Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Goodbye to Local News?
This is from a few weeks ago by the Peoria Journal Star... but it still indicates technology, people, and management on a local level. Will our local stations turn into a trailer with an antenna to hub-out all network news? What does this technology aspect mean for each aspect of media- advertising, engineering, newsroom, production, etc?
Monday, October 20, 2008
Tough Times Ahead for Many TV Stations
Hey everyone, this is Brad. It's my week for lead blogging, and I found this article about the financial crisis and its effect on TV stations. It's an interview with Larry Patrick, managing partner of Patrick Communications. He's saying that the down economy might make it hard for the smaller stations to stay afloat. He predicts more bankruptcies and foreclosures to come. I think it's interesting that he doesn't think broadcasting should be publicly traded. His argument is a good one, what good does it do to be a publicly traded broadcast company right now? Profits and ratings are both down, and there's no real prediction of a turnaround until around 2010.
http://tvnewsday.com/articles/2008/10/07/daily.1/
Tough Talk About Even Tougher Times
TVNEWSDAY, Oct 7 2008, 12:24 AM ET
Few people have a better perspective on the broadcasting industry and what's ailing it these days than Larry Patrick.
Story continues after the ad
Revised Roche & Company Business & Finance News Display
As managing partner of Patrick Communications, a leading station broker and appraisal firm, he regularly examines stations' operations and their books as he helps them refinance, buy or sell. And he stays well grounded in the business through the ownership of a string of small-market radio stations.
Unfortunately, Patrick sees dark days ahead for broadcasting.
In this interview with TVNewsday Editor Harry A. Jessell, Patrick says the industry is just beginning to feel the full impact of an economic "tsunami" generated by the tight credit markets and the sharp advertising slowdown.
He says to expect more foreclosures and bankruptcies, greater pressure to cut costs, sinking station prices and a dearth of station deals as owners await better times, which may not come until 2010.
The news is not all bad. Broadcasters with heaps of cash may be able to pick up stations at bargain prices from owners who have to sell as the banks press in.
What the industry really needs is a roll-up of some of the mid-size publicly traded station groups, he says. The regulatory and financial hurdles may not be as great as the difficulty of settling on which of the CEOs would run the surviving company.
An edited transcript:
What effect is the subprime lending meltdown and credit crunch having on TV broadcasting?
The whole economic meltdown is a very tough body blow for broadcast lending overall. If you are a broadcaster who paid a high price for your assets and you're at a point where you desperately need to refinance, at the moment at least, those refinancing options are extremely limited.
Banks are either not loaning or they're loaning at much lower multiples than they were just a year or two ago. If you're a seller, the difficulty is that many of the buyers who legitimately would have had a strong interest in your station or stations can't swing the deals these days.
Let's say you want 12 times [cash flow] for your station. In the past, a buyer might say that's OK because I can borrow 7 or 7 ½ times from a bank and do the rest with equity. But now the bank is saying: "Look, if we do it at all, we will only do it 5 times." So, suddenly, you have to put in so much more equity and the deal may not make sense anymore.
Look at it from the seller's side. When the multiples come down on the lending side, it translates into lower multiples for the pricing. So, instead of 12 times today, maybe suddenly you can only get 10 times. If you're in desperate trouble, you take it and run. If you can hang on, you just don't sell. You sit there for a while.
Are there some station groups in trouble because they need to refinance and can't?
That's correct.
How widespread is that problem?
I can think of a half-dozen, at least, who are in that situation where they have a lot of leverage and they're trying to figure out how they can refinance. That's very difficult.
Are we going to see some more bankruptcies like Pappas?
I think you probably will. We've been asked to appraise stations with the idea of selling and the people that are calling are not the broadcasters. They're the banks that are saying: "We're going to move towards foreclosure." That's a very bad thing for the industry when that happens.
On the other hand, where there are losers there are always winners. The station that is taken over by a bank may come back out on the market at a dramatically lower price.
If you're a private company and you have dry powder, you have cash in the bank and you have a good relationship with your lenders and you are not particularly highly leveraged, this may be one of the great shopping times.
You're going to see a handful of stations, maybe more than a handful, that will come on the market that you would have passed by in 13 or 14 [multiples] times, but now they're asking 10 or 11 times. Maybe, you can get yourself a little bit of a bargain.
The trading multiples on all stations are probably drifting down slightly. I was in Texas last week at the request of a bank visiting a station. It's a very nice station and it's a profitable station. It's sitting there doing several million dollars in cash flow and there's nothing wrong with the station.
The problem is that the company borrowed a lot of money to do improvements, to buy out some shareholders and do a number of other things. Then, the bank itself got in trouble. It wound up with a lot of bad loans and was liquidated and sold to another bank.
The new bank walks in and says: "Hang on here, wait a minute, you guys are in violation of our loan documents with us. You're not paying us enough and, to be honest, we'd just as soon sell the station as anything." So that's a bad thing for the owner/operator right now.
But, on the other hand, somebody that looks at that station and looks at that market will say there's nothing wrong with either. That's still a $25 million or $30 million TV station in a nice little town. I wouldn't mind buying that. That would be a very nice little investment.
So, basically, the credit crunch is putting some companies under severe financial pressure, preventing others from selling and creating opportunities for companies with plenty of cash.
Yes. But that's only half the story. The other half is the dramatic slowing in the ad business in the core categories. When you see companies like Ford Motor being off 35 percent [in their ad spending] and others off 25 percent, it affects revenue and cash flow and it may put some companies that have had good relationships with their banks in jeopardy of breaching their covenants. They're not generating quite enough money as they're supposed to.
They still may be able to make your payments, but things are much, much tighter than they used to be. There'll be pressure all the way down the line. There'll be pressure to reduce staff size, there'll be pressure not to re-sign talent at big prices, there'll be pressure not to take gambles.
If you can't get as much revenue, you're not going to want to pay as much for syndicated programming and you are going to fight the networks every step of the way on any sort of reverse compensation.
It's also unfortunate that this is all happening at a time when broadcasters should be looking to exploit their digital spectrum by multicasting and offering mobile services. Broadcasters are suddenly going to say "there're many opportunities out here, but the core business is being hurt by the banking and the advertising slowdown and the corporation just told me that we've got to tighten our belts."
Right at the time of the DTV transition when you're going to suddenly have so much more inventory and more spectrum to do more creative and innovative things, you may find that your hands are tied.
We are in a tsunami of economic problems caused not by broadcasters, but by subprime lending and other things that have really shaken the whole foundation of the American financial system.
What about the publicly traded TV stocks? They are way off their highs and continuing to head south.
Broadcasting is out of favor in the stock market. The analysts and investors do not see it as a growth market. It still produces huge, huge cash flows, but that's not really what they're looking for. So the result is you see some of these companies that used to sell for $20, $30 or $40 at $5 or less. It's got some of the families and some of the controlling shareholders scratching their heads and asking: "How do I get out of this?" It's very tough.
There is no way out right now, is there?
Not now. The reality is broadcasting should not be publicly traded. There's almost no good reason to be a public company at this point. That changes over time, but right now you're better off if you're private.
Why is that?
Because public companies are under scrutiny constantly, quarter after quarter. If the analysts and investors don't see any growth, you're going to get hammered. Why take that?
Why not just go private, stop the expense of being a publicly traded company and so forth. The difficulty is, in order to go private, you need a tremendous amount of cash and you can't get it now. I mean there's nowhere to borrow it and there're no equity people who believe enough in the future of broadcasting to gamble that much money.
Let me give you one example. I have to protect the name of it, but the operator of one of these pretty big public companies whose shares are down to $3 or $4 told me that his problem is that his original investors, the big institutional investors, are in at about $18 to $20 a share and so he can't sell when the stock price is so low. That just doesn't work. But they'd like to get out. I don't know how you get out in that case. I mean one theory is that you start liquidating assets. You just start selling stations.
Because the private market value of stations is higher than the public market value.
Yes, but that was more true six months or a year ago. Today, after this last little meltdown, private market value is still higher than public, but private value is down two or three clicks from where it was. So, there're a couple of groups out there that could have sold their stations six months ago and probably gotten 13 or 14 times because they were very excellent stations with everything going in the right direction. Today, the multiple is 10 or 10 ½.
It sounds as if your advice would be to sit and wait for the credit to loosen up and the revenue to start flowing again before trying to sell.
Yes. Hang in, if you can. Hang in and do the right things. Be very careful about what you're spending and get out there and redouble your efforts to find new ad categories.
I was at the NAB Small Market Television Exchange in Phoenix where there was a lot of focus on health care. That makes sense. You've got an aging population that is going to increasingly need more and more complicated health care delivery.
Every TV station in the country ought to have at least one sales person specializing in health care so you can get more ads not just for Levitra and everything else at the national level, but for your local hospital and your local dental clinic and your local oncology clinic and the pain relief center and the wound care center and all those other things you hear about.
What about Washington? Does broadcasting need some kind of regulatory bailout by the FCC?
Broadcasters always look at Washington and say "use some business common sense here." Some of the paperwork requirements that the commission wants to add on these days seem tremendously burdensome. The FCC is trying to catch the few bad folks in this business, but it ends up punishing that great majority of stations that are in fact doing a very good job in their local communities.
I keep hearing these words: localism, localism. Hey, it is good business to be very local. It is the best business to be focused on your community. You don't need a government with a stick in its hand banging you over the head to do that. If you don't serve the local community, if you don't focus on local issues, if you don't have a strong news operation and so forth, you slowly steadily sink and eventually get out of this business.
What really needs to happen in my view is the roll-up a number of these companies. There are a dozen or more broadcasters out there that are all being battered by the economy and are being battered by Wall Street. The reality is, it would be great to put three or four of these companies together.
I know that goes against the common wisdom in Washington that consolidation is a bad thing, but being big doesn't mean you can't do great broadcasting. NBC is a huge company. CBS is a huge company. They do some really great broadcasting. They have the size to invest in the programming.
Look at some of these companies that are struggling — you know, the Granites, the Youngs — and the companies that are trying to sell — LIN, CCA Nexstar, any number of these companies. They would be better off if you put together a company that suddenly had $600 million to $1 billion worth of revenues and cash flow that's up in the $200 million-$300 million range. You'd have a big enough company that Wall Street would start paying attention.
There are all sorts of pressures against that, obviously. Syndicators don't necessarily like giant companies because there's market power on the side of the broadcasters, and the FCC and Congress are inherently suspicious of bigness, but from a pure financial analysis, that's the way out of the woods.
There is also the problem of who gets to run that show. That's very, very tough.
You mean which company is the surviving company?
Yes. The regulations and financing are difficult, but, in my view, it's never the thing that really stops these deals. What stops these deals is figuring out who winds up running the tribe.
Some of these guys are at the right age where it's like: "Fine, give me enough money and I'll go to the beach," but others say no. They want to stay in and be the boss. But that's always been a problem in any business when you try to merge somewhat equal companies.
Who's the best bet for broadcasters, Obama or McCain?
I don't think either candidate has shown themselves to be a huge friend of broadcasting. Hopefully, whoever is elected will pay attention to this industry and we'll develop a relationship with him. I think we just have to see. I mean it's hard to categorize people. Many people see Bill Clinton as a liberal Democrat, yet the biggest rewrite of telecom law occurred under him. We've had eight years of George Bush and I don't know that we've had a lot of deregulation in the broadcasting industry during his administration. We have, in fact, taken a step or two backwards in terms of where the regulation emphasis has been from the current FCC.
Do you think we are going to see some sort of recovery next year? Or, do you think it's going to stretch into 2010?
I think it's going to stretch. Everybody I talk to in New York says, hey, we're not going to see a real recovery across the country until 2010. In the meantime, what happens is companies blow up, investment firms blow up, people's careers are destroyed and people get blown out. It's just a very, very ugly time.
That's a pretty grim note to end on.
Well, I'm sorry, but that's sort of the way I see the world.
http://tvnewsday.com/articles/2008/10/07/daily.1/
Tough Talk About Even Tougher Times
TVNEWSDAY, Oct 7 2008, 12:24 AM ET
Few people have a better perspective on the broadcasting industry and what's ailing it these days than Larry Patrick.
Story continues after the ad
Revised Roche & Company Business & Finance News Display
As managing partner of Patrick Communications, a leading station broker and appraisal firm, he regularly examines stations' operations and their books as he helps them refinance, buy or sell. And he stays well grounded in the business through the ownership of a string of small-market radio stations.
Unfortunately, Patrick sees dark days ahead for broadcasting.
In this interview with TVNewsday Editor Harry A. Jessell, Patrick says the industry is just beginning to feel the full impact of an economic "tsunami" generated by the tight credit markets and the sharp advertising slowdown.
He says to expect more foreclosures and bankruptcies, greater pressure to cut costs, sinking station prices and a dearth of station deals as owners await better times, which may not come until 2010.
The news is not all bad. Broadcasters with heaps of cash may be able to pick up stations at bargain prices from owners who have to sell as the banks press in.
What the industry really needs is a roll-up of some of the mid-size publicly traded station groups, he says. The regulatory and financial hurdles may not be as great as the difficulty of settling on which of the CEOs would run the surviving company.
An edited transcript:
What effect is the subprime lending meltdown and credit crunch having on TV broadcasting?
The whole economic meltdown is a very tough body blow for broadcast lending overall. If you are a broadcaster who paid a high price for your assets and you're at a point where you desperately need to refinance, at the moment at least, those refinancing options are extremely limited.
Banks are either not loaning or they're loaning at much lower multiples than they were just a year or two ago. If you're a seller, the difficulty is that many of the buyers who legitimately would have had a strong interest in your station or stations can't swing the deals these days.
Let's say you want 12 times [cash flow] for your station. In the past, a buyer might say that's OK because I can borrow 7 or 7 ½ times from a bank and do the rest with equity. But now the bank is saying: "Look, if we do it at all, we will only do it 5 times." So, suddenly, you have to put in so much more equity and the deal may not make sense anymore.
Look at it from the seller's side. When the multiples come down on the lending side, it translates into lower multiples for the pricing. So, instead of 12 times today, maybe suddenly you can only get 10 times. If you're in desperate trouble, you take it and run. If you can hang on, you just don't sell. You sit there for a while.
Are there some station groups in trouble because they need to refinance and can't?
That's correct.
How widespread is that problem?
I can think of a half-dozen, at least, who are in that situation where they have a lot of leverage and they're trying to figure out how they can refinance. That's very difficult.
Are we going to see some more bankruptcies like Pappas?
I think you probably will. We've been asked to appraise stations with the idea of selling and the people that are calling are not the broadcasters. They're the banks that are saying: "We're going to move towards foreclosure." That's a very bad thing for the industry when that happens.
On the other hand, where there are losers there are always winners. The station that is taken over by a bank may come back out on the market at a dramatically lower price.
If you're a private company and you have dry powder, you have cash in the bank and you have a good relationship with your lenders and you are not particularly highly leveraged, this may be one of the great shopping times.
You're going to see a handful of stations, maybe more than a handful, that will come on the market that you would have passed by in 13 or 14 [multiples] times, but now they're asking 10 or 11 times. Maybe, you can get yourself a little bit of a bargain.
The trading multiples on all stations are probably drifting down slightly. I was in Texas last week at the request of a bank visiting a station. It's a very nice station and it's a profitable station. It's sitting there doing several million dollars in cash flow and there's nothing wrong with the station.
The problem is that the company borrowed a lot of money to do improvements, to buy out some shareholders and do a number of other things. Then, the bank itself got in trouble. It wound up with a lot of bad loans and was liquidated and sold to another bank.
The new bank walks in and says: "Hang on here, wait a minute, you guys are in violation of our loan documents with us. You're not paying us enough and, to be honest, we'd just as soon sell the station as anything." So that's a bad thing for the owner/operator right now.
But, on the other hand, somebody that looks at that station and looks at that market will say there's nothing wrong with either. That's still a $25 million or $30 million TV station in a nice little town. I wouldn't mind buying that. That would be a very nice little investment.
So, basically, the credit crunch is putting some companies under severe financial pressure, preventing others from selling and creating opportunities for companies with plenty of cash.
Yes. But that's only half the story. The other half is the dramatic slowing in the ad business in the core categories. When you see companies like Ford Motor being off 35 percent [in their ad spending] and others off 25 percent, it affects revenue and cash flow and it may put some companies that have had good relationships with their banks in jeopardy of breaching their covenants. They're not generating quite enough money as they're supposed to.
They still may be able to make your payments, but things are much, much tighter than they used to be. There'll be pressure all the way down the line. There'll be pressure to reduce staff size, there'll be pressure not to re-sign talent at big prices, there'll be pressure not to take gambles.
If you can't get as much revenue, you're not going to want to pay as much for syndicated programming and you are going to fight the networks every step of the way on any sort of reverse compensation.
It's also unfortunate that this is all happening at a time when broadcasters should be looking to exploit their digital spectrum by multicasting and offering mobile services. Broadcasters are suddenly going to say "there're many opportunities out here, but the core business is being hurt by the banking and the advertising slowdown and the corporation just told me that we've got to tighten our belts."
Right at the time of the DTV transition when you're going to suddenly have so much more inventory and more spectrum to do more creative and innovative things, you may find that your hands are tied.
We are in a tsunami of economic problems caused not by broadcasters, but by subprime lending and other things that have really shaken the whole foundation of the American financial system.
What about the publicly traded TV stocks? They are way off their highs and continuing to head south.
Broadcasting is out of favor in the stock market. The analysts and investors do not see it as a growth market. It still produces huge, huge cash flows, but that's not really what they're looking for. So the result is you see some of these companies that used to sell for $20, $30 or $40 at $5 or less. It's got some of the families and some of the controlling shareholders scratching their heads and asking: "How do I get out of this?" It's very tough.
There is no way out right now, is there?
Not now. The reality is broadcasting should not be publicly traded. There's almost no good reason to be a public company at this point. That changes over time, but right now you're better off if you're private.
Why is that?
Because public companies are under scrutiny constantly, quarter after quarter. If the analysts and investors don't see any growth, you're going to get hammered. Why take that?
Why not just go private, stop the expense of being a publicly traded company and so forth. The difficulty is, in order to go private, you need a tremendous amount of cash and you can't get it now. I mean there's nowhere to borrow it and there're no equity people who believe enough in the future of broadcasting to gamble that much money.
Let me give you one example. I have to protect the name of it, but the operator of one of these pretty big public companies whose shares are down to $3 or $4 told me that his problem is that his original investors, the big institutional investors, are in at about $18 to $20 a share and so he can't sell when the stock price is so low. That just doesn't work. But they'd like to get out. I don't know how you get out in that case. I mean one theory is that you start liquidating assets. You just start selling stations.
Because the private market value of stations is higher than the public market value.
Yes, but that was more true six months or a year ago. Today, after this last little meltdown, private market value is still higher than public, but private value is down two or three clicks from where it was. So, there're a couple of groups out there that could have sold their stations six months ago and probably gotten 13 or 14 times because they were very excellent stations with everything going in the right direction. Today, the multiple is 10 or 10 ½.
It sounds as if your advice would be to sit and wait for the credit to loosen up and the revenue to start flowing again before trying to sell.
Yes. Hang in, if you can. Hang in and do the right things. Be very careful about what you're spending and get out there and redouble your efforts to find new ad categories.
I was at the NAB Small Market Television Exchange in Phoenix where there was a lot of focus on health care. That makes sense. You've got an aging population that is going to increasingly need more and more complicated health care delivery.
Every TV station in the country ought to have at least one sales person specializing in health care so you can get more ads not just for Levitra and everything else at the national level, but for your local hospital and your local dental clinic and your local oncology clinic and the pain relief center and the wound care center and all those other things you hear about.
What about Washington? Does broadcasting need some kind of regulatory bailout by the FCC?
Broadcasters always look at Washington and say "use some business common sense here." Some of the paperwork requirements that the commission wants to add on these days seem tremendously burdensome. The FCC is trying to catch the few bad folks in this business, but it ends up punishing that great majority of stations that are in fact doing a very good job in their local communities.
I keep hearing these words: localism, localism. Hey, it is good business to be very local. It is the best business to be focused on your community. You don't need a government with a stick in its hand banging you over the head to do that. If you don't serve the local community, if you don't focus on local issues, if you don't have a strong news operation and so forth, you slowly steadily sink and eventually get out of this business.
What really needs to happen in my view is the roll-up a number of these companies. There are a dozen or more broadcasters out there that are all being battered by the economy and are being battered by Wall Street. The reality is, it would be great to put three or four of these companies together.
I know that goes against the common wisdom in Washington that consolidation is a bad thing, but being big doesn't mean you can't do great broadcasting. NBC is a huge company. CBS is a huge company. They do some really great broadcasting. They have the size to invest in the programming.
Look at some of these companies that are struggling — you know, the Granites, the Youngs — and the companies that are trying to sell — LIN, CCA Nexstar, any number of these companies. They would be better off if you put together a company that suddenly had $600 million to $1 billion worth of revenues and cash flow that's up in the $200 million-$300 million range. You'd have a big enough company that Wall Street would start paying attention.
There are all sorts of pressures against that, obviously. Syndicators don't necessarily like giant companies because there's market power on the side of the broadcasters, and the FCC and Congress are inherently suspicious of bigness, but from a pure financial analysis, that's the way out of the woods.
There is also the problem of who gets to run that show. That's very, very tough.
You mean which company is the surviving company?
Yes. The regulations and financing are difficult, but, in my view, it's never the thing that really stops these deals. What stops these deals is figuring out who winds up running the tribe.
Some of these guys are at the right age where it's like: "Fine, give me enough money and I'll go to the beach," but others say no. They want to stay in and be the boss. But that's always been a problem in any business when you try to merge somewhat equal companies.
Who's the best bet for broadcasters, Obama or McCain?
I don't think either candidate has shown themselves to be a huge friend of broadcasting. Hopefully, whoever is elected will pay attention to this industry and we'll develop a relationship with him. I think we just have to see. I mean it's hard to categorize people. Many people see Bill Clinton as a liberal Democrat, yet the biggest rewrite of telecom law occurred under him. We've had eight years of George Bush and I don't know that we've had a lot of deregulation in the broadcasting industry during his administration. We have, in fact, taken a step or two backwards in terms of where the regulation emphasis has been from the current FCC.
Do you think we are going to see some sort of recovery next year? Or, do you think it's going to stretch into 2010?
I think it's going to stretch. Everybody I talk to in New York says, hey, we're not going to see a real recovery across the country until 2010. In the meantime, what happens is companies blow up, investment firms blow up, people's careers are destroyed and people get blown out. It's just a very, very ugly time.
That's a pretty grim note to end on.
Well, I'm sorry, but that's sort of the way I see the world.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Feature film premieres for free on YouTube
Feature film premieres for free on YouTube
(AP) -- Is there room among the pratfalls and bedroom tirades of YouTube for an experimental, full-length film?
On Friday, the director Wayne Wang premieres his movie "The Princess of Nebraska" on the video sharing site. It will be available to watch for free at the YouTube Screening Room, a recently launched channel for movies.
Wang, who has made both studio films (1993's "The Joy Luck Club") and indies (1995's "Smoke"), is one of the most notable filmmakers to try giving away a film for free online. While it has become standard practice in music for albums to stream for free, movies are generally only available for free illegally.
Last month, Michael Moore released his documentary "Slacker Uprising" for free to stream or download. Coupled with Wang's YouTube release, it's starting to feel like feature-length filmmakers are wading deeper into the Internet.
"This is all accidental, but sometimes accidents are good," said Wang, speaking by phone from Singapore where he was promoting "The Princess of Nebraska" and its sister film "A Thousand Years of Good Prayers."
The 59-year-old, Hong Kong-born director has for more than 25 years vacillated between films made in Asia and ones made in Hollywood. He broke through with his second feature, 1985's "Dim Sum: A Little Bit of Heart" and later gravitated toward studio fare with movies like 2002's "Maid in Manhattan" and 2006's "Last Holiday."
Recently, he has moved back to his indie roots. "The Princess of Nebraska" was made to accompany "A Thousand Years of Good Prayers," which was released to art house cinemas in September.
Both are based on stories by the Chinese-born author Yiyun Li. "A Thousand Years" revolved around a 40-year-old woman who grew up during China's Cultural Revolution and is devastated by what her family had to go through. Alternatively, "Princess" is about a teenager emigrating from China to America who has no sense of history, only of cell phones and modern technology.
"When I was finishing `Thousand Years,' we had a little bit of money left and I just went ahead and did it," said Wang, who lives in San Francisco.
The film was made quickly with digital video and was "shot like a jazz riff," Wang says. It's hard enough getting one foreign language film into theaters, let alone two -- so the opportunities for "Princess" in the U.S. were few.
"When the idea came up, I said, `Well, that makes sense' -- even though I didn't intentionally make it for that," said Wang, referring to Google-owned YouTube. "The film is very much inspired by new media, by watching a lot of things on the Web and YouTube stuff."
In the movie, a pregnant teenager named Sasha (Li Ling) looks to have her baby aborted, all the while sporadically videotaping herself with her cell phone -- poetic moments that pace the movie.
It's not a necessarily positive view of youth and technology, making the YouTube release -- viewable at www.youtube.com/ytscreeningroom -- a bit ironic.
"I'm trying not to be judgmental because this is a new generation, this is a new media, this is what YouTube is," said Wang. "I wish there was more substantial information on it."
Wang pointed out that there's a Web page where Sasha's diary is posted, but all the comments from readers are about her attractiveness.
But while the marriage of full-length movies and the Internet might be young, Wang believes it could be a legitimate platform for films made with a sensibility unique to the smaller-sized medium. (Movies at the YouTube Screening Room are displayed with a "high quality player.")
"You kind of have to think differently about it," said Wang. "It has to move faster, the images have to be tighter, you can't really see a lot of details. If `Thousands Years' was shown on the computer, I would be kind of depressed ... it has to be projected big."
But as the distribution avenues for independent film become fewer, Wang thinks filmmakers need to explore different alternatives and, above all, make better films.
"We as filmmakers need to be smart about the kinds of films that we make and take more chances," he said. "The problem is that most independent films are trying to make Hollywood films. They're basically straightforward narratives and they're a little more interesting, but not that much more interesting. Take a film like `Blair Witch.' It's not the greatest film, but it's at least something really different."
Feature film premiers for free on YouTube
Director Wayne Wang ("The Last Holiday", "The Joy Luck Club", "Smoke") premiered his movie, "The Princess of Nebraska," on YouTube for free on Friday. The movie is an indie film based on a book by Yiyun Li, and follows Wang's previous movie, "A Thousand Years." Wang released "The Princess of Nebraska" on YouTube because he did not think he would be able to get it released in theatres. Michael Moore released a documentary on YouTube last month for free, as well. Do you think that the industry will eventually go this way? Will more directors premiere feature films on YouTube or will it be used mostly for independent films?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
WZMY Plans Early Analog Shutoff
Just a reminder of the switch to DTV that is coming up in a few months! Apparently they are allowing stations as early as 90 days ahead of time to switch, because certain areas have trouble switching equipment during the harsh winter months. They just have to make sure to inform their viewers so that they aren't left clueless. So how many people is this DTV switch truly going to affect? Do you guys know of many people who have to purchase the converters or a new tv in order to maintain their feed?
WZMY Plans Early Analog Shutoff
Boston MyNetworkTV affiliate will complete DTV transition at noon on Dec. 1, two-and-a-half months ahead of mandated switch date
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 10/16/2008 10:29:00 AM
| DTV Transition 101: To watch a video guide to the February 2009 analog shutoff, including a step-by-step demo on how to hook up a DTV-to-analog converter box, click here. |
WZMY-TV Boston is volunteering to be a digital guinea pig. The MyNetworkTV affiliate says it will make the transition to digital at noon on Dec. 1, two-and-a-half months before the official switch to digital Feb. 17, 2009.
The FCC is allowing broadcasters to switch as much as 90 days early so long as they inform their viewers. That allows some stations facing tough winters to make the move when it is easier to switch-out equipment.
"By volunteering to undertake its transition to digital early, MyTV will provide viewers in metropolitan Boston and southern New Hampshire with a 'first look' at the digital broadcast transition," said the station in announcing the early cut-off. "If consumers in these areas find that they are no longer receiving MyTV after 12 PM on December 1, they’ll know what to expect from their televisions in February of next year, when the rest of the area’s local TV stations go digital. And viewers can take steps to become digital ready now.
WZMY-TV says it is teaming with Comcast to help get the word out to viewers about the switch. Cable operators have begun to tailor their DTV education messages to woo some analog-only households to cable service. A recent Nielsen study found that a third of such households are preparing for the DTV switch by subscribing to cable or satellite.
Earlier this week, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell suggested that stations should get together with cable and satellite companies to produce such long-form DTV education infomercials.
The station and Comcast will jointly produce a 30-minute educational program on their switch that will air on the station and on-demand on Comcast systems in the Boston area as well as northern New Hampshire. Although cable subs won't need to do anything to continue to see their local channels, they could inform friends and neighbors, or may have a second or third set not hooked up to cable.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Healty Competition or Deceitful Ads??
McCain, Obama camps trade barbs on negative ads
By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer
ASHEVILLE, N.C. -- The McCain and Obama presidential campaigns traded accusations of mudslinging Monday in the wake of new ads dredging up infamous events from 20, 30, even 40 years ago.
Nancy Pfotenhauer, an adviser to the McCain campaign, said it's "absolutely essential" that Americans hear not only about his plans for the future but also "about the decision they have to make about these two individuals." She said she thought that commercials that raise new questions about Obama's associations "have struck a nerve" with the Democrat.
Obama's communications director, Robert Gibbs, countered that the new McCain offensive - including GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's allegation that Obama "pals around with terrorists" -is happening because Republicans want to talk about something other than the struggling economy.
Gibbs, who appeared with Pfotenhauer on ABC's "Good Morning America" Monday, charged that the McCain campaign is resorting to "a despicable smear campaign."
Democrats on Sunday had denounced Palin's charge and warned that it would trigger reexaminations of McCain's past. Sure enough, Obama's campaign released a Web video and a letter about McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal from the early 1990s.
McCain "does not want to play guilt-by-association, or this thing could blow up in his face," Democratic strategist Paul Begala said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
The names being bandied about - Bill Ayers and Charles Keating - are unfamiliar to millions of Americans, and their wrongdoings occurred decades ago. But political operatives dredged them up over the weekend, and they could play a prominent role in the campaign's final month.
Palin, the Alaska governor, defended her earlier comments about Obama and Ayers, in which she said the Democratic nominee is "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
Ayers was a founder of the violent Weather Underground group during the Vietnam era. Its members were blamed for several bombings when Obama was a child. Obama has denounced Ayers' radical views and activities.
The two men live in the same Chicago neighborhood and once worked on the same charity board. Ayers hosted a small meet-the-candidate event for Obama in 1995, early in his political career. Obama strategist David Axelrod has said the two men are "friendly."
On Sunday, Palin told reporters in California that her comments were about "an association that has been known but hasn't been talked about. I think it's fair to talk about where Barack Obama kicked off his political career, in the guy's living room."
In fact, Obama was questioned about Ayers during a prime-time Democratic debate against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton before April's Pennsylvania primary.
"The heels are on, the gloves are off," Palin said of her campaign strategy.
Obama, speaking Sunday to thousands at an outdoor event in Asheville, N.C., fired back. He said McCain and his aides "are gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance."
He described the criticisms as "Swiftboat-style attacks on me," a reference to the unsubstantiated allegations about 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry's military record in Vietnam.
Other Democrats rushed to Obama's defense. Veteran party activist Hillary Rosen, on CNN's "Late Edition," said, "If they throw mud like that, then you go back to Charles Keating, you go back to Sarah Palin's investigation." She was referring to inquiries into the firing of Alaska's top police official.
"You know, I just don't think that John McCain wants to take this nuclear strategy," Rosen said.
Just months into his Senate career, in the late 1980s, McCain made what he has called "the worst mistake of my life." He participated in two meetings with banking regulators on behalf of Keating, a friend, campaign contributor and savings and loan owner who was later convicted of securities fraud.
The Senate ethics committee investigated five senators relationships with Keating. The panel cited McCain for a lesser role than the others, but faulted his "poor judgment."
Obama's new Web video, being e-mailed to millions of his supporters, summarizes a 13-minute Web "documentary" that the campaign plans to distribute Monday.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in a statement, "McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts."
On Sunday, Obama also unveiled a TV ad on the economy that describes McCain was "erratic in a crisis." Some see that as a reminder of McCain's age, 72.
By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer
ASHEVILLE, N.C. -- The McCain and Obama presidential campaigns traded accusations of mudslinging Monday in the wake of new ads dredging up infamous events from 20, 30, even 40 years ago.
Nancy Pfotenhauer, an adviser to the McCain campaign, said it's "absolutely essential" that Americans hear not only about his plans for the future but also "about the decision they have to make about these two individuals." She said she thought that commercials that raise new questions about Obama's associations "have struck a nerve" with the Democrat.
Obama's communications director, Robert Gibbs, countered that the new McCain offensive - including GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's allegation that Obama "pals around with terrorists" -is happening because Republicans want to talk about something other than the struggling economy.
Gibbs, who appeared with Pfotenhauer on ABC's "Good Morning America" Monday, charged that the McCain campaign is resorting to "a despicable smear campaign."
Democrats on Sunday had denounced Palin's charge and warned that it would trigger reexaminations of McCain's past. Sure enough, Obama's campaign released a Web video and a letter about McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal from the early 1990s.
McCain "does not want to play guilt-by-association, or this thing could blow up in his face," Democratic strategist Paul Begala said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
The names being bandied about - Bill Ayers and Charles Keating - are unfamiliar to millions of Americans, and their wrongdoings occurred decades ago. But political operatives dredged them up over the weekend, and they could play a prominent role in the campaign's final month.
Palin, the Alaska governor, defended her earlier comments about Obama and Ayers, in which she said the Democratic nominee is "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
Ayers was a founder of the violent Weather Underground group during the Vietnam era. Its members were blamed for several bombings when Obama was a child. Obama has denounced Ayers' radical views and activities.
The two men live in the same Chicago neighborhood and once worked on the same charity board. Ayers hosted a small meet-the-candidate event for Obama in 1995, early in his political career. Obama strategist David Axelrod has said the two men are "friendly."
On Sunday, Palin told reporters in California that her comments were about "an association that has been known but hasn't been talked about. I think it's fair to talk about where Barack Obama kicked off his political career, in the guy's living room."
In fact, Obama was questioned about Ayers during a prime-time Democratic debate against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton before April's Pennsylvania primary.
"The heels are on, the gloves are off," Palin said of her campaign strategy.
Obama, speaking Sunday to thousands at an outdoor event in Asheville, N.C., fired back. He said McCain and his aides "are gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance."
He described the criticisms as "Swiftboat-style attacks on me," a reference to the unsubstantiated allegations about 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry's military record in Vietnam.
Other Democrats rushed to Obama's defense. Veteran party activist Hillary Rosen, on CNN's "Late Edition," said, "If they throw mud like that, then you go back to Charles Keating, you go back to Sarah Palin's investigation." She was referring to inquiries into the firing of Alaska's top police official.
"You know, I just don't think that John McCain wants to take this nuclear strategy," Rosen said.
Just months into his Senate career, in the late 1980s, McCain made what he has called "the worst mistake of my life." He participated in two meetings with banking regulators on behalf of Keating, a friend, campaign contributor and savings and loan owner who was later convicted of securities fraud.
The Senate ethics committee investigated five senators relationships with Keating. The panel cited McCain for a lesser role than the others, but faulted his "poor judgment."
Obama's new Web video, being e-mailed to millions of his supporters, summarizes a 13-minute Web "documentary" that the campaign plans to distribute Monday.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in a statement, "McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts."
On Sunday, Obama also unveiled a TV ad on the economy that describes McCain was "erratic in a crisis." Some see that as a reminder of McCain's age, 72.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)