New York Emmy® Awards

Music Choice

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:30:36 GMT

Music Choice
Start Date: 10-Sep-08 6:00 PM
End Time: 10-Sep-08 7:00 PM
Location: NY NATAS, New York, NY 10038
Speaker: Justin Prager

Event Details:

Topic: "Music Choice ~ Now More Than Just Music Channels; Challenges and Opportunities in Programming and Producing Video Content for Multiple Platforms."

Seminar produced by Ellen Muir.

RESERVATIONS REQUIRED DUE TO BUILDING SECURITY. ALL NAMES MUST BE ON GUEST LIST. PLEASE RSVP VIA EMAIL info@nyemmys.org or call 212-459-3630 ext. 204.

NY NATAS

1375 Broadway (between 37th and 38th Streets), 21st floor, Suite 2103

New York, NY 10038

Planet Green

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:28:07 GMT

Planet Green
Start Date: 20-Aug-08 6:00 PM
End Time: 20-Aug-08 7:00 PM
Location: NY NATAS, New York, NY 10018
Speaker: Dan Russell

Event Details:

Topic: "Inside Planet Green -- and what you might be surprised we'd love to see."

Seminar produced by Ellen Muir

RESERVATIONS REQUIRED DUE TO BUILDING SECURITY. ALL NAMES MUST BE ON GUEST LIST.

PLEASE RSVP VIA EMAIL info@nyemmys.org or call 212-459-3630 ext. 204.

NY NATAS

1375 Broadway (between 37th and 38th Streets), 21st Floor, Suite 2103

New York, NY 10018

Dolores Morris, HBO Family and Documentary Programming

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:42:23 GMT

Dolores Morris, HBO Family and Documentary Programming
Start Date: 6-Aug-08 6:00 PM
End Time: 6-Aug-08 7:00 PM
Location: NY NATAS, New York, NY 10018
Speaker: Dolores Morris

Event Details:

TOPIC: "What We're Doing."

Seminar produced by Ellen Muir.

RESERVATIONS REQUIRED DUE TO BUILDING SECURITY. ALL NAMES MUST BE ON GUEST LIST.

PLEASE RSVP VIA EMAIL info@nyemmys.org or call 212-459-3630 ext. 204.

NY NATAS

1375 Broadway (between 37th and 38th Streets), 21st floor, Suite 2103

New York, NY 10018

A REPORTER'S CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE . . . REVEALED?

Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:00:00 GMT

By Fernando M. Pinguelo, Esq.

The June 2007 sentencing of Lewis “Scooter” Libby who was convicted on federal charges of lying and obstructing an investigation into the Bush administration's actions leading into the Iraq war reminds us of how far reporters will go to protect their sources of information and the consequences of such confidentiality.

New York Times reporter Judith Miller's life changed dramatically on July 6, 2005 when a federal judge ordered her jailed for her continued refusal to give evidence in a grand jury investigation into the disclosure of the identity of a covert CIA operative.

Miller’s imprisonment culminated from a series of events that began with President George W. Bush’s January 28, 2003, State of the Union address wherein it was revealed that British intelligence had learned that Saddam Hussein sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. The President’s statement, given at a time when an Iraqi invasion was looming, stirred public controversy. The most damaging report calling into question the accuracy of the President’s statement occurred on July 6, 2003, when former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s op-ed piece in the New York Times disclosed that his investigation found no credible evidence that Iraq had been seeking to purchase uranium from Niger. A few days later, columnist Robert Novak’s Chicago Sun-Times column revealed that two senior administration officials disclosed the circumstances surrounding Wilson’s 2002 investigation and the role Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, played in the assignment. Novak referred to Plame as a CIA “operative on weapons of mass destruction.” Thereafter, other media reports followed and reiterated Plame’s status in the CIA.

By December 2003, an investigation ensued and a special prosecutor was appointed to determine whether government officials unlawfully disclosed the identity of a covert agent. Grand jury subpoenas were served upon several reporters, including Miller. Although Miller did not write about Plame, she was reportedly in possession of evidence relevant to the investigation. Initially, the reporters refused to reveal their sources primarily on the grounds of First Amendment and federal common law privileges protecting communications from confidential sources. However, after a district court judge rejected the reporters’ arguments, all but one lone reporter –Miller – ended their fight and succumbed to the rule of law. Miller – who spent 85 days in jail – was eventually released after speaking with Lewis Libby who reaffirmed an earlier release of confidentiality that he had given her.

Miller paid the ultimate price for her silence – imprisonment. Her case presents two fundamental questions: (1) Under what circumstances can a reporter legally withhold the identity of a source? (2) Are reporters under an ethical obligation to explain to their sources that they may not be able to protect the information or their identity in certain circumstances?

Reporters can generally safeguard their sources' anonymity without fear of compelled disclosure. However, once litigation is instituted, especially in the criminal context, the rules change. Here's some information reporters need to know to protect not only their confidential news sources, but also their personal reputations.

Competing Interests

For Confidentiality:
From a reporter's perspective, confidential sources often provide access to crucial information necessary for the exposure of illegalities and other corruption in society. One need only glance back to the Watergate scandal, a story that has been in the forefront of media coverage again because of the revelation of the identity of “Deep Throat,” to appreciate these benefits. Protection against disclosure helps assure that knowledgeable yet reluctant sources of sensitive information will come forward and provide information to reporters without fear of retaliation or embarrassment.

For Disclosure:
From a legal public policy perspective, a source's identity can be of critical importance to a criminal investigation, especially at the grand jury stage, where prosecutors investigate whether a serious crime has been committed (as is the case in Miller’s situation). Or, from a criminal defense perspective, defendants have a right to confront their accusers. Revelation of a source's identity also plays an important role in civil cases, in particular defamation lawsuits alleging the publication of false information. For public figures, a source’s identity may be even more critical to their defamation cases because of their heightened burden to not only prove falsity, but also malice.

The Foundation of Reporter's “Privilege”

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of a reporter's "privilege" in 1972. In Branzburg v. Hayes, the Court held that the First Amendment did not give journalists the right to refuse to testify in a grand jury proceeding. With facts similar to the ones implicated in Miller’s case, the Supreme Court made it clear that it would not accept the premise that “the public interest in possible future news about crime from undisclosed, unverified sources must take precedence over the public interest in pursuing and prosecuting those crimes reported to the press by informants and thus deterring the commission of such crimes in the future.” However, the Supreme Court did acknowledge that newsgathering is not without protection and left it to the states and the federal courts to decide when newsgathering interests could reasonably support the reporter's claim of privilege.

Despite repeated attempts, Congress has not enacted a law recognizing the reporter's privilege to date. However, the Senate Judiciary Committee has conducted hearings on the issue of proposed legislation that would afford some protection to journalists. While enactment of such a law is far from guaranteed, public outcry has again brought the issue to the forefront of debate.

Notwithstanding limited federal protection, most state courts have recognized the existence of a qualified privilege in both the civil and criminal contexts. In fact, more than thirty states have gone so far as to enact "Shield Laws," recognizing the important protection required by reporters. Each state’s protections vary, with some states protecting only the "source," while others afford protection to both the source and the unpublished information.

The Balancing "Test"

In states where the reporter’s privilege is recognized, the privilege is usually not absolute, and various competing interests will be balanced when a court considers a reporter’s refusal to reveal the identity of his or her source. To tip the scale in favor of disclosure, this balance often includes a showing that: (1) the information is unavailable and cannot be obtained elsewhere; (2) the information is not cumulative and is "of central importance" to the case; and (3) the need for the information weighs in favor of disclosure.

Be Sure to Assert It and Don't Waive It!

When faced with a subpoena compelling disclosure, a reporter cannot simply turn a blind eye or refuse to cooperate. A few procedures must be followed to validly assert the privilege. They include (1) responding to the request and immediately invoking the privilege; (2) asserting that the information was revealed in confidence; and (3) asserting that the confidentiality is essential to the satisfactory maintenance of the relationship between the parties.

In addition, it is crucial that a reporter not inadvertently waive the privilege. Waiver occurs when the reporter voluntarily discloses the information or acts in a way contrary to the purposes of the privilege. Waivers most frequently occur when reporters commence lawsuits alleging damage to their ability to use sources, or when reporters unwittingly use third parties as vehicles of communication with their sources.

Don't Make Promises You Can't (or Won't) Keep

According to the Journalism Statement of Principles: "Pledges of confidentiality to news sources must be honored at all costs, and therefore should not be given lightly." This principle reflects the ethical or moral obligation reporters often feel to protect certain information or a source's identity irrespective of the law. However, as we saw with Miller, pledges of confidentiality cannot always legally be honored.

Given the highly sensitive nature of the information, the reporter has an ethical obligation to explain the nature and consequences of the privilege to a source at the outset. In doing so, reporters are encouraged and well-advised to make any promises of confidentiality sparingly because a reporter's interest in protecting the identity of the source may, in fact, yield to the public interest in disclosure.

Remember, it's your reputation that's on the line. Knowing the parameters and pitfalls of the privilege can help you make the right call in any given situation.

This article is written to provide readers with a very general overview of the reporter's privilege. The information contained herein should not be construed as providing legal advice and should not be relied on for that purpose. If you have specific legal questions, the author suggests seeking the advice of a qualified attorney.

About the Author

Fernando M. Pinguelo is a trial lawyer licensed to practice law in New York, New Jersey and Washington, D.C. He focuses his practice in the broadcasting sector, building off his ties to Emmy Award-winning clients. He also serves as a regular article contributor for the National Association of Television Arts and Sciences (New York Chapter), TVSpy, Next Generation TV, and Shop Talk. Fernando has published several articles and lectures on a variety of topics including copyright, contracts, entertainment, employment law, and information technology. He has appeared on television several times as a legal commentator on various high-profile trials, and has been quoted in many newspapers and magazines, and on radio and television broadcasts regarding high-impact cases he has handled.

Fernando welcomes questions and/or feedback on any related issues and can be reached either by phone, (908) 722-0700, or via email, fmp@nmmlaw.com. He invites you to visit his website to learn more about similar topics: http://www.nmmlaw.com/attorneys/fmp.html

23-Jul-07 5:00 PM

Gootopia - Living in a Targeted Society

noemail@nyemmys.org — Thu, 31 May 2007 21:00:00 GMT

Alethea Hokum sat quietly, barely breathing. Her glazed eyes showed a faint reflection of the video monitor that had lulled her into semi-consciousness. Startled and just a bit confused, she reached down to silence her vibrating PDA. But something caught her eye. It was a text message offering her an additional 15 percent off if she would like her carpets cleaned this week. Of course the text message was just a few seconds out of sync with the sponsorship message she had just seen, but Alethea knew the offer was especially for her. It was an offer she couldn’t refuse.

She hit the pause button on her television, answered the text message with a simple "y" and pressed send. Two clicks on her remote to get back to the part of the show she missed and less than a minute later, Alethea Hokum returned to her blissful world of personalized, highly relevant media.

Across town, Verity Bunker, a stay-at-home mother of two, was taking a much-needed retail therapy break. As she approached a digital sign at the mall, the message changed to show a woman, with a physique quite similar to her own, in a remarkably familiar setting. Verity could not put her finger on it, but she knew that she had to visit this particular store on this particular trip — what was it about that sign?

Welcome to Gootopia — a place where everything you do, everything you interact with, every behavior you exhibit is analyzed, synthesized and optimized to reflect a world that is most relevant to you. In this targeted society, advertisers and marketers know absolutely everything they could ever want to know about everyone. What they like, whom they like, where they like to go and even more importantly, what everyone doesn’t like. Gootopia may sound like a marketer’s paradise, but it is perdition for almost everyone else.

Would you like to see one of the landmarks you must pass on the road to Gootopia? Visit http://www.google.com/history where you can view and manage your web activity, get the search results most relevant to you and follow interesting trends in your web activity.

What?? Yes, you read it right. Just let Google completely analyze your time online and they will reward you with some personal management tools. What else will they do with the information?

I’m not Dr. Phil, but this sounds like a "how to" manual for destroying even the best of relationships. "Hi honey, here’s a complete log of every website I’ve visited in the last 30 days and how much time I’ve spent on them… let me see yours." Do you know a couple anywhere on this planet whose relationship could survive that information exchange?

Forgetting the privacy issues (formidable as they are), let’s ask a few business questions about the value of hyper-targeted media. Is it really valuable? Certainly not on an individual basis.

Statisticians will tell you that, with the appropriate sample size and mathematical tools, it is relatively easy to predict what a population will do. However, it is absolutely impossible to predict what any individual will do. As you well know, when it comes to your personal decisions, past performance is rarely an indicator of future performance. So, we can predict that tonight in Manhattan, 5,437 dinners will be served at restaurants that feature Mexican food, but we can’t predict who will eat them.

Even if you could predict, with a reasonable margin of accuracy, who would frequent these culinary establishments this evening, would it help you market to them? What would you do differently? Would your advanced knowledge of this particular behavior enable you to extract a greater share of wallet from this hyper-targeted audience? Probably not.

It is pretty reasonable to assume that people who walk into Mexican restaurants are looking forward to eating Mexican food. Knowing who is on their way won’t change much about the experience they have inside.

Now, is there some information we could aggregate and analyze that would allow us to put an idea into someone’s head that today would be a great day to have a Mexican dinner? Couldn’t hyper-targeted marketing help us do that?

Absolutely! Right up until the target’s social network helps them decide otherwise. It happens all the time.

Later that day, Alethea and Verity meet-up with two of their friends at the Tennis Club. Verity says, "… you know, I’ve been thinking about Mexican food all day. Anyone want to join me?" Three of the four women agree but Alethea says, "That sounds fine, but you know what? The best Chinese restaurant in town is just a block away from here. Why don’t we go there?"

So much for all of the day’s hyper-targeted Mexican food marketing dollars, or — was it the fact that the Chinese food trade federation outspent them and got Alethea, the thought leader, to influence the group. Wow! Gootopia is going to be a strange place to live.

31-May-07 4:00 PM

Bob Wright to Chair New Group

noemail@nyemmys.org — Thu, 31 May 2007 21:00:00 GMT

Recognizing the New Digital Generation

New York, N. Y. – The Board of Trustees of the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences today voted unanimously to authorize the formation of a new peer group, the National Academy of Media Arts & Sciences, open to current and new members of any of the 19 chapters of the National Television Academy.

The National Academy of Media Arts & Sciences will be chaired by Bob Wright, Chairman of the Board of NBC Universal and Vice Chairman of the Board, Executive Officer and a member of the Corporate Executive Officer of General Electric Company. Wright, who joined NBC as President/CEO in 1986 and served as Chairman & CEO of NBC Universal from May 2004-February 2007, has had one of the longest and most successful tenures of any media company chief executive. During his successful tenure at NBC, Wright extended the broadcaster into cable and satellite, international and new media markets.

“This move is exactly the right move at the right time, and we’ve got the right guy to move the National Academy in this direction ” said National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Chairman Herb Granath, Chairman Emeritus, ESPN; Board member of Ron Lauder’s Central European Media (CME); and Co-Chairman of Crown Media Holdings,

Wright, who appeared before the National Television Academy’s Board of Trustees today said, “I am very happy to be involved with this group (the National Academy of Media Arts & Sciences). It has been clear to me for some period of time that we have converging technologies, and we need to figure out away to get these people involved with us. This new group is a great way to connect with these people.”

“This chapter-based peer group recognizes the new digital generation that has captivated our industry,” says Peter Price, President/CEO, National Television Academy. “Through the formation of this peer group, we will embrace our peers in the new media and broaden our membership to include television and media. We are grateful for the support and leadership Bob Wright, one of the greatest visionaries in our industry, gives to this group.”

Price noted that the new National Academy of Media Arts & Sciences will focus on membership and education. Through the National Television Academy’s existing Advanced Media Committee, chaired by Shelly Palmer, Managing Director, Advanced Media Ventures Group, LLC, (who will be Vice-Chairman of the new National Academy of Media Arts & Sciences) education programs including online newsletters and briefings as well as special events and special access at industry functions, such at the Consumer Electronics Show and the National Association of Broadcasters annual conference, will continue to be developed.

The new National Academy of Media Arts & Sciences will not conduct any awards competitions. The Emmy® Awards remain under the authority of the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, which last year began awarding a limited number of Emmy Awards for broadband.

The National Television Academy is a professional service organization dedicated to the advancement of the arts and sciences of television and the promotion of creative leadership for artistic, educational and technical achievements within the television industry. It recognizes excellence in television with the coveted Emmy® Awards for News & Documentary, Sports, Daytime Entertainment, Daytime Creative Arts and Entertainment, Public & Community Service, Technology & Engineering, and Business & Financial Reporting. Beginning in 2006, The National Television Academy began recognizing programming produced for the Internet, cellphones, and portable media players with its new Broadband Emmy Award for Outstanding Achievement in Content for Broadband and Portable Delivery. Excellence in Primetime programming and international programming is recognized by its affiliate, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. Regional Emmys are given in 19 regions across the United States. Beyond awards, the National Television Academy has extensive educational programs including National Student Television and its Student Award for Excellence for outstanding journalistic work by high school students, as well as scholarships, publications, and major activities for both industry professionals and the viewing public. For more information, please visit the website at www.emmyonline.tv

31-May-07 4:00 PM

Seeing The Future Through The Past

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:00:00 GMT

By Shelly Palmer
Chairman, Advanced Media Committee

After the Wright brothers did their “proof of concept” flight circa 1903, the fledging airline industry hit the road in search of development capital. They brought their proposal to America’s richest, most successful businessmen: the railroad barons. According to legend, they were summarily dismissed. It seems the railroad tycoons didn’t think much of the technology and felt it would never attain critical mass.

The most popular criticism of the railroad executives opines that they were too stupid to recognize that they were the transportation business, not the railroad business. And, more importantly, they should have recognized the airplane as the new new thing.

Anyone who lives in the present might look at this story see it as glaringly irrelevant. We don’t really know what the railroad guys were thinking, the story is oversimplified hearsay. And, it took 40 plus years for the airline industry reign supreme – an evolutionary time-scale by today’s standards. And, while we’re at it, what is the analog to the airline’s role in our industry. Surely not the Internet – that bubble has burst! Broadband? Ridiculous! WiFi? Keep dreaming. PVRs? Unlikely. So why tell the story at all?

Like all good history lessons, if we apply context, it can help us see the future through the past. The moral of this folktale is: know what business you’re in. In context, 1903 was a comparatively naïve time. Things moved slower and post hoc, ergo propter hoc (A Latin phrase traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this.") was reasonably assumed by almost everyone about almost everything. That was then.

Today, we move in Internet time and no one with half a brain would ever be self-important enough to posit that anything, but the most simple events, are causal. We live in an extraordinarily random universe with some version of chaos theory impacting every business decision – no matter how small. We also live in a world where technologies evolve decades before societal, cultural or business rules can catch up to them. And, unlike 1903, 2003 offers dozens (even hundreds) of new technologies competing for the title of rightful heir to television’s legacy. Who will win? What will the future look like? Where should you spend your time and resources?

While there are an infinite number of paths that the future will not take, there are far fewer probable paths. I don’t have “the” answer, but I can offer a platform for your personal crystal ball to rest upon.

We are coming to the age of mass personalization. Current technology enables and empowers distributors of media to touch their consumers in many different places in many different ways.

What business are you in? Certainly not television, not broadcasting, not cable and not satellite … you are a distributor of media and your future lies in millions of personal relationships that technology will enable you to forge over the very near term.

While your sales department is busy taking orders for traditional television advertising, trained salespeople from other distributors of media are actually selling non-traditional properties to your clients. Your clients don’t talk about it that much because no one property is that important. Right now, advanced media must be aggregated to be meaningful. There are few, if any, business rules for buying and selling, but they will evolve as needed. Advanced media is a dispassionate, self-regulating system.

Can you see the future through the past? It’s like a hundred little fledgling airline industries competing for critical mass. With the scatter market in the basement and an Olympic and election year coming, who has time to think about this? You must! Because like all good viral entities, by the time this one hits your radar, it will be too late.

-- Shelly Palmer is president of Palmer Advanced Media, a deep-knowledge consulting practice specializing in transition advisement for brand management and media companies.

31-Aug-06 4:00 PM

Scared of TiVo and Cable …Kick their butts with Virtual VOD!

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:00:00 GMT

By Shelly Palmer
Chairman, Advanced Media Committee

The government granted you a bunch of digital bandwidth. Pundits are saying that HD is the future, and you should think seriously about using most of your big pipe for HD. It’s sort of a Field of Dreams argument. “If you build it, they will come.” Perhaps. Some, less popular engineers, have been advocating the multiplexing of a few dozen digital SD channels instead … maybe they’re on to something?

Let’s do a thought experiment about brand and audience building. First, we’ll multiplex your new digital signal into a bunch of SD channels. (That will take some hardware, but not much.) Then we’ll need programming assets that are brand relevant. And last, but not least, we’ll need a value proposition for the viewers. Wrap it up in some clever marketing and you have powerful a new product: Virtual VOD.

Sadly, there are a few “real world” obstacles to this plan. Not the least of which are retransmission rules, guild payments, music royalties … the list is practically endless. Or is it?

What if you already owned programming assets that viewers wanted and needed in a time sensitive way. What if those assets were already responsible for a huge portion of your revenue stream? What if you could program those assets, let’s say, every half hour overlapping on different virtual SD channels until you were ready to broadcast the next live show, and then started the cycle over again?

Obvious, isn’t it!

Local News is the asset you can use right now to take advantage of this new technology and, in the process, drive viewership, build brand equity and actually serve your local community better. Re-running local news programming every half hour on a different virtual channel will enable viewers to see a complete newscast whenever they get home without TiVo or a cable box.

Want a great promotion? Get some local advertisers to subsidize a simple batwing (indoor digital) antenna – they don’t cost that much to begin with. Imagine the value of your station logo or one of your clients’ logos on a hi-tech indoor digital antenna. The value proposition for the consumer is extraordinary. They’ll get access to hundreds of digital broadcast channels in the marketplace “for free.” But, the process will be branded by you!

Let’s continue our thought experiment. At some point, the industry will solve its “real world” problems. You will be able to re-run programming on virtual channels in an economic way. No matter how far off in the future that may be, you will still have created a strong bond with your viewers and helped them get in the habit of using free over-the-air digital instead of (or as a competitive, valuable adjunct to) TiVo, PVR’s or Cable VOD.

When most people think of Advanced Media, they make the mistake of thinking about the distant future. Technology is not in the distant future – technology is here now. Business rules and market forces are the only true obstacles to technological progress. So, if you have something of value that people want, like local news. Why not use your technology to help you build your special niche in television’s digital future.

-- Shelly Palmer is president of Palmer Advanced Media, a deep-knowledge consulting practice specializing in transition advisement for brand management and media companies.

31-Aug-06 4:00 PM

The Death of the Demo

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:00:00 GMT

By Shelly Palmer

Chairman - New Media Committee

The term “demo” is having an identity crisis. In the old days (from the dawn of time until about 3 years ago) “demos” were what you did when you didn’t have money to do “finals.” The term applied to every kind of creative project: music, video, film, flat art, graphics, etc. The package designers call them “comps” but it’s basically still a demo.

Whole industries emerged to meet the needs of demo makers: Animatic houses, video storyboard producers, music demo or “project” studios – aah … those were the days.

Today, desktop production technology has, for all practical purposes, killed the old meaning of the term. It is reborn to mean, “not yet approved by the client.”

This is causing a huge problem for creatives and producers who have not yet acquired desktop production skills. And, it is causing even bigger problems for creatives and producers who liked “the good old days.”

Although this is the perfect segue into a philosophical or, at least, a semantic discussion about how creatives and producers are supposed to spend their time, let’s get practical!

Your first step into the New World of production is to get in the game. This is simple and relatively cheap. You can do this with a Mac or a PC … it doesn’t really matter. Here’s a short list of desktop production programs and the disciplines they cover. These are not the only programs available and every professional will have their own favorites. That being said, I like these programs in their current versions.

Your job is to select one, buy it, and learn to use it. You can take classes at the New School, SVA or even CompUSA. And, Borders, Barnes & Noble and Amazon are full of text books and manuals of every kind. This is a first step – one I highly recommend you take.

31-Aug-06 4:00 PM

No more gates…no more barbarians!

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:00:00 GMT

By Shelly Palmer
Chairman, New Media Committee

Less than a decade ago, if you wanted to get into the television business there were of course certain barriers. The obvious ones were talent, skill and willpower…but there were “technical” ones as well. The gateway to success was zealously guarded by a few “gatekeepers” with large capital investments, armies of engineers, and platoons of their very own technically oriented artisans.

For people with something to contribute, it exacted a heavy toll. By the mid-nineties, the cost of studio time reached an all time high and the complexity of the technology made it a conspiracy against the laity.

That was then.

Now, many of the biggest post-production houses in New York have closed, National, Post Perfect and East Side to name a few. And although there were many reasons for the end of this era, the biggest was simply -- there were no more gates to guard.

What does this mean? Technology, once the bastion of the “rich and famous” is now available to everyone who wants it. Programs like Final Cut, Nuendo, Pro-Tools, Logic and After Effects can easily be combined to create broadcast quality television and music - all in the comfort of your living room running on a desktop computer. What was once a million dollar installation can now be duplicated for under $20,000. For all practical purposes, there is no longer a barrier to entry into our industry.

Of itself, this is not news. The endless pursuit of cheaper production and manufacture built our entire country. From the days of Andrew Carnegie to every corner of our present global economy, businessmen seek lower production costs to increase profits.

But in our case, the ramifications are thought provoking in a different way. One of the qualities of the “barrier to entry” into our business was that only big successful choosers of content flourished -- the Networks, the big publishing houses, the big movie studios and record companies, all had internal mechanisms to guard the gates, so only the most “saleable” properties made it to market and only those with “hit” potential received the allocation of resources required to make them successful. Now, there is another disturbing trend, number-crunchers have all but replaced creatives in gatekeeping roles.

The rub is…without gatekeepers our new found technical freedom will yield a great deal of sub-optimal work product. As Fred Siebert once opined on a panel I moderated, “most people are not very talented.” And now, since literally anyone who wants to make a TV show can now do so, with production costs heading down, there will undoubtedly be an overabundance of low quality, low cost programming. The surviving gatekeepers will have some job figuring out what to do with it!

The good news is -- the impact new technology will have on the quantity of inferior programming will be short term. Ultimately, the market will self-regulate, and the over zealous wannabe Spielbergs will return to their day jobs. The exciting part is that new technology is also available to talented people. For them, the revolution is the dawn of a new era in creativity. If you can conceive it, you can realize it.

And, you can show potential clients EXACTLY how it will look to the audience!

Next issue, we’ll discuss the “death of the demo” – a happy demise.

31-Aug-06 4:00 PM

New York Emmy® Awards

Music Choice

Planet Green

Dolores Morris, HBO Family and Documentary Programming

A REPORTER'S CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE . . . REVEALED?

Gootopia - Living in a Targeted Society

Bob Wright to Chair New Group

Seeing The Future Through The Past

By Shelly Palmer Chairman, Advanced Media Committee

Scared of TiVo and Cable …Kick their butts with Virtual VOD!

By Shelly Palmer Chairman, Advanced Media Committee

The Death of the Demo

No more gates…no more barbarians!

By Shelly Palmer Chairman, New Media Committee

By Shelly Palmer
Chairman, Advanced Media Committee

By Shelly Palmer
Chairman, Advanced Media Committee

By Shelly Palmer
Chairman, New Media Committee