manner. It seems to me that the network's idea of "professionalism" is so far off base it isn't funny; as I said above, the use of popular street slang on the websites and even in the national news program, among other things, is about as unprofessional as one can get without being outright ridiculous.
NBC-TV has sunk as low as a national TV network can sink, IMHO. I'm amazed they are still around. I realize this is the 21st century and NBC, as well as the other two commercial networks (I am purposely ignoring The CW and MyTV because they are not major television networks) have sunk to a level of un-professionalism that, again IMHO, gives network television a bad name; the whole thing, however, still bothers me mightily. If it were not for NBC Nightly News' "Making a Difference" segment, which is almost always the last item on the newscast and is the only so-called "good news" on this network news program (ABC, CBS and PBS do not have such a segment on their national newscasts), I would have given up on NBC for news long ago.
The only television network (and it really isn't a network; they call their affiliates "member stations") that's worth watching these days, again IMHO, is PBS, but even they aren't the same network they once were. The local affiliate of PBS in Cleveland (and another PBS channel from out of the area I get on my cable) is nothing but children's programming in the daytime (whatever happened to the educational programs they used to have for northeastern Ohio's schools weekdays from eight a. m. until around three p. m.?).
The nighttime and some weekend programming on PBS is better. The nature shows, in particular, are well done--I only wish the National Geographic programs were on the local PBS station a bit later than they are, but I guess I can tape them on my VCR and watch them at my convenience anyway; however, some of the local programming still leaves a lot to be desired. For example, a Sunday afternoon local public-affairs program on the Cleveland PBS station, "The State of Ohio", while very informative, has a moderator whose voice and manner of speaking I do not care for; however, I still watch the program because I am interested in what is going on in Ohio, in the area in which I live and beyond. The people she interviews are not, for the most part, well versed in public speaking either. I have never in my life heard so much stuttering and stammering (not to mention, again, the excessive use of street slang on the program, which is unbecoming, IMHO, of professional adult employees of the media) on a television program. These people are on a TV program, a political interview program, that is seen over PBS affiliates all across Ohio, for crying out loud; their slipshod manner of speaking, again IMHO, belies whatever expertise and/or knowledge they may have in and of the issues they discuss.
Good grief. I sometimes (most of the time) wonder if this situation is ever going to change, or are we doomed to years or decades of slipshod production techniques, moderators and guests on interview shows who cannot speak worth a darn and/or have voices or faces that clearly do not belong on television, and ZZZ-rated programming on the nation's television networks? Recent advances in TV technology have brought us much better pictures and sound through digital broadcasting than we could have ever imagined with analog, but the programming over those airwaves leaves a lot, and I mean a heck of a lot, to be desired.
Please don't get me started on the TV stations' practice of referring to themselves only by their call letters; this is a pet peeve of mine. This practice means nothing to the average viewer (tell me honestly, who actually says "I'll watch such-and-such program on W..." instead of saying the channel number, as they used to before cable and the so-called "five hundred channel universe"?) unless he or she knows on what channel on his or her TV to find the station. Those little logos at the corner of the TV screen that show the station's callsigns and/or networks help, I guess, but one still needs to know what dial number the station is on, as it is different on every cable system in the country. However, I wonder about the fancy graphics some stations use for these logos. For example, the PBS station in Cleveland, for reasons that elude the devil out of me (I may never know why they do it), actually highlights on its logo, in blue, the first letter (W) of the station's call sign. The PBS logo is there, but it is so small one could miss it.
I don't know what the station's callsign (WVIZ) actually stands for, if anything. However, that's another matter. I only bring that up because many PBS stations' call letters do stand for a slogan, such as Chicago's WTTW (Window To The World), et al. How anyone could make a slogan out of the letters WVIZ, however, is beyond me; personally, I think it would be downright impossible. The only thing I can think of is that the station's call letters might stand for some obscure Latin expression, but even that is only a guess. Thank goodness the stations' logos are where they are on the nation's TV screens; they are easily ignored, and I'm sure many if not most viewers, myself included, often forget they are even there. NBC's peacock logo, for example, is almost transparent and very small, so it is all too easy to miss. CBS's and ABC's logos are also transparent, but they are larger than the peacock so they are much easier to notice; however, since they are at the lower right corner of the TV screen most of the time, I'm sure many viewers ignore them, since most of the time their attention is focused on the center of the screen.
Some listings on cable-TV systems' websites are downright wrong, with the errors going undetected, not to mention uncorrected, for months until someone points them out. For example, I called Time-Warner Cable a few weeks ago after noticing an error on their website's TV listings for their Lake County, Ohio cable system which has been rebuilt for the digital age, as have all Time-Warner systems. The error was a misplacement of the Cleveland PBS channel on the website, which had the station listed on channel 2; in actuality it is on channel 10 in this area, with channel 2 being a home-shopping channel from out of town. I was told the matter would be resolved; I took them at their word, although I haven't yet looked at the site to see if the error has been corrected.
I realize that things change all the time, but sheeeeesh--the dumbing down of the nation's TV networks in the 21st century takes the ever-lovin' cake. Broadcasting the programming in high definition and 5.1-channel stereo sound (whatever the latter means) doesn't help matters much. I remember seeing a cartoon in an old (late 1960s) issue of Electronics Illustrated magazine, in which a young child was standing in a playpen and staring at a wide-screen (I mean wide--the thing must have been 50 inches diagonal or more) wall-mounted TV. (Talk about being ahead of the times!) On the screen was a test pattern from a local TV station, and the kid was screaming his head off in horror. The cartoon was presented on the magazine's "letters to the editor" page, and the letter itself ended with the sentence, "Heck, even a (television) station (test) pattern will frighten our children!" The point was that the size of the screen only intensifies the effect of a program on viewers, especially children or babies, often scaring the latter out of their wits; it doesn't necessarily make the programming any better.
However, back to the issue of technology and its effect (or the lack of it) on today's poor excuses for television programming: High-definition video, home-theater stereo surround sound, and other innovations in television technology are inescapable products of the 21st century, but they haven't and do not improve, IMHO, the actual quality of what we see on our TV screens. The networks and their local affiliates are no longer operated solely for the entertainment of their viewers; rather, they are big-money businesses whose only interest is the bottom line. This is also why we are seeing those seemingly endless strings of commercials on network TV. There are far too many commercials in between segments of programs, and some of those commercials are downright annoying. One such commercial (which airs on NBC during the nightly news and may be on the other two networks as well), for the prescription medicine Celebrex, for example, I swear is two minutes long! How can advertisers expect viewers to sit through a long harangue like that?
I don't think they can, realistically speaking. Most people, myself included, mute the sound on their TVs or change channels when commercials are on, and unmute the audio when the program resumes; this has been going on for generations, as long as there have been remote controls for TVs. Before I got my first remote-control TV in 1989, I used to put my hands over my ears when the commercials were on; a very crude substitute for a mute button, I know, but it worked for me.
Hollywood and the producers of network television programming, however, are already working on a system that would prevent viewers from skipping commercials on shows recorded using DVRs; I think broadcast and cable TV programming may be next. I wouldn't be surprised if Congress, some day in the not too distant future, enacts a law that would require TV stations to carry a signal which would electronically jam viewers' remotes during commercial breaks, rendering the mute button inoperable during that period of time.
The next step may be to ban mute buttons from TV remotes altogether. The advertisers must protect their bottom line, and they can't do that if their commercials are not heard or even seen. Something must be done to make certain these commercials are not ignored, or else the networks and their affiliates will suffer in a very major way. Viewers may not (almost certainly will not) like it if such a system is eventually put into place, but again, the networks and local affiliates need desperately for their commercials to be heard and seen if they are to survive, especially in this down economy.
Will the foregoing ever actually happen, or is it just a pipe dream? I honestly don't know. I think, however, U.S. and Canadian TV viewers will continue to mute their TV sound during commercials as they always have, and Congress (or any other government entity) will be powerless to stop them.
Now that I think of it, the idea of electronically jamming the mute function on TV remotes by the use of signals transmitted from local TV stations may be and probably is outlandish, and the concept itself seems almost impossible. People, by and large, don't like hearing or seeing TV commercials; this is a fact, and they will do anything in their power to ignore them (in this case pressing the mute button on the remote). I know someone, however, who almost never uses the mute button on her remote control; she can actually ignore TV commercials, the news, and can even talk on the telephone (!) with the sound on. (Often, when I talk to this lady on the phone [she is my late father's widow], I can very plainly hear her television in the background--not loud enough to be obtrusive, but noticeable nevertheless.) She is an exception to the rule, though; as I said, most of us push the mute button almost out of force of habit when the commercials begin, and do not unmute the sound until the program resumes. This has been, as I said, going on in North American living rooms as long as there have been remote controls, so Hollywood, the networks, and the local affiliates that bring the networks' programming to the American people had better get used to it, if they aren't accustomed to it already.
Last edited:
![JimJ[VT]](/forums/data/avatars/m/20/20031.jpg?1443894878){kind=avatar}
the NBC affiliate is and always has been WIS, also meaningless. Our PBS affiliate is WRLK is the first program dirrecto’s initials. Unless you are over 70 yoa, you would not know that, or care. It started out as the states educational tv network in 1958, in a local High school. 
