^Yeah. My dad hardly watches any TV. (Instead, he devours historical non-fiction like there's no tomorrow.) But he finally succumbed and subscribed to cable once they stopped showing regular Arizona Diamondbacks games on free TV. Beyond that, I don't think he watches much cable and most of what he does watch is reruns of Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Monk,
I agree - governments should stop pissing away tax payer money on sports infrastructure for the benefit of the private sector.
Which incidentally gets the money from the TV rights none of which flows back to the tax payer.
And while the stadiums may be publicly owned, I think the teams are the ones who get all the revenue from the advertising within the facility.
I do want to applaud the good people of San Francisco. IIRC, Pac Bell Park is the 1st wholly privately funded sports stadium in a long time.
Joy To The World wrote:
Well in the US the voters always vote on the issue, so if it is approved by the voters how can anyone complain.
Often the funding for the stadiums are included as unconstitutional riders on otherwise popular ballot propositions. Take University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, for example. During the campaign, all I heard about the proposition was all of the funding it included for public youth sports programs. After the campaign, all I heard about was the big new stadium for the Arizona Cardinals. The funding for the youth sports was rarely mentioned again. Furthermore, the Arizona constitution makes it clear that ballot propositions can only address one issue at a time. So combining the youth sports with the pro stadium funding was a clear constitutional violation.
Temis the Red-Nosed Vorta wrote:
How does broadcast vs. cable make a difference for Star Trek? I must have missed that conversation.
This is the wrong forum for Star Trek
so it doesn't get discussed much here. But networks have been migrating for years to mass-market entertainment - CSI,
reality shows - while the niche/genre stuff has migrated to basic and premium cable. Sci fi just doesn't qualify as mass entertainment anymore, because the "mass" has become uh "massier," which isn't a bad thing, when niche entertainment can prosper on basic cable.
was cancelled for having 4M viewers but shows like Mad Men
survive just fine with 2-3M, so why not just put Star Trek
in an environment where reaching a niche audience is not a problem?
The difference is, on cable, each of those 2-3M eyeballs are more valuable, because of subscription fees, and therefore can be more profitable than 4M on wholly ad-based network TV. Don't try to get more people to watch Star Trek
by blanding it down and ruining it so that you end up appealing to no one; put Star Trek
where the viewers are more valuable and can support production.
Well, yeah. Although, I thought that was common knowledge, particularly considering the only space opera series on the air for the last few years have all been on the Sci-Fi Channel anyway. I don't see how the collapse of broadcast TV would make that any more clear.
Furthermore, if broadcast TV collapsed and mass entertainment like CSI
& so forth had nowhere else to go but cable, might that squeeze out some of the niche programming that survives on cable now?
The Borgified Corpse wrote:
This would make me sad. Granted, I don't watch much broadcast TV. Even if I had cable, I don't think I'd watch live TV much more anyway. As it is, I find it's cheaper to not pay for cable and instead save my money for the DVDs.
I saved a lot of money by getting a DVR. DVDs used to be a much bigger expense for me.
Well, I'm also addicted to pretty DVD packaging. I'm a collector at heart. I own way more DVDs than I watch.