Is Live TV the Answer? To Be Continued...

How can traditional TV survive in the era of DVR, On-Demand, and Netflix?

The answer may lie in TV's roots, as a source of convenient and timely home entertainment. In a story today on Quartz, writer Jason Lynch suggested five ways that TV can "save itself in 2014." The ideas ranged from abandoning dying genres like talent competitions, to developing more "limited series" like last year's The Bible and the upcoming 24: Live Another Day. His solutions, however, that I found the most compelling were based on the foundations of television:

• Live TV: Instead of relying on taped programs that people can easily record and watch later, Lynch suggested that networks need to increase their live programming -- something that was the hallmark of the "Golden Age of Television." He pointed to the recent live production of The Sound of Music with Carrie Underwood that attracted 18.6 million viewers to NBC. (In case you were wondering, the movie is still far better). 

• To Be Continued: Netflix appeals to millions of people, in part, because they are able to view entire seasons in one sitting. Lynch said networks need to adapt this new habit of "binge-viewing" and acquire the rights to air multiple episodes back to back.

For sure, these ideas would help TV appeal to today's viewers. But they are not enough. At the core of TV's decline is the rise of online video. It's not DVR and Netflix that's making TV less appealing; it's the web. It doesn't matter whether you're using a highly publicized platform like Hulu.com or a Bit Torrent site with pirated shows, at the end of the day you're not watching TV.

Unfortunately, the future of TV will be the same as the history of American manufacturing: without government regulation, people will always choose the cheapest way to get what they want. So should the government make the survival of TV a priority? Should TV be saved? I guess you'll have to stay tuned to find out.

"The Newsroom" is to "The Wire" as Hollywood is to Reality

Discussing a story in the newsroom of HBO's The Wire.

A few weeks ago, journalists on CNN's Reliable Sources were discussing whether HBO's The Newsroom reflected the reality of life in a newsroom. The answer was, of course, no: it heightened office drama and competition between journalists to make the show compelling. It also sounded a lot like another show created by Aaron Sorkin: The West Wing. While The West Wing brought the White House to life, it was also preachy and over the top, with characters alternating between witty commentary and in-depth policy analysis with more speed and poise than even the smartest of our nation's presidents.

I can't help but think of a show only a few years earlier on HBO that was by the far one of the best written dramas ever: The Wire. The show depicted Baltimore drug dealers, police officers, drug addicts, politicians, and journalists as real people, struggling to survive in their jobs and their private lives. In the fifth season, the show goes into the newsroom of The Baltimore Sun, and brings together the problems that have plagued print journalism in recent years: from a reporter who makes up news (think Jayson Blair of The New York Times), to an executive editor who cares more about winning a Pulitzer than naming a source. There are even layoffs at the paper, something that has plagued newspapers across the country for the past decade.

Still, the most accurate depictions of life in The Wire's newsroom come from the moments that are most ordinary. There's the scene where the city editor is worried that he might have made a mistake in a story, and calls the copy desk in the middle of the night to double check. Many reporters are guilty of being that neurotic; it's part of a job where accuracy is key and your work is displayed in front of the world every day. And there are the scenes where the city editor is in the newsroom: focused and analytical as he assigns and reads stories, and frustrated and angry as he sees the integrity of the paper begin to crumble. It's not as frenetic and sexy as The Newsroom, but then again, life never really is.   

Improving Sports Coverage in Today's Global and Social World

The Cincinnati Bearcats have brought some of the fun back to sports coverage.

In a post last month, I suggested some questions that might make the dreaded post-game interviews a little more compelling. But there are bigger changes, that in our global world of social media, could take professional sports coverage to the next level. Here are three:

Native Tongue: The face of athletic competition in the U.S. has been changing for a while, with international athletes excelling in sports traditionally dominated by Americans. But instead of embracing the athletes' nationalities, we have asked them to be more like us. Why do pre- and post-game interviews have to be conducted in English? Foreign athletes and coaches can express themselves better in their native languages, and provide a better sense of their cultural identity to fans around the world. Interpreters can quickly translate questions and answers, and even know how to shorten athletes' responses if airtime is running out. Just look at the highly skilled interpreters used during and after boxing matches on HBO and Showtime, and check out this excellent article in The New York Times.  

Inside the Huddle: It's hard for athletes to describe what they were thinking during a sporting event. So why don't we cover more of the conversations they're having with their coaches and teammates in locker rooms, huddles, and meetings at the mound? I know. There's the fear of strategies and plays being given away to the other team; or worse, of the conversations actually being boring. But the reality is the opportunity far outweighs the risks. As the world of social media continues to grow, people are not just sitting on their coaches, yelling at the TV; they're joining fantasy leagues and  tweeting to the world what they think their teams must do to win. Wouldn't it be great if, with thirty seconds left in the game, we could always go into the huddle and listen to the coach explain the play to the team? Or, if during a tennis match, we could hear what the doubles players are saying to each other before each point? We already hear what the corner men tell boxers between each round. Getting that same access in other sports would make the coverage far more engaging.

Have Fun: Sporting events are entertainment. So why are athletes so serious all the time? Understandably, it's how they make a living and they need to be focused to excel. But now more than ever, that is not enough. Athletes need to be more like kids -- having fun, being honest, and not taking themselves too seriously. Whether it's Muhammad Ali, Allen Iverson, or Gael Monfils, it's those that are comfortable being themselves that create the most memorable moments. Instead of training athletes to offer cliched responses in interviews, teams need to encourage them to be more entertaining. It's not that hard; but it is so rare today that those interviews or performances that make the grade tend to go viral. And don't worry: athletes don't need to go as far as the Cincinnati Bearcats to have fun:)