Playlist Potential

Playlists, please.

If the tvOS team talked with the iTunes and Apple Music teams more often, I think they'd see a missed opportunity for a commonly used and shared format: playlists. The Watchlist sometimes fetches all the latest new episodes, but I may still need to scroll horizontally for a while to cherry pick the first thing I want. Normally, my watching pattern is consistent enough to go on auto pilot mode. I wish I could pre-select and save certain groupings of media channels available through the Apple TV. One imagining could be a "Home DJ" app.

Or something of the like

I would be able to create a playlist, specifically selecting shows to populate with random episodes, sequentially, or only for new and unwatched content. Music breaks can be inserted, with duration set by number of songs or a specific period of time. Scrolling up while the TV is active on any current item would bring up the playlist and the ability to jump ahead to future items. 

When a playlist ends, the Apple TV returns to screensaver, letting me return to my life and decide what my activity will be. The number of clicks and necessary jumps between apps to watch a "normal" amount of content has too much friction. All the pieces are there for tvOS to be better. Playlists seems like a low hanging fix with oversized returns.  

Banana Banana Banana

CNN received a lot of attention recently when they introduced their 'facts first' ad campaign. Presenting CNN as the bastion of truth telling, the ads are memorable, but misrepresentative of CNN in the same way Fox News gets lambasted for being 'fair' and 'balanced'. When CNN is reporting on facts, it can be fantastic; it's a shame it happens so rarely on their airtime.

It's a banana more often than CNN would care to admit

Anytime I sample the big three cable news entities, the same questions keep repeating in my head: how many people are part of the discussion, what is the main topic being discussed, and to what extent is the chyron being used. When cable news is at its very best, there is less than 3 people covering events that have already occurred where the chyron summarizes and reinforces the journalism. I can find this rare unicorn configuration consistently once on each channel: at the top of the hour with Jake Tapper and The Lead, and peppered throughout the hours under Shepard Smith and Chuck Todd's supervision. 

Conjecture about what Robert Mueller is thinking, who Trump might fire next or when Micheal Avenatti finds time to take his one blue suit to the dry cleaners isn't helpful to public discourse. If CNN was hellbent on making sure a more informed electorate never repeated the mistakes of 2016, they sure have a funny way of going about it. In the prime time hours, the CNN chyron exists solely to troll the president. When I try to engage with family that rarely turns the TV away from Fox News, the first line of defense is always the hypocrisy of CNN: that they, or MSNBC, commit the same sins as Fox News. It leaves me with the impression that they can see what's wrong with their offering, but are not willing to lose the culture war. I wish there was a strong neutral future-forward option for all of us.

This isn't helping

I want a news source that is constantly questioning their intent and strive to have clear and transparent goals. Trump mentions that the Iran deal is the worst deal the U.S. has ever signed. Rather than six talking heads screaming about what happens next, why not have a retrospective that analyzes the complicated deals we've done in the past. How do they compare to this one? CNN's projecting an image of self-righteousness that rings a little too close to Hillary Clinton's campaign image. We already know how this story ends. We need something new. 

Fragmented Public Consensus

     As we enter a period of peak TV and social media saturation, there is a growing amount of content being made and shared in an ever expanding number of ways. This content surge also applies to what would be classically known as the news industry, as well as a variety of budding blog spaces and internet sites that self identify as distributors of news. A common confirmation bias towards people's own beliefs leads many to very selective and isolated areas of exposure and perspective to the outside world. It can be all too easy to fall complacent in one's own bubble of reinforcing sources. 

     Confounding the problem is the way entertainment value, sensationalism and viral potential greatly influence the content going into people's streams of information. A sensationalist headline or cynical image is more likely to be shared and seen in front of more sets of eyeballs. The cover of TIME magazine this week asks "Is Truth Dead?" with a focus on President Trump and his penchant for deflection and obfuscation. While President Trump may be quantitatively leading the pack in cherry picking objective facts he likes and ignoring all others, he's following in well established foot prints of most politicians. What makes this period of time for American civil society more fraught and perilous than nearly any other in modern history is the personalization and fragmentation of the news market. Historically, newspapers served as the clearing house for what happened in the day and its possible significance for its readers. Select editors of well regarded newspapers played an enormous role in setting the public tone and expectations of its readers. Newspapers were an agreed upon platform between citizens and their polticians wherein ideological and political battles could be waged and public sentiment could be measured to dictate the direction our democracy grew. 

     With the advent of radio, news was more readily spread to people across all socio economic levels, but the new technology and limited number of companies powerful enough to amass empires of airwaves did not fragment the big tent public consensus achieved through print. Radio bought into the existing dynamic of newspapers and became additional guardians of content. The first Gulf War and CNN's 24/7 coverage was the first real disruption to the news industry status quo. Seeing the ratings success CNN garnered, others saw a financial vehicle to reap profits: that they were to operate in the news industry was often irrelevant in the drive to create new media empires. The spread of modern cable, cable channel options, and Internet availability lead to a significant number of entities competing against each other for eyeballs. The competition lead many companies to curate their worldview and the personalities they put on screen to spread them in the hopes of targeting particular demographics. This strategy worked a little too well.

     These days, how each person relates to the world is greatly influenced by the sources and platforms through which they get their news. Fundamental objective descriptions of what is possible and not possible, or what has happened or not happened become warped and twisted to serve the marketing purposes of a given platform and their community. Nuance, grey, and uncertainty fade away in this highly competitive and highly polarized environment. It makes it hard to remain clear eyed when the news is coming in slow, let alone when it rains important information

     Take this past week. Just some of the important things that happened this week could be summarized as follows:

• FBI Director James Comey on Monday confirmed the existence of a criminal investigation into Trump associates that may have colluded with Russia.
• House of Representatives made their final push for AHCA, their ACA repeal and replace plan, only to pull the bill from the floor minutes before the vote was set to begin. 
• House Intelligence Chair David Nunes on Wednesday canceled a scheduled open hearing with former Directors of National Intelligence and CIA, as well as former deputy Attorney General
• California Air Resources Board on Friday voted on Friday to reconfirm existing emission standards for cars made in 2022-2025. This follows a decision last week by the EPA that signaled their intent to change existing regulations for 2022-2025, making them more lenient in a bow to car manufacturers.

     These sentences were written with the intention of only listing events that happened with no commentary. What do these events mean for the country? How do we best contextualize the choices made by the parties listed? Every person is going to form a unique viewpoint that is reinforced by the news media platform they consume and were most likely ideologically aligned with to begin with. While this diversity might be praised in another situation, it can be extremely destructive to baseline assumptions made in a functioning democracy. Public consensus, once shared by a handful of news and radio entities, has morphed into unique and distinct media company filters on reality. The spin a media company could apply to news stories may be applied for nefarious reasons to disinform citizens, or it may be applied in the proven track record of elevating rhetoric and polarization to increase ratings and profits. The media companies can operate with no responsibility to server a larger purpose of an informed citizenry, in effect crippling a fundamental, albeit assumed role the media plays in keeping a democracy transparent.

   Truth lay in the eye of the beholder. In the past, the esteem and limited number of outlets provided no where for politicians to hide from the facts as seen by all journalists. Today, if you don't like the set of "facts" being reported by an outlet, you can easily find a competitor who relays information in a way that lines up with your world view. The media companies contort themselves to feed the entertainment of select groups, sometimes by completely eschewing whole sections of the population. What President Trump does is not too different. There's no longer a group consensus as to what happened. Targeted "truths" to a targeted audience is the new norm. It is too easy for people to fall into a very narrow echo chamber. There has to be a better way to aggregate consensus and return a sense of universal accountability to our public officials. If it's to come anytime soon, it had better have a very profitable business model to encourage investment. Until then, platforms that strive for journalistic integrity should be lauded and supported. I'm looking at you, NewsHour.

With freedom from profit seeking comes great responsibility in journalism.

The Social Sharing Economic Meltdown

In 1960 the debate between Nixon and Kennedy was simulcast on radio and television, Americans had to choose how they consumed the debate and then decide which candidate came off the victor. The consensus held that television viewers favored Kennedy, while radio listeners leaned towards Nixon. Kennedy proved more adept and handsome enough to spread his campaign message to voters newly exposed to an audio-visual medium. Television became the primary battleground to reach the largest number of potential voters. The attention of voters shifts with time and technological advancements. The Internet, blogs, social media, and Citizens United have all done their part in changing the frontier of modern politics. The largest shift since 1960 has come from the fight for higher ratings by media companies hosting an ever increasing number of debates and town halls.

Distraction is in large supply today. Smartphones, laptops, tablets, and television all openly compete with each other for eyeballs and attention. More often than not, no true victor emerges and two screen viewing becomes the norm. The best chance for something resonating and sticking with someone is repeated and/or unique appearances in his or her social media stream. For candidates competing for the presidency, this status quo is unbreakable through conventional political means. To push their message forward and gain traction in the polls, candidates need to stand out. Many have chosen this election cycle to aim for spectacle and shock. The most likes, shares and follows come from the nastiest barrages or entertaining soundbites. It's hard to fault the candidates for playing to the house crowd. They are doing what they feel is necessary to convert attention into votes. The same cannot be said for the media companies who provide the brunt of the audio-visual content being repurposed on social media.

There was a time when media companies maintained a certain level of civility and respect toward men and women in public office. Journalists not only cared about job security and increasing viewership or circulation, but also about respecting decorum. Cynicism's growth in pop culture may be responsible for this erosion and disintegration of journalistic integrity. Media companies have leveraged this opportunity to act like unshackled genies, free to conjure any content to drive eyeballs and advertising revenue. In theory, more presidential debates would give more time to voice policy views and lead to a more informed populous voting at large. This holds only if the hosts of these debates feel compelled to be a part of the voting process, aiding in the process of getting voters to make the most informed decision. What we have seen this election cycle is that these companies are acting primarily (if not solely) to exploit and manipulate the candidates for their own ratings. It is in the best interest of a company holding a debate to make the stakes seem high and the race close. The lax enforcement of debate rules and lines of questioning by moderators can be seen as prodding candidates to come out slinging against each other or say something lurid. The heated moments will gain traction on social media, and hopefully better ratings and future ad buys on the network. The march for high ratings and viral social media content has poisoned the quality of the political conversation and skewed reality.

View fullsize

Voting With Incomplete Information

Informed voters are the only means in a democracy to make meaningful progress. We should try to ensure that candidates have reasonable and fair vetting in the public eye. It's easy to find an argument towards publicly sponsored debates that air simulcast across all network broadcasters and any other mediums who wish to participate. Questions could be vetted by journalists and experts in relevant fields to better yield an answer that would better help inform a voter about a candidate's position. The goal of debates and town halls should be to inform the voter and push the conversation forward on policy positions. Candidates shouldn't be coddled with pre-screened questions or gerrymandered audience members. Someone has to hold the line for civil political discourse. Ad-free debates simulcast across competing networks would be a good first step towards improving the political conversation. 

Kayla Webley, "How the Nixon-Kennedy Debate Changed the World", Time, September 23, 2010

SCOTUS blog, "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission", http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/

Christopher Zara, "Broadcast And Cable TV Ratings Keep Declining", International Business Times, June 16, 2015

Use My Cookies For Good

On a day to day basis, I spend most of my internet browsing time in incognito tabs. I reserve normal browser windows for the few services I use that require them: email access, Amazon ordering, Netflix and Hulu. Two primary motivations factor into this. For one, I like reading a lot of news paper sites. I don't feel the current paywall offerings justify maintaining separate logins and spreading my credit card's numbers all over town. Secondly, I have a strong derision for targeted ads. The opaqueness of the advertising companies is a little too creepy, and usually they target the version of myself in the past. If I search for a particular vacuum, perhaps the best that ever existed, I spend a modest and minimal amount of time deciding on a purchase and buying right then and there. Months after I've received and and beaten down said vacuum cleaner, ad networks sample my cookies, see an instance of a vacuum, and continue to fill my screens with a decision from the past.

For my cookies and data to be shared, I would only give my consent if I felt it selfishly benefited me. Only one scenario comes to mind: providing proof of new or on-the-bubble shows to networks that show my viewership via means outside the normal Nielson television ratings. I cut the cord two years ago, and rely solely on a disappointing Apple TV for access to media content. As slick as tvOS may look, I doubt it's doing any smart connecting of dots on the programs I watch. 

For brand new shows, they have to overcome so many hurdles to not only appear interesting or of interesting merit, but also fit into my (albeit self-inflicted) requirements for ease of consumption. Netflix, HBO Now and Hulu Plus are sunk costs to me that are just good enough for their ease and content. They are my default options to fetch new content

Say a show premieres. Can I watch it next-day on Hulu? That to me is free "sampling" of new content. I have to rely on promos, word of mouth, or reviews to get over my hesitance to jump into a new show. If I can't see it for free, I need to be absolutely convinced it is for me before I go and buy an episode or the full season. 

I want the producers of these shows to know of the success stories for some of their marketing and distribution plans. Two recent examples come to mind: Fargo and Man Seeking Woman, from FX and FXX respectively. With each show, I had heard good word of mouth. For whatever reason, my interest never rose to the point that I would pull the trigger and buy the season on iTunes, the only viewing option available to me given my restriction. Second seasons roles around for each show, and by this time Hulu now offers season one, "free" to me. A quick pace at knocking out season one episodes lead to an immediate purchase of the still-airing second seasons of both.

View fullsize

SHARING IS CARING

I like these shows. I want more of these types of shows. But their marketing campaigns didn't pique my interest initially. What sold me on it was the access to the content on platforms I subscribe to already. I want Apple to share everything about my viewership details from Hulu as well as the purchase and consumption from iTunes to the show's producers. There are eyeballs and dollars to be made from sources that may not report much data to producers currently. Please share my cookies for good. I want more good television. If my consumption and purchase history could help shows I like that are fighting cancelation, then give the data to them. 

Why Are You Watching?

Three people can be sitting inches from each other, ostensibly having a shared experience of watching television, yet have next to no overlap in their attention nor impression of the program. This is the status quo of modern media consumption. When network broadcasts launched in the 1940s, watching television was a group activity. Kids would return home from playing at dusk, everyone would sit down to a home cooked supper, and then retire to the den to watch Texaco Star Theatre or other family programming. TV was where people came together when there was nothing else to do: a meditative nightcap before bed. 

As television evolved with the rest of the world, more channels, programming, and alternative activities vied for attention. Upwards of 25% of the US residents who owned televisions would be watching the same program simultaneously, bridging socioeconomic, religious, and racial divides. All in the Family or I Love Lucy transmissions into households helped spread diversification and heightened awareness of how much fell under the banner of living in America. Without the internet or disposable income to travel, programs like these were some of the only ways for people living the American dream in small town America to broaden their understanding and acceptance of foreign experiences. People didn't watch solely for the laughs or the drama; they watched to educate themselves about the greater world around them and the language necessary to understand where we as a country were going. 

Television lost its position as cultural ambassador as soon as its vice grip on convenience and accessibility loosened. People came to afford multiple television sets. The number of channels available expanded tremendously. Programs were created to focus on particular audiences most appealing to the advertisers, never again aiming to be an all encompassing big tent for everyone.

If someone in a group suggests we watch something on TV, it's a choice that reflects a desired pause or full-stop in the current social activity. Mental batteries need to be recharged: second screens need attention to divert us from living in the moment. For me, I look at social media scrolling while watching TV as no different than mindless channel surfing. It's the modern evolution of aimless desire and intent, fancied up with hashtags and social media hooks. TV went from helping us better acclimate to a rapidly growing world, to a required input to better align our relevance to the memes and trending topics of the day. I watch TV to fall into a universe of characters, be surprised or impressed by the story telling devices chosen or invented, and to reflect on what these characters mean to me and what that says about myself: or to laugh at fart jokes. Why do you watch TV?

View fullsize

Must See TV