Infectious Greed: Is television really 'shitty and nutty'?

Infectious Greed:: Is television really ‘shitty and nutty’?
Written by Donna Bogatin, Contributor

Are television networks and cable companies really “shitty” and “nutty”?

In Paul Kedrosky’s infinite (but actually short) words of wisdom they are.

Ironically, Kedrosky’s earthy assessments were pronounced just AFTER he went off air from pontificating on one of the very “shitty” and “nutty” properties he not so eloquently disses: NBC Universal’s CNBC.

Kedrosky: Networks and cablecos are shitty at picking hits. Most new programs flop, and that has only gotten worse in recent years as audiences have shrunk and fragmented.

Cable company CNBC apparently was wise enough to “pick” Kedrosky, though!

Interesting that Kedrosky “came up with another reason why the (NBC Universal-News Corp.) service is no real threat to YouTube,” only just after he “went off air” from his CNBC spot.

It would have been fun to see a why NBC Universal is “shitty” at programming debate engaged by a CNBC invited guest!

Kedrosky’s “argument” (aired safely off-air on his blog):

Two media companies now propose to take what they demonstrably can't do offline -- pick hits -- and go online and somehow succeed. They are saying, after all, they'll dictate which clips and programs will be available for viewing.

The Kedrosky bottom line: “That is, of course, nutty.”

How “nutty“?

One central reason why YouTube emerged was that viewers were tired of network/cableco programming choices, and YouTube allowed people to contribute content, as well as reprogram the media their own way. We wanted to microchunk content, grab that idiosyncratically interesting 30-second segment, and share that with friends and like-minded sorts.
If NBC/News demonstrably can't pass muster picking full content, why in the world is it not obviously a failing proposition for them to propose doing that in the even narrower, more eclectic and individualized world of microchunked content?

Power to the We the (YouTube programming) People?

Barely. Kedrosky’s 1) mainstream media is clueless and 2) users are in control, mantra is Web 2.0 politically correct, but weak.

“Networks and cablecos are shitty at picking hits, most new programs flop,” Kedrosky lobs. BUT everything in life is a numbers game.

For example, while Kedrosky may publish every single one of his own blog posts believing them each to be on target, audience reaction (page views) undoubtedly informs otherwise. Kedrosky post A may flop, while Kedrosky post B may be a greatest hit.

Just as Kedrosky can not pre-ordain or pre-package 100% guaranteed winning posts, programmers develop a roster of shows, knowing the audience (and the numbers game) will determine which survive.

While Kedrosky doesn’t actually begrudge NBC Universal and News Corp. for spending their millions to produce professionally created content desired by YouTubers, of course “friends and like-minded sorts” are the ones to be entrusted with deciding what should actually be done with the content created by NBC Universal and News Corp!

Fine, but in a world of “Infectious Greed,” why are NBC Universal and News Corp. deemed greedy for wanting to be compensated for their copyright content that YouTubers need for their favored “micro chunking“?

Editorial standards