Frank Beacham's Journal

Tony Garnier On His Trip to the White House

 

Tony Garnier, fresh from a performance at the White House last week playing bass for Bob Dylan, did a second gig for Jonny Rosch and friends at the P&G Bar in New York City on Tuesday night.  

Garnier, who is about to go on tour with Dylan, said the White House performance was one of the highlights of his career while performing around the world with Dylan. He was behind Dylan as he shook hands with President Obama and then met the President himself. 

Garnier said he not only shook hands with the President and the First Lady, but found himself shaking hands with to both Malia and Sasha. However, he forgot to shake hands with Vice President Joe Biden who he said “was only three feet away.” Garnier said he hoped to get a picture shaking hands with the President but had not contacted the White House about getting one.

 

Dylan’s bass player and music director said he, the pianist and Dylan did a sound check of The Times They Are a Changin' earlier but didn’t see any reason to stay in the White House to wait for the performance. So, he said, they went back to their hotel and went through the stringent White House security twice—arriving about an hour before the actual performance.  

Garnier said Dylan did the song differently during the sound check than in the performance. That’s fairly routine, he said, since playing with Bob Dylan requires a player to always be ready for different variations. However, where some acts at the White House repeated their songs for the taping, Dylan did his only once and it was perfect.

While waiting for the performance, Garnier said he viewed the original paintings on the walls of the White House—including those of George Washington and American Indians—which he said gave him a sense of the gravity of the building and where he was standing. He said it is a place he'll never forget.

When they finished the performance, he said the Dylan group immediately left the White House, not remaining for the ending. Garnier said he returned to New York City on an Amtrak train.

 

 

A Very Sad Story of Today’s Television Media

As a former television news reporter, I’m always bashing those gutless, blow-dryed wannbees in the modern version of television news who stand for and report nothing. But it’s very rare to see it played out on video in such blatant form. So it's with glee that I present this amazing story.

In this YouTube video, one reporter, who should be celebrated, stands up to not only the University of Tennessee’s athletic PR hack, but to those in his own profession who bow down and roll over to anything the University wants. 

The hero here is Bill Shory, news director at WBIR-TV in Knoxville. It’s at a press conference when Lane Kiffin, the coach of the University’s Volunteers, is about to resign. The school proposes a “pre-presser” that will be done off camera, and then the news photographers can turn their cameras on.

Shory said no. This is a public university in a public building and there are to be no secrets, he declared. One would think his media colleagues would agree with Shory, but they don’t. They support the side of university against their own interests and nearly shout Shory down.

This video is typical of the milquetoast media operating today. Afraid of their own shadow — even fighting with their own to limit what few rights they have.  It’s sad indeed and why few in television news should continue to be believed.

(Thanks to Lost Remote for reporting this story.)

Seeing the Forest

To fully understand the broad implications of any new technology, it’s important to see the forest—not just the trees. That’s common sense, one might think, until it comes down to trying to separate the forest from the tree people.

America’s television broadcasters, the tree people—with a status quo to maintain—have tried to block a clear view of the forest. Along the way, their delusions have sold the equivalent of several Brooklyn Bridges.

Today, the Federal Communications Commission is trying to reclaim airwaves to expand the use of low-cost wireless Internet services throughout the nation. They have suggested taking it from the broadcasters—since they are the one group in the nation who has never paid for the use of the spectrum they use.  Long ago, you see, the broadcasters were given the use of free spectrum in exchange for providing a public service.

What the FCC is proposing is more than fair. They would actually pay the broadcasters to get the spectrum back. Yet, the broadcasters are still screaming bloody murder. 

The broadcasters tell us they still provide a valuable public service. They actually, with a straight face, contend the news from their blow-dried anchors is essential to keeping the public informed. Like I said, they are delusional!

Of course, this is all total bull. We need cheap or free Internet access because cable and the telcos are sucking us dry. Very few people watch over-the-air TV anymore. And there’s good reason. 

I say give the broadcasters zilch. Allow them a chance to buy their spectrum or pull the plug on them. No more free spectrum. In my opinion, their time is up. The have gagged us with excess commercialism. They've dumbed down all they have touched. They've had a license to print money long enough.  It's time to end this charade.

 

Answering the Next Generation's Question

I recently wrote a column for a television industry trade magazine—TV Technology—about opportunities for young people in journalism. The article got a big response. I didn't realize how many people who work in the media industries are having a major debate with their college-age offspring about whether or not to study for a career in media.

Even with a continuing loss of jobs in all media—including motion pictures, television and print, Columbia University reported it’s journalism school enrollment increased 39 percent this year. Why is this?  Do the kids know something we don’t?

In the column, I tried to explain the reasons for the current turmoil. Part of it is a cruel side effect of the shift from analog to digital technology. Digital is a disruptive technology. It's a game changer. 

Physical media—including printed paper, film stock, vinyl records, CDs and DVDs—is disappearing. All this "stuff" is being replaced by digital files. The manufacturing cost has been erased. Anyone, even a kid at the kitchen table, can create digital files. This shift from analog to digital technology has been going on for more than a decade, but this year the effects really hit home. 

 

Much of the calamity was fueled by the poor economy. Media companies tried to grow too fast. Many lost sight of their core journalistic mission. They consolidated and ate their young. Many mortgaged themselves over the top. Now, with ad revenue down, they are paying the price. 

When they pay the price, their workers get laid off. Everyone, of course, knows that has been happening for a long time. There are fewer jobs out there now and employers are paying less—much less. Barely a living wage. 

In fact, I often hear of people taking jobs that pay less than what I was paid for entry-level media jobs in the 1970s. There are always the exceptions, but the fact is there are very few good media jobs anymore. 

That’s the bad news. The good news is virtually all the media playing fields have been leveled. The CEO of a major media corporation has no more of a track record today in new media than a kid in college. 

Most of the leaders of old media companies don't know or understand new media and are quietly trying to maintain a delicate balancing act. Most, in the end, will fail and they deserve to do so. 

 

The journalism student of today must learn multiple crafts. Good writing and editing skills are essential stuff. He or she also must learn digital photography, video and audio production, and everything about the Internet including how to build websites and social media. And the new journalist needs to have some business skills.

Then, turn to the Internet, the world's largest free media platform, to use those skills to create something unique. One can easily reach millions with the right combination of words, pictures and sounds. 

What kind of media should the newcomer produce? Ah, that's the hard part. Whatever makes you tick is my answer. Just look at all the junk around you on television, in movies and on the Internet. You think most of it is trash? Good, because it is! Recognize that fact. Then do something unique and original that interests you. 

Forget money and security. If that motivates you, you’re in the wrong field. Think boldly and creatively and ignore the old media that's gradually dying around you. Eye the future and create something new.

In the 1970s, when small-format video was just beginning, the possibilities available today are something we dreamed of. It took another 40 years for the opportunities to actually arrive. 

For those with the right stuff, today is a great time to be alive. You are in on the ground floor of something extraordinarily new. Build the next generation of media while you have the chance. Seize the opportunity now. 

"Multimedia" is the New Mantra

I went to PhotoPlus Expo in New York City last week in an attempt to get a handle on “what’s new” in photography. Oh man, did I get an earful! First of all, many photographers -- including Pulitzer Prize winners -- are now out of a job. This creative “depression” that we’re in has cut a wide swath, even the top talent at most newspapers.

Traditional photography businesses are drying up. Most of the best and brightest in photography -- like other fields -- are reinventing themselves and the way they operate. Photojournalism has been replaced by a new buzzword: “multimedia.” That’s a form of digital storytelling that combines photography with video, audio, graphics and the written word. 

Unfortunately, most “multimedia” looks a lot like well-produced television news, if you can find it anymore. As one who learned most of the elements of multimedia before the word was ever formed, I was somewhat amused (or was it depressed?) hearing a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer talk about the basics of audio. This photographer had taken four days (not including editing) to shoot a “multimedia” piece that a good television crew would have done in a day.

When I asked how the photographer would get paid for such work, the answer was businesses will pay for multimedia. Interesting answer, since in recent days it's my personal experience that most businesses will pay for virtually nothing. Especially high-priced video. Most want $50 YouTube videos!

That said, it was also interesting that the photographer did the entire piece with a high-end Canon DSLR still camera. Perhaps that’s why it took so long. Though both Canon and Nikon have added video capability to most of their DSLR cameras, none make the production process easier. 

Photography, and its equipment makers, are trying to become something else. But they are not exactly sure what it is yet. As they try to cram video capability into still cameras, one wonders exactly what they are thinking? At least, companies like RED Camera, are thinking of a process in the design of new cameras. One doesn’t get that impression from Canon or Nikon.  

A RED camera. This is a company designing hybrid still/video cameras with a future vision of process.  One doesn't get that feeling from Canon or Nikon

---

All of this hodgepodge of activity made me realize more than ever what an interesting time creative people live in. Our livelihoods gone, we — even Pulitzer Prize winners -- are having to reinvent ourselves. We are all dabbling in new areas outside our expertise trying to piece something together.  

On one level it is very exciting, while on another it is downright frightening. But one thing is nice. The playing field has been leveled for everyone. There are few “experts” about media these days. A Pulitzer Prize at a newspaper won’t buy you a cup of coffee in this new era. Anyone can win, and anyone can lose. It’s the new lottery.

When Clarabell Introduced Me to Soupy Sales

As a kid growing up at the beginning of the television era, I began each day at sign-on watching the Howdy Doody Show. Little could I have imagined that I would grow up to know both Buffalo Bob Smith and Clarabell, a/k/a Lew Anderson, in real life. 

Ironically, I would meet Lew after he read an obituary I wrote about Buffalo Bob. He invited me to New York’s Birdland, where he conducted an orchestra every Friday evening. It was there that he introduced to me to Soupy Sales, the slapstick jokester of a million pies, who had been another TV star of the 1950s. 

Often I sat with Soupy, along with other veterans of 50s television, to hear their endless stories of working in the new, live medium when it was just starting. Soupy told me all about pies—especially how to make the ones that would splatter the face perfectly. 

He would gulp martinis in a huge glass—happy to listen to Lew’s band play his beloved jazz. After Lew died at age 84 in May, 2006, the old 50’s-era get together at Birdland ended. The last time I saw Soupy Sales was at Lew’s memorial service. But I’ll never forget him. This video on YouTube tells the whole story. RIP, Soupy!

-----------

 

Great Teachers Resonate Through Life

It was April 1, 1987 when I first entered a classroom in Royce Hall on the campus of UCLA to begin a 10-week lecture class called "Home Communication and Entertainment in the 20th Century." I was excited about the class because of the inside knowledge of the teacher. He was no academic, but a media visionary who had practically invented network television programming as we know it.

In the coming weeks, I would find Sylvester "Pat" Weaver a charming, friendly, accessible man. He was also stunningly eloquent and firmly grounded in a set of beliefs about the public obligations of television that would be ridiculed today by industry executives as idealistic and economically unsound. 

---

Yet, as the former chairman and president of NBC when television came of age in the 1950s, this network executive had -- from the TODAY Show to the TONIGHT Show -- almost single-handedly created the program genres that dominate network schedules to this day. 

Pat Weaver died at the age of 93 in 2002. Yet, as with all great teachers, his memory resonates through my life even today. His name equates with quality, and—sadly—the continuing loss of it in our modern society.

 

---

A veteran of radio, Weaver guided NBC into the television era. If he'd done nothing else, his taste in talent and programming alone would have made his career. It was Pat Weaver who introduced American TV audiences to Bob Hope, Danny Thomas, Dean Martin, Jerry Lewis, Fred Allen and Jimmy Durante.

He also created the TODAY show, the TONIGHT Show and the still-running Meet the Press. To students of the history of television, Pat Weaver was one of the medium's pioneers. Yet, in his later years, Weaver viewed his television legacy with great disappointment. 

He believed that television had an obligation to expand the minds of its audience. Though a consummate showman and no highbrow, Weaver saw television's public service obligation as one to educate and entertain with a high level of artistry. For this, he was seen as a visionary who was sometimes too far ahead of his broadcasting colleagues. 

Weaver signs Dave Garroway in 1952 to host the TODAY show.

---

Take, for example, the TODAY Show, the morning broadcast that Weaver created with host Dave Garroway in 1952 to lure listeners away from morning radio. The original idea was to introduce the audience to the best and brightest of American thinkers. Writers, artists, scientists and the country's intelligentsia would use the leisurely morning time slot to expose the emerging television audience to new, cutting-edge ideas.

Steve Allen was the first host of the TONIGHT Show.

---

Originally, the TONIGHT Show (first titled Broadway Open House), he told our class, was created to expose Americans to the finest talent in the nation's artistic capital, New York City. Weaver wanted to take live cameras into Broadway theatres, opera houses, dance halls and nightclubs to introduce NBC's audiences to performers and creative works that were new and undiscovered.  

In essence, Pat Weaver wanted NBC's morning and late night programming to expose the common man to the best in American arts and culture. "It's very disappointing," he said. "There's occasional good things on, but there's no consistent arts programming." The TODAY show, he lamented, had become a series of quick segments to hawk books, movies and new products. TONIGHT was little more than a vehicle for topical comedy. Weaver's disdain for his grown-up program creations was palpable.

It should come as no surprise that a man, who in 1954, was described by New Yorker magazine as television's "most unrelenting thinker and most vocal theorist," would make enemies among the corporate bean counters. After eight years at NBC, Weaver was forced to relinquish control to Robert Sarnoff, the son of Gen. David Sarnoff (nicknamed "General Fangs" by Weaver), the head of RCA. Weaver left the network in 1956.

Weaver (center) with David Sarnoff (left) and Robert Sarnoff (right)

---

Today, when I hear a young television executive thumb his nose at the idea of serving the public interest due to "the competitive realities of the marketplace," I think of Pat Weaver. The memorable ten weeks I spent in his classroom taught me that one can pioneer a profitable media business while at the same time serving the higher interests of the community. The trick, Weaver knew so well, is not becoming blinded by greed.

Oh, a footnote for the inquiring minds among you. Yes, Pat Weaver is the father of the actress Sigourney Weaver. And yes, she did show up to sit in on her father's class at UCLA. Nice lady…a trait that must run in the family.

Sigourney Weaver with her father in 1989.

A Perfect Storm Hits Media Businesses

The transition to digital technology finally hit those of us in media with the violence of a sledge hammer. The year 2009 will most certainly go down as a historic turning point. It was the year when the rooster finally crowed and the reality of digital technology met a nasty economic downturn. As I write this, we continue to be tossed about in a perfect storm.  

Suddenly—as far as media people are concerned—most of the world’s money dried up, previously solid businesses collapsed and many talented people were left scrambling to reinvent themselves in a very new world.

This, of course, has been building for a long time, but most of us were still not ready. Few could have predicted even a year ago how fast jobs would be lost and businesses decimated. What appeared to be stable, strong media outlets suddenly became vulnerable and are probably unsustainable. Many will not ride out the storm.

Finally, in all the wreckage around us, we can see where things are headed. What’s not so clear at all is how to make money at it.  There will be much experimentation, pain and loss ahead. Sadly, most will fail and a few will chart a new future.

This economic destruction covers a wide swath of media—especially print publications, the music business and all kinds of news operations. Internet technology has now enabled television viewers to watch any program at any time on any device at any location. Once viewers got a taste of this new phenomenon, the attraction was instant. The cat was out of the bag and now there is no turning back.  

The problem is most media businesses don’t allow for such flexibility. The business deals weren’t made that way. Pay television providers aggregate programming and sell channels as bundles. Thus, the most popular programs pay the freight for less popular fare. Pay operators have long protected their subscriber-based systems by insuring that viewers pay large monthly fees, mostly for programming they do not want or watch.

The national broadcast networks, on the other hand, are increasingly moving their ad-supported content to the Internet. They are quickly building an audience for their programming through services like Hulu.

For those who don’t want to watch the commercials attached to those network programs, much of the same programming without commercials is available on a delayed basis from services like Netflix for less than $10 each month. Add to that thousands of movies, also without commercials.

Yet, change in this increasingly cruel digital age comes with lightning speed. On June 20, the day after Apple’s iPhone 3GS went on sale, Major League Baseball introduced what it called “a game changer.“ It streamed its first live baseball game—the Cubs vs. the White Sox—directly to iPhone users equipped with its ”At Bat” application.

That’s significant because it’s the first time a content owner has bypassed the television broadcast infrastructure to bring programming directly to the end users. The new iPhone 3.0 software allows its developers to charge users for video content from within applications. 

The game video—with full DVR features that can pause and rewind video—will play whether an iPhone is connected to a WiFi network or is on AT&T’s 3G network. MLB.com said its servers will detect the strength of the phone’s connection and adapt the quality of the video accordingly.

What’s significant here is the end user gets and pays for exactly the content he or she wants. They buy it directly from the owner of that content and watch it when and where they want. No more middle men and no more bundled stream of channels at a stiff monthly fee.

Of course, mobile phones are simply wireless computers.  Desktop computers—many hooked directly to home television sets—emulate this experience at home.  A viewer watching the first half of a game on his iPhone could arrive home and watch the second half on his Internet-connected television set. 

Remember, any program at any time on any device at any location. That is now the reality for many programs. It has pay television operators, the networks, and other broadcasters running scared.

In response, HBO, the premium pay television programmer, just launched HBO Go. This limited experiment allows cable viewers to view HBO programming on the Internet, but only if they go through the cable operator’s web site. The idea is to prevent non cable subscribers from watching HBO’s content.

History, however, is against HBO Go working. The music industry taught us that years ago. No one yet has succeeded in cutting off content desired by the Internet audience. Pirates will see to that in no time.

The day has begun when specific shows are delivered from the producer directly to the viewer. MLB did it first. It has begun with smaller producers, but will soon will reach the level of established enterprises like HBO. 

Take the Sopranos, the HBO hit. The owner of that show could sell the series directly to viewers over the Internet, without the need of pay television carriers or any middleman. And, with all the fat and bundled channels cut out of the equation, the price will be much lower than on cable.

In effect, the Internet becomes a huge magazine stand of television programs which viewers can select, pay for and watch with very low micropayments. The same is happening with movies, sports programming and other genres.

About 150 million Internet users in the United States now watch about 14.5 billion videos a month, says comScore, the measurement firm. That’s an average of 97 videos per viewer.  Interestingly, the average length of the videos watched has extended in the past year as compression and online quality improves. The online video business is expected to be worth over a billion dollars by 2011, says eMarketer.

To see what will happen to television, we only have to look at the music industry in recent years. Only the very largest, most established artists still operate within the confines of record companies. Most newer talent market their work independently, directly to their listeners. They use MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter to find audiences and sell digital downloads over the Internet. The same model will probably be true for all file-based media in the near future.

With this radical change comes a huge human toll.  Disrupted businesses mean lost jobs and personal turmoil.  Expert skill sets that it took years to acquire become almost meaningless overnight. Salaries fall dramatically and an increasing number of businesses seek non-paid “interns” to avoid paying employees altogether.

Worst of all, in the media arena, this business turbulence results in a dramatic loss of quality. The trivialization of news—both television and print—is a good example. Citizen journalists replace real reporters. News staff are cut to the bone. Stations pool crews to do stories. Bureaus in Washington, D.C. are closed down. And forget about long-term investigative reporting—it’s over.

Thankfully, this won’t go on forever. It’s mainly the work of incompetent, risk-adverse management that doesn’t know anything else to do. In a few years, the old business models will disappear and new ones will emerge. The next generation of media professionals will appear as the winners who figure out how to build audiences and generate a profit. Most certainly, a new media establishment will rise from the rubble.

The whole scene today resembles the shift at the beginning of the last century from the horse and buggy era to the automobile age. Mega shifts in technology bring a huge level of disruptive change. We are living through it right now.

Ed McMahon Dies, Ending the Carson TV Dynasty

I was surprised how I reacted to the death of Ed McMahon. 

Most younger people remember him as the Publishing Clearinghouse shill, knocking on doors and giving away money. But I remember him as Johnny Carson's sidekick...the man that made "Heeeere's Johnny" part of the American television lexicon. He was the straight man extraordinaire—winging it when Carson did his famous Carnac the Magnificent skit or just about anything else.

I photographed Carson and McMahon at the Apollo 11 launch in Florida in 1969. Close friends, they sat in the VIP stands at the Cape Canaveral launch facility three and a half miles from the rocket. We later learned that if the rocket had blown up—a distinct possibility in those days—that it would have spread shrapnel a range of three miles. That meant we all had a margin of error of a half mile that morning!

In later years, I wrote a story about the Tonight Show and became the subject of one of Carson's skits later that night. It was terrifying, and thrilling, to be a part of that show.

Ed McMahon had it tough in his final years. Illness, a broken neck, and the near foreclosure of his home all came at once. It was a perfect storm of calamities, he said last year. 

Yet, I will always remember him in his finest hours...sitting next to Johnny Carson, joking with the slickest, most talented television host in history.

Ed and Johnny at Cape Canaveral for the Apollo 11 launch.

Does Improved Technology Make Better Entertainment?

As a TV old-timer—membership open only to those who date back to the black and white, pre-zoom lens era of broadcasting—I've long had a running theory that there’s a direct correlation between the aesthetic quality of an entertainment program and the technology used to make that program.  

Since no one has yet claimed authorship of this theorem, I will. Introducing Beacham’s Law: As the technology improves, there is a corresponding decline in the artistic excellence of film and television entertainment programming.  

 

Under this theory, the best programs in the history of visual media—both on film and videotape—were hand-crafted using the most restrictive and awkward technology of the medium. As the technology grew more reliable and easier to use over the years, program quality declined correspondingly. 

This is not an absolute—only a general observation. Great television programs, of course, have and are still being made with every generation of technology. Just fewer of them.

In my mind, most of the classics of the medium came from the RCA era—a time of big, heavy industrial strength electronics that dominated television and radio broadcasting until the mid-1970s. However, Big Brother RCA (they not only made the gear, but loaned you the money to buy it) totally missed the fact that the sun was rising during the 1960s on a new generation of media production technology from Japan.

For example, most would agree that the introduction by Sony of the Betacam one-piece camcorder in 1982 was a landmark event in the history of television technology.  But can you guess the name of the first nationally-syndicated television program to be shot on Betacam?  I can—I’m embarrassed to say—because I was there at the beginning in 1984. It was "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."  Shot on Betacam and edited directly to Type C one-inch. That show changed television production forever.

So much for the brief history lesson. We all know video gear got smaller, cheaper and much, much better. In return, we got "Survivor," "American Idol," "The Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette." Yes, these shows made heaps of cash for their producers, but I’d bet that—at least privately—not one of them would argue that these productions measure up as good television.