|
I think that most of you, from younger generations, see the idea as no big deal, but I think you'll find that older generations will be quite a bit more upset. Honestly, my dad and most of the people in his generation do NOT have Ipods that can connect to their TV. A lot of people in my own generation are not that into their computers to be willing to watch TV on them. (A lot, not all, obviously). There are a great number of people who just aren't that into technology because they didn't grow up with it.
I clearly remember the days when having cable meant you had commercial free television and that was the big appeal of cable. You paid for it to not have commercials. That certainly isn't true anymore. I think it will be sad if free TV goes away. There are people who can't afford cable, high speed internet, computers that have enough resources to stream tv shows, etc. Since print journalism is disappearing, these folks won't even have access to basic news if free TV goes away. Do we want to cut our less tech savvy and indigent people out of the news loop?
The quote from the article about advertising not being enough to fund production brings the question to my mind "Why is it so expensive?" I have to wonder what the biggest costs are in producing a tv show. I would hazard a guess that a large part of it is the salaries of the actors/actresses. Did the actors/actresses on Friends really deserve $1million each per show? Don't they film a show in about a week? $1 million a week? And, because these people make so much money, the rest of us, who hope to make in a lifetime what they make in two weeks will pay more and more to cover their salaries? Yet, we don't want to pay for health care for people who don't have insurance? Our society's values are seriously messed up.
|
Hybrid Mode
