×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

You're Watching Less TV

timothy posted about 10 years ago | from the my-gosh-it's-full-of-stars dept.

Media 769

NickFusion writes "With a plethora of online games, chat, IM, email and, well, Slashdot, who's got time to watch television? Evidently, not men ages 18-34. The NY Times (free reg, etc) takes a look at the issue and comes to conclusions that will shock, I say shock, the average Slashdot reader. Meanwhile, Fox Broadcasting Corp. is calling for a recount. Disclosure: I'm quoted in the NY Times article, and so is one Rob Malda. Mom will be so proud!"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

769 comments

CONDOLEEZZA RICE AM TEH HOTNESS!!~1 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8714658)

No hurry.. (5, Interesting)

mr.henry (618818) | about 10 years ago | (#8714662)

As a guy in the 18-34 bracket, I find it more convenient to just download commercial free SVCD episodes of TV shows I want to watch. You can usually find them a couple hours to a couple of days after they air live. I usually let a couple weeks worth of episodes build up, then just have a mini-marathon of Alias or Simpsons or whatever.

It's cheaper than a TiVo and I get to keep stuff permanently. Also, I can enjoy The Sopranos and (before it was canceled..) Jeremiah without having to cough up $$$ for the expensive channels.

Software (0, Offtopic)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 10 years ago | (#8714714)

What software do you use to burn your svcd's and what settings do you use? I tried to burn one the other week with some software I bought by ULead and it won't play in my DVD player. There were tons of options for the format and all- I just don't relish trying them all out trying to find the right combination.

Re:Software (2, Informative)

wwest4 (183559) | about 10 years ago | (#8714833)

If you're using Windows, late versions of Nero support burning bin/cue. To assemble a bin/cue from your [properly-formatted] MPGs, use GNU vcdimager under cygwin.

Re:Software (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8714835)

Your dvd player needs to support SVCDS. Some will only decode mpeg-1 if they detect a cd, SVCD is mpeg-2 like a DVD.

Nero works well enough for me.

Re:Software (3, Informative)

lambent (234167) | about 10 years ago | (#8714881)

I use GNU VCD imager (http://www.vcdimager.org/) under linux (I believe it also works in Windows with Cygwin). It's as easy as 'vcdimager -t svcd input.mpg', then you burn the resulting bin/cue. Of course, the inputs have to be in the correct mpeg formats, so I tend to spend more time reencoding AVIs than actually watching them.

Pretty much all DVD players will play s/VCDs, as long as they're built to spec.

While we're on the subject, what's the deal with these dinks cropping the top and bottom of 4:3 vids and calling them 'widescreen hdtv' encodes? Pisses me off no end, since my DVD is not smart enough to recenter the picture, and it only uses the top half of my TV.

Re:Software (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8714885)

Use Nero. It can burn bin/cue files as well as raw MPEGS.

Go here [dvdrhelp.com] to see if your DVD player supports SVCDs.

Re:No hurry.. (5, Insightful)

WormholeFiend (674934) | about 10 years ago | (#8714822)

No hurry indeed.

Not only do I lack the time to watch TV, I dont have the time to watch the shows I download!

I've got a piles of CDRs that are THIS HIGH, waiting to be watched.

Feels like I'm starting to have a mindless collection habit, like those people who collect beer bottle caps or something.

Re:No hurry.. (2, Interesting)

bitchell (159219) | about 10 years ago | (#8714872)

I have actually now got to the point where I sometimes "collect" so much that I just end up deleting it before I watch or even burn it.

I repeatedly find myself asking what was the point in getting that.

Re:No hurry.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8714897)

I don't have the time to burn it, I just buy more harddrives...

What is this "t.v." you speak of? (5, Interesting)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | about 10 years ago | (#8714828)

I fondly remember the day I discovered Farscape while in the middle of of season 3. I spent a month watching one or two episodes a day, living and breathing the stuff.

It's a truly heady experience and one I heartily recommend. Being able to pull down the entertainment you want, when you want it is going to change the way things work at a very basic level. Media executives should be scrambling to figure out how to switch to a subscription model before their ad dollars dry up.

Re:No hurry.. (1)

segfault7375 (135849) | about 10 years ago | (#8714843)


See, this pisses me off too.. Showtime cancelled Odyssey 5 (which was a fantastic show) because they wanted to keep just Jeremiah as thier sci-fi show. Now they go and cancel it. Sheesh.

Online (5, Insightful)

BWJones (18351) | about 10 years ago | (#8714665)

Well, lets see: with my research occupying upwards of 80-90 hours a week working, including some time posting on Slashdot :-), who has time for TV?

Seriously though, I mark my time online historically with the first major news announcement I heard online before I heard it via television. That news item was the Oklahoma city bombing of the Federal Building. Since then I have received most of my news items online rather than through traditional outlets. Even as a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, I get most of my content online.

Additionally, with the increasing productivity of the average American worker just trying to keep their jobs, one might suppose that the Internet provides for a more flexible media resource outlet allowing folks to customize their news searches without having to wait through the tripe and entertainment garbage that Fox News and more recently CNN et. al. have been delivering.

Re:Online (5, Insightful)

Stargoat (658863) | about 10 years ago | (#8714794)

Good point. News on television is laughable. Why bother with that pointless medium when you have the news you want on the Internet? You get newspaper quality coverage 24/7 and you don't need to deal with the folks who can't seem to make up their minds about what is important and what isn't. I certainly don't watch television so I can see a pixilated breast at the superbowl.

TV has to make itself more relevant if it is to survive. Sure, the Simpsons and 70s Show makes me laugh, and I might occasionally tune in, but otherwise I'll just flip it off and listen to some tunes. So basically, there's nothing good on.

So what does television need to do? Experiment. I want to see stuff on television I haven't seen before, not some dumbass sitcom that's revolutionary because it has a gay person. Real life is far more interesting. Until television takes risks that might let it fail and produces the amazing goods that result, we're not going to bother watching.

Re:Online News (2, Interesting)

Gribflex (177733) | about 10 years ago | (#8714878)

Why watch news?
I've always thought: If something so important was happening, that i had to know about it _right_now_, then someone will have posted it on slashdot.
So I just come here instead.

Case in point:
WTC being hit - slashdot
US going to war - slashdot
Space Shuttle Columbia - slashdot

47 hours of live round the clock coverage of each of the above events (most of which is old news anyhow) - cnn

I don't get cnn for a reason.

TV isn't worth it anymore (4, Insightful)

American AC in Paris (230456) | about 10 years ago | (#8714670)

For my wife and I, high-speed Internet access is half the price of cable TV. We can get news and weather in an instant with my Internet connection. The only compelling reason we have for getting cable is Comedy Central, and while I miss South Park and The Daily Show, they sure as hell ain't worth over $50 a month.

We still watch good ol' broadcast TV every now and then, and we still have favorite shows, but we really don't watch much TV, simply because TV has been replaced by the Internet for instant-access news, information, and interactive entertainment. Cable just isn't worth it anymore.

Re:TV isn't worth it anymore (5, Insightful)

4of12 (97621) | about 10 years ago | (#8714757)


we really don't watch much TV, simply because TV has been replaced by the Internet

We don't watch much live TV, simply because TV has been replaced by agonizingly long stretches of shrill inane advertisements with interruptions of what passes for programming.

Everything we do watch comes off the TiVo, and still it takes 75 channels to find worthwhile content.

Tivo... (0, Offtopic)

gfxguy (98788) | about 10 years ago | (#8714859)

Are there any DVRs (besides building your own) that don't require a subscription?

I'd seriously just like to use one like a VCR. I know the great thing about the service is the "predictive" recording, but I'd really just like to be able to record at a fixed time for a fixed duration. $300 for a Tivo isn't that bad until you add in the subscription, IMO.

Re:TV isn't worth it anymore (1)

myg (705374) | about 10 years ago | (#8714781)

Its hard to go without my southpark fix. I do buy them on DVD as they come out. Since the DVD's don't come out nearly as quickly as they do on comedy central I do cheat and download the ep's.

But I don't call it stealing. I am happy to buy them all on DVD. I'm just impatient.

Yeah, I want cheesey poofs.

thats only half the story... (0, Insightful)

w3weasel (656289) | about 10 years ago | (#8714679)

lets not forget that there is pecious little watchable programming on any channel, especially on the big networks...
oh yeah... did I get first post??? BOOYA!

Re:thats only half the story... (0, Offtopic)

DjMd (541962) | about 10 years ago | (#8714705)

oh yeah... did I get first post??? BOOYA!
No you didn't, Thank you for playing please try again. BOONA!

It's a time waster. (5, Insightful)

yebb (142883) | about 10 years ago | (#8714683)

This is a product of the fact that people want to be able to reclaim their time. That is to say, letting a box push information to them at it's own speed is a waste of time and doesn't give them exactly what they want.

TV isn't going anywhere though, as soon as the TV companies get off their collective butts and get more and more on-demand TV then viewers will return to that medium (even if it is through their computer/digital entertainment unit).

The days of people flipping through channels are ending, and the days of people flipping through menus of available media better be coming soon, or else they risk alienating a generation of people who don't have the time/desire to waste their life waiting for a show to start.

Re:It's a time waster. (1)

betelgeuse-4 (745816) | about 10 years ago | (#8714802)

There have always been better things to do than channel hopping, but people still did/do it (well at least since there have been enough channels for it).

Re:It's a time waster. (2, Insightful)

BWJones (18351) | about 10 years ago | (#8714803)

TV isn't going anywhere though, as soon as the TV companies get off their collective butts and get more and more on-demand TV then viewers will return to that medium (even if it is through their computer/digital entertainment unit).

Indeed. What has amazed me however is that the TV and cable companies have not yet moved to a pure subscription model allowing you to pay for the TV that you watch or letting you even pay for the individual channels you want to watch. For instance, there are probably half a dozen TV channels I would watch including some news, the History Channel, Food TV, Turner Classic movies, and Speedvision. Let me pay for what I want and when I want it and perhaps we might watch more television. As it is now......that big assed set in the TV room gets turned on maybe a couple times a week.

Reclaim wasted time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8714860)

Actually if we were reclaiming our time, and our lives, we'd tell the corporations to fuck off when we have to work 80hours a week.

Re:It's a time waster. (2, Insightful)

hendridm (302246) | about 10 years ago | (#8714891)

This is a product of the fact that people want to be able to reclaim their time. That is to say, letting a box push information to them at it's own speed is a waste of time and doesn't give them exactly what they want.

I agree. My fiance and I had to decide between keeping the cable or getting an extra cell phone. We decided to get the extra cell phone, as we'd get more use of it. It's been a blessing. We don't miss the toxic waste that was on the extra cable channels (we still have basic), and we're finding other things to do with our time that are more productive. We didn't cancel because we were looking to spend our time better. We cancelled because we grew tired of paying for many channels of garbage. The extra quality time was just a pleasant side effect.

TV isn't going anywhere though, as soon as the TV companies get off their collective butts and get more and more on-demand TV then viewers will return to that medium (even if it is through their computer/digital entertainment unit).

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know about other people, but the reason I don't use Pay-per-View is the prices. I can see cable offering a la carte and more indemand programming, but charging an arm and a leg for it, if history is any indication. I'm already paying WAY more for cable than I'd like. I'd rather see more quality programming. The stuff on cable is just garbage and the commercials are getting out of hand! I don't mind watching some relevant, NON-REDUNDANT commercials, since I know that pays the bills. But a lot of the cable channels, with few commercials in their collective pool (*cough* Sci-Fi *cough* Comedy Central *cough*) show the same annoying commercials about Zentrax-3 over and over and over. Even though I've seen the commercial about 1000 times in the last week, why isn't it enough that the average viewer only see that specific commercial ONCE per half hour program? Because you have a certain set amount allocated for commercials, you say, and need to fill them? Well, perhaps that needs to change.

Well... (5, Insightful)

Demanche (587815) | about 10 years ago | (#8714686)

I don't know about the other guys in that age range - but who wants to watch all these reality shows? I had hard enough time keeping up with season 10 of a normal show, now theres season 5 of ppl doing weird stuff on tv.

Mr. Spector's a w... (5, Funny)

lovebyte (81275) | about 10 years ago | (#8714693)

Quoting the penultimate paragraph:
Mr. Spector sees things a little differently. The missing men grew up with a joystick in hand, he said, and computer games have grown up with them.

No comment necessary.

I can agree (5, Interesting)

the Man in Black (102634) | about 10 years ago | (#8714695)

Speaking from the middle of the 18-34 set (I'm 25) I can agree that most of us guys are watching a lot less boob tube. Partially because hardly anything worthwhile comes on (teen dramas and reality shows. And that's IT) the networks, and partially because a lot of us are pulling long hours at our jobs/universities trying to get our respective shit together, and when we get home, it's to watch the news or a freshly Tivo-ed basketball game or episode of the Sopranos. (Or Pr0n. Sweet, delicate pr0n). Then right off to sleep.

When I was in high school, I had much more free time to just veg out in front of the TV AND there seemed to be a better selection of things on (ST:TNG...BUFFY!). Cable networks are where it's at for decent entertainment.

Then of course the problem becomes the exorbitant rates cable companies want ($72.50/month for basic "digital" + HBO where I'm from. Fuck all that). But that's a rant for another time.

Re:I can agree (1, Troll)

leifm (641850) | about 10 years ago | (#8714895)

I can only speak for myself, but I think it's probably true for most of the 18-34 demographic, bring more boob to the tube and I will be more inclined to watch TV.

Fox... Why am I not surprised (5, Informative)

red floyd (220712) | about 10 years ago | (#8714697)

Wasn't it a Fox exec who commented that not watching the commercials was theft?

Obviously we must ban video games and the Internet because they are stealing potential revenue from the media companies!

Re:Fox... Why am I not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8714732)

no, it was someone at turner broadcasting

Re:Fox... Why am I not surprised (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8714750)

This isn't a far off concept. It wouldn't surprise me to see media companies begin to find ways to attack broadband companies. The National Association of Broadcasters (which is the radio industry trade group) has begun to attack satellite radio providers (XM, Sirius) both on the air (Entercom is airing anti-satellite propoganda on their affiliates) and within the legal system. For example, the NAB is seeking to prevent satellite radio broadcasters from airing local traffic reports. The idea being that, basically, the only thing people listen to radio for anymore is traffic. And if satellite offers tons of channels, no commercials and now... TRAFFIC... guess who suffers? Traditional media outlets are under attack from new technology and they can't cope. Not entirely unlike the RIAA and MP3 fiasco.

Re:Fox... Why am I not surprised (2, Informative)

XBruticusX (735258) | about 10 years ago | (#8714842)

Actually it was Jamie Kellner from Turner. http://action.eff.org/action/moreinfo.asp?item=151 7

How long? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8714702)

until most of us just add a second monitor with a TV tuner just so we can surf and watch TV at the same time?

Does it count all the episodes I download. (5, Interesting)

Tatarize (682683) | about 10 years ago | (#8714711)

Don't get me wrong, but I fit smack into that bracket and I don't get cable or sat. I just use my broadband connection to download all the shows I need.

Few bittorrent sites, supranova.org, torrentz.com, and an irc.irchighway.net network later and I've dropped completely off their "This group watches TV" radar, when the fact is I have over half a terabyte of TV.

Re:Does it count all the episodes I download. (2, Insightful)

statusbar (314703) | about 10 years ago | (#8714738)

Good Point.

But are you watching the advertisements?

--jeff++

TiVO Effect (5, Insightful)

nightsweat (604367) | about 10 years ago | (#8714712)

You'd think TiVo and other PVR's (Replay, Myth, Sage) would lead to increased TV viewing, but I would argue it keeps you from watching that piece of junk between two shows you actually care about. That gets you out of the habit of just mentally grazing TV and into the habit of active viewing

Re:TiVO Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8714793)

Much agreed. I built a PVR about a month ago. I don't watch TV anymore until I feel like it, and then I just skip through all the commercials. Saves a lot of time, and I don't have to stay up late to catch the good shows.

Re:TiVO Effect (1)

inphinity (681284) | about 10 years ago | (#8714840)

I think your post is going to be somewhat of a foreshadow. I for one was very surprised when nobody blamed the DVRs right out of the gate. The TV industry has been so opposed to them all along, I had it figured it must be their fault.

TV Shows on DVD (5, Interesting)

Craig Maloney (1104) | about 10 years ago | (#8714713)

Honestly as more and more TV shows make the transition to DVD, there's even less reason to watch TV, especially with the arsenal of inane reality-based shows bombarding the airwaves. I can play program director at home and put on the re-runs I want to watch rather than having some person who doesn't know me try to make programming that matches my tastes. TV is going to have to morph into something REALLY compelling for me to turn it on anymore, and once the Simpsons goes off the air, they'll have to work damn hard to get me to use a TV tuner again.

Re:TV Shows on DVD (1)

Joey7F (307495) | about 10 years ago | (#8714769)

This year has been a decent one for reality programming. The Apprentice is pretty good, and My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance was hilarious.

--Joey

Re:TV Shows on DVD (2, Interesting)

DAldredge (2353) | about 10 years ago | (#8714905)

Yea, I like watching 'rich dude who kicks old people out of their home so he can build a parking lot' say Your Fired!

0890795875906787

San Diego joins a growing trend among U.S. cities using the power of eminent domain -- the government's ability to lawfully seize property -- to tyrannize politically weak individuals. In a recent well-publicized case, for instance, Donald Trump conspired with Atlantic City officials to level a block of family businesses so that he would have more room next to his casino for a parking lot. Just as the ballpark developers did in San Diego, Trump turned to unscrupulous city officials to gain by force what he could not get by private negotiation. Fortunately, these victims were aided by the charity of aggressive lawyers who blocked Trump's gambit.
Although always a violation of property rights, traditionally the eminent domain power was limited to and employed for strictly public purposes such as roads, utilities, and military use. Courts did not allow government to take, for example, a corner mom-and-pop gas station solely to turn it over to McDonalds for redevelopment. In 1983, when the state of Hawaii took vast tracts of land from a small minority of private owners and resold it to the "general public," the U.S. Court of Appeals declared it "a naked attempt" to take private property and correctly identified it as "majoritarian tyranny." Unfortunately, in 1984, the Supreme Court disagreed.
Ever since, emboldened mayors and city councilmen have seized property in greater quantity for increasingly specious purposes. In Texas, the homes of 117 residents were bulldozed to make room for a shopping mall. In Detroit, hundreds of residents and businesspeople lost their homes and businesses so that GM could build a new plant. And elsewhere in San Diego an auto repair shop, hardware store, and carpet business were recently forced to close so that a Price Club could claim their land.

Netflix baby! (1)

Petronius (515525) | about 10 years ago | (#8714820)

I'm working my way down the list of all the BBC shows. You're absolutely right. I could almost unplug the antenna at this point.

Demographics... (4, Funny)

Frennzy (730093) | about 10 years ago | (#8714715)

I'm turning 35 in a few months...does that mean I'll have to start watching more TV?

Re:Demographics... (4, Insightful)

thefirelane (586885) | about 10 years ago | (#8714914)

I'm turning 35 in a few months...does that mean I'll have to start watching more TV?


No, but you will bring these habits forward into more demographics until it becomes the norm.... which is what they are afraid of.

What should they expect? (5, Interesting)

waynegoode (758645) | about 10 years ago | (#8714716)

What should they expect with the programming offered these days? Television's line-up is becoming more and more dumbed down with reality shows and the like. This alienates the more "enlightened" viewers who want more participation in their entertainment than just pushing buttons on a remote control. These dissatisfied viewers are also the ones who are more likely to spend time on the Internet or other non-TV activities. The shock is that it's taken this long for viewership to drop.

Give people TV programs worth watching if you want them to watch TV.

MOD PARENT WAY UP!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8714770)

Parent speaketh the truth! (Score: +5, insightful!)

Sorry Pal, I'm a lowly AC so I have less modpoints than a troll....

I bet same thing happened to newspapers... (4, Insightful)

Sri Lumpa (147664) | about 10 years ago | (#8714722)

...50/60 years ago when TV started to get mainstream and people started watching more TV than reading.

And the same will happen when a new medium appears.

Number of entertainment forms increase while number of hours per week stays the same, therefore average number of hours spent on the old medium per person decrease as number of hours spent on the new medium increase said Dr It'sFuckingObvious in a press release today.

Ebooks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8714723)

Last time I moved I didn't either bother setting up my tv. For me the internet has allowed me access to more ebooks. Screw tv when I can read. 40 to 50 bucks a month to be able to watch crap is too much. Instead I toss that into an index fund and after these past two quarters I am glad I did.

Lots of reasons... (5, Insightful)

myg (705374) | about 10 years ago | (#8714724)

As a male in that age range I've completely given up on TV. In my area I can't get any kind of reception and cable is too expensive for the few channels I would watch (TLC, Discovery, Comedy Central, etc).

Its more cost effective for me to not buy cable; which is about the cost of two uncapped DSL lines both with static IP's in my area. Instead, I buy the occasional DVD when I'm in the mood for a movie.

Another reason is that during the winter when you can actually go outside and not die of heat exhaustion I can sit on my patio with my laptop and wireless and use the net. If I want to watch TV then I'm stuck inside watching it inside.

I think the media companies are going to have to deal with this trend. As much as they would like to turn the Inter-web into a one-way communications medium like TV, its just not going to happen. Thats one of the big draws. I don't have to view your crappy commercials or just be a passive consumer of information.

If nothing else, the blogging fad is a big validator of the fact that people like to speak out in communications as much as absorb (well, most of us).

It's a cultural change (5, Interesting)

capz loc (752940) | about 10 years ago | (#8714727)

With the introduction of broadband internet and wireless networks to which you can connect from anywhere, we, as a society, have come to expect on-demand content. Television, with the exception of TiVo, does not fit into this new view of how we like to be entertained.

I have noticed that I have almost stopped watching TV altogether not neseccarily because I don't like what's on, but because I don't feel like planning my day around what I want to watch. Sometimes, when I happen to be doing nothing, I will watch the Daily Show, but even a show as funny as that isn't really worth planning my evening around it.

Not me (2, Funny)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | about 10 years ago | (#8714735)

I'm in that age bracket, and I've been watching more TV than ever.

I sit at my coffee table with my laptop and a wireless card...the TV is almost always on.

TV SUCKS (1, Redundant)

phrostie (121428) | about 10 years ago | (#8714739)

FOX and all the other networks have ditch any show worth watching and replaced them with sitcoms and reality tv.

my tv is reduced to sundays(Andromeda, Enterprise, Alias) nothing else worth watching.

i'm considering reverting to comicbooks

The downtrend in TV viewing... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8714746)

...matches perfectly with the huge uptick in time spent masturbating to internet porn. It seems clear the majors will have to switch to all-porn formats to keep their treasured demographics. They could start advertising "All porno, with none of the codec downloading hassles." Combine with free tissue and lotion giveaways courtesy of the Kimberly-Clarke folks, and the networks with be back better than the golden age of live TV.

Or maybe it's because.... (1)

Zenjive (247697) | about 10 years ago | (#8714752)

TV just sucks anymore. When I do watch TV, it's usually old movies or stuff that was air maybe 6 months or more ago. Granted, with internet, work, games and such I don't have much time for it, but idf there was something good on I'd make the time.

hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8714758)

I watch internet television.

What's a commercial?

Oh really, swan? (5, Insightful)

strictnein (318940) | about 10 years ago | (#8714768)


I love these TV execs who are whining. "The numbers don't add up!" "How could they not be watching are ever-wonderful "Ass Crap Reality Show"? Everyone loves it!"
Give me a break. As a geek who doesn't even own a tv right now I don't miss watching TV at all. When we moved into our house I had to sell my TV (65in Sony HDTV - boo hoo) and the only reason I want a new TV is for three things: DVDs, XBox, PS2, all of which I have hooked up to old 20in computer monitors.
The message is clear, your shows suck, and while watching drama queens fight over getting to stay on the island might interest younger women, it does absolutely nothing for young men.

TIVO gave me back control. (4, Insightful)

qbert911 (751066) | about 10 years ago | (#8714771)

I used to plop down on the sofa at night afraid I'd "miss something", I would watch my favorite shows (simpsons,futurama,poker) and usually flip around while waiting for the next one.

Now that I have a TiVO (with dual tuner of course), I can look through all of the movies that will be on in the next three weeks and see if I want to watch any of them. I can tell if next week's poker game is one I have seen already, etc.

With sufficient planning, I can come home and play UT2004 or with the wife (no really!) all evening, without the nagging voice in the back of my head saying "there is media you want to be absorbing, and you're missing it!"

I suspect TiVO, by giving people the ability to plan and schedule their own viewing lets them cut out the crap they would usually sit through in the middle of the evening.

Mom will be so proud (5, Funny)

tagishsimon (175038) | about 10 years ago | (#8714777)

Mom does not need an endorsement of the fact that you've wasted your life to date on this interweb thingie. All she wants is grandchildren, Timothy. When are you going to deliver on that?

Personally (1)

jwthompson2 (749521) | about 10 years ago | (#8714780)

I am not watching less TV, but I am doing more things at the same time, I usually will work on my powerbook while watching the History channel, the only time I am not watching TV it seems is when I fire up the PS2, but if I am home the TV is most certainly on and I am at least watching it at a least some level. But since statistics tend to be driven by the extremes rather than the medians that get reported I would doubt this study or any statistical study is very accurate.

Reality TV (2, Insightful)

ohsoot (699507) | about 10 years ago | (#8714785)

I guess that's what happens when TV is flooded w/ pointless reality TV shows. Congrats, they appeal (mostly) to women and surprise!, a lot of men eventually stop watching TV. The only TV show I watch is Simpsons, and it is annoying as hell to hear all that american idol singing in the other room (girlfriend watches it) while I'm on the interweb.

I got yer reason right here, bub! (2, Insightful)

inphinity (681284) | about 10 years ago | (#8714786)

"...if you look at sports, it can't be that football ratings are up 2 percent yet male 18-24 ratings are down 22 percent."

Maybe it's just me, but, sure it can!

Why is it so hard to believe that intelligent males in the 18-24 demographic are just watching those programs that interest them? It seems to me that this is a sign of television's viewing audience rejecting most of the mindless drivel that they put on these days.

After all, it used to be fine for me (when I was about 5 years younger) to just mope around the house watching whatever was on. But these days, I'm busy with life, so I just make an effort to watch those shows that I like. I think that is the real issue here.

It's all crap anyway (1)

rendelven (687323) | about 10 years ago | (#8714788)

It really doesn't surprise me that the viewership has declined. All there is on TV nowadays is crappy Reality shows. 1 was great, 2 was okay. 15billion is annoying.

There are hardly any newer good quality shows. Most of the popular shows are started way-back anyway. Nothing new is worth watching.

I want my MTV! ( I personally can't stand it anymore . )

Interaction (2, Insightful)

FortKnox (169099) | about 10 years ago | (#8714790)

Sure, most sitcoms are just rehashing old (or sometimes current) ideas, and here are other issues people have been bringing up why television will fail, but I think the real reason we are seeing a declins it that computer games and apps (like IM) offer interaction. You can't get that with TV. Its as simple as that.

Quitting TV and turning to pr0n (2, Interesting)

prostoalex (308614) | about 10 years ago | (#8714795)

Okay, this quote on page 2 is worth bringing up:

ComScore also collects data on Internet pornography-viewing habits, although that was not part of the online publishers' report. According to the company, more than 70 percent of men from 18 to 34 visit a pornographic site in a typical month, and those men make up 25 percent of the visitors to such sites. They are 39 percent more likely than the rest of the Internet population to visit the sites, said Graham Mudd, an analyst for comScore.


There was also a report by Harris Interactive, that while 84% of college students have TVs, 91% have PCs [itfacts.biz].

Cable TV is so yesterday. (2, Insightful)

Like2Byte (542992) | about 10 years ago | (#8714801)

All the information I *want* is right there at my fingertips - not just the stuff the media wants to either shove down my throut or not give me enough information on.

Then there's the quality of the movies and other tv shows that are just poor. Very few channels have anything that's worth scheduling a night for - like 'The Shield,' 'CSI,' or something on the Discovery or History Channel.

Information wise, the Internet brings what I want, when I want and at what level I want 24/7/365(6).

There's nothing there for me (1)

Deanasc (201050) | about 10 years ago | (#8714810)

I have no interest in watching boring gay men turn other men into women. I have no interest in watching angry minorities rail against the white man or show the white man that their differences are only skin deep. I miss the days of 'The Dukes of Hazzard' and 'CHiPs' where every action packed moment was car a chase and a crash. And strangely enough I hate NASCAR. There's really nothing on TV for me. Except for 'Arrested Development'. But Fox is probably hard at work looking for an excuse to cancel that one.

Re:There's nothing there for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8714892)

Amen, brother! But, you forgot the A-Team. And TJ Hooker.

Maybe if TV wasn't directed towards women (5, Funny)

xutopia (469129) | about 10 years ago | (#8714815)

All I see on TV nowadays is crappy shows for teenagers and women. Everything is a disgrace to men. Where are the gladiators, the boxing matches and the explosions? TV is now geared towards a woman's desire. I want blow em up stuff with the least possible emotions. That's right. No emotions at all!

Big stations thought they had it right with reality TV but that certainly drove more women to the small screen but moved men away from it. Now we're playing more video games than ever and hating TV. At least there aren't ads in the middle of my game.

Re:Maybe if TV wasn't directed towards women (0)

Diotallevi (688468) | about 10 years ago | (#8714861)

spike tv my friend...star trek every night and movies were stuff blows up

The Cost Factor . . . (1)

d-e-w (173678) | about 10 years ago | (#8714818)

With the cost of cable going up and up and up, what's the use?

We live in an area where we don't receive the networks over the air. (NBC comes in, kind of.) Cable prices have risen to the point where it doesn't give value for the cost.

We have cable for the Internet access. Of course, about six months back, when we were trying to figure out a way to replace our ISDN (and didn't want to deal with the whole cable thing), we called our local telecom and begged them to tell us when they thought DSL might be available in our area. They said that they didn't know.

That's why it become available about two months later, right? *headdesk*

Lets see..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8714830)

They cancelled Futurama, Family Guy, Farscape, Angel and Firefly.

Fraiser, Sex and the City and Friends have finished their run.

Mainstream shows go out with a bang and sci-fi gets axed. End result is still the same, there is nothing on too watch.

Just my $0.02.

TV...wuts dat? (0)

Diotallevi (688468) | about 10 years ago | (#8714837)

oh thats right I am spos to be watchin all that stuff that some advertising blockhead says that males age 18-35 will like. Yup like the britney spears live special....yawn...i think i will frag some more ppl on BFV

Mythtv is where I waste my time (4, Funny)

Chang (2714) | about 10 years ago | (#8714841)

I waste a lot of time tinkering with my MythTV box (thank you Isaac and team!).

I spend so much time making my TV and video viewing time more productive that I don't have much time for actually watching TV.

As a side benefit when I do sit down to watch some boob tube it's on my terms (no advertisements) and on my schedule.

Nothing to do with time (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8714852)

It could just be that there's absolutely nothing worth watching on TV anymore... Wonder if those TV Execs thought about that when they started ranting and raving.

Also, TV sucks. (1)

welloy (603138) | about 10 years ago | (#8714855)

Seriously, besides the Simpons and the odd episode of Alias, most all the programs that i run across are extremely predictable and dull (i should mention that malcolm in the middle and arrested development is often good as well). I dont care to see the sixteenth reincarnation of "lets put real people in a stressful situation and watch them break down" (real meaning hollywood real, wannabe actors and models).

Television sucks (5, Insightful)

cubicledrone (681598) | about 10 years ago | (#8714863)

Face it, folks. Television is 99% crap.

At least one-third of the daily broadcast schedule is infomercials. Most of the "cable" channels run only popular shows from other networks, or heavily edited movies over and over and over again, basically just to fill time.

Television advertising is grating, patronizing, lowest-denominator sludge which subtly insults as it offers suburban paradise with five-figure price tags to minimum-wage consumers, and interrupts the crappy programming eight times an hour to do so.

Sitcoms aren't funny. Dramas are political speeches. The local news is a carnival barker, and reality programming is nothing but a metaphor of a society fascinated by the misfortune of the powerless.

There hasn't been a meaningful sentence spoken on television in decades.

Sad (4, Insightful)

Brad Mace (624801) | about 10 years ago | (#8714876)

TV executives are so delusional that they can't even consider the possibility that a ratings drop could be due to their crappy shows. It MUST be a problem with nielson's measurements.

What a pathetic group of people

Haha, this is funny (2, Interesting)

asoap (740625) | about 10 years ago | (#8714883)

As a 20 something, I've noticed that lately I've watched very little TV. I also hope that it's costing networks money. Have you seen the crap they are green lighting lately? In my opinon they deserve to loose viewers.

I would much rather play Enemy Territory then watch some poor asian geek sing Ricky Martin!

She bangs, She bangs!

-asoap

I concur (4, Interesting)

turtles11 (667466) | about 10 years ago | (#8714888)

You know, I gotta agree. I'm in that demographic range and I sure don't watch half the TV I used to. I attribute this to two things:

1)Reality TV

2)Scifi cancelled Farscape

And it has nothing to do with the content (1)

beforewisdom (729725) | about 10 years ago | (#8714898)

of network or cable tw.........sure.....

What crap, I can't understand people who spend more then two hours a week watching free TV let alone spending over $100 a month for the crap on cable.

Steve

Normal People (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8714899)

like me have the tv set up where we can se it while on the computer.

Not suprising (5, Insightful)

wazzzup (172351) | about 10 years ago | (#8714900)

With T.V. I can have tripe like "Yes Dear" forced upon me or I can view meaningful content on demand via the internet.

For example, I can pay $80/mo. for standard, no movie channel cable from Time Warner and get news fed to me in 30 minute bursts or I can pay $8.95/mo. for internet access and read in-depth studies from sites like foreign affairs [foreignaffairs.org]. I can be a better parent and read about my gifted son's condition and learn from it on the internet or I can sit on my ass and watch Temptation Island.

T.V. no longer consistently delivers meaningful content (if it ever did). Heck even formerly great channels like TLC have relegated themselves to regurgitating reruns of While You Were Out.

The entire media industry is sooo out of touch with the populace and clearly have no clue how to react and change to an increasingly digital lifestyle so many of us are adopting.

i forgot San's authorisation (1)

iwein (561027) | about 10 years ago | (#8714911)

hi,
can someone please post San's authorisation again?

i forgot his credentials and i am too lazy to figure it out myself.

we had our chance for freedom (2, Insightful)

Diotallevi (688468) | about 10 years ago | (#8714913)

remember when the writers threatened to go on strike? The studios should have done to them what Reagan did to the air traffic controllers. Fired em!! Maybe some new blood would have gotten into tv and movies instead of the constant remakes , rehashing of old tv shows, formula TV based on what some advertising weenie thinks we all want to see

TV is too expensive (2, Informative)

DocSnyder (10755) | about 10 years ago | (#8714917)

In Germany, the GEZ [www.gez.de] (Gebuehreneinzugszentrale) demands every household with TV and/or radio to contribute a monthly fee which is more expensive (about 16 Euros) than a cheap DSL connection. What is more, GEZ people are known for their sometimes [www.gez.de] nasty methods to acquire subscribers [drugster.com]. So especially many students don't need a TV and put the money into more useful things like internet connectivity.

Who's going to blink first? (1)

RLiegh (247921) | about 10 years ago | (#8714918)

Are the television studios going to begin offering a variety of compelling content, or will the internet dumb down and homoginize to the point of utter worthlessness?

Having been on the net for 8 years; my money's on the latter, personally.

Nobody wants to watch gayTV (0, Troll)

Steepe (114037) | about 10 years ago | (#8714920)

There are so many shows out now with flaming gay characters. I don't find them funny, nor do I have anything at all in common with them. Neither does the rest of middle america.

No wonder no one watches TV anymore, I sure don't. I got rid of my sat a year ago and don't miss it. I love the extra $80 a month I have to spend though.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...