Washington, D.C. (February 22, 2009) -- After roughly 36 percent of local TV stations switched early to all-Digital TV signals last week, the FCC received more than 70,000 complaints in the first two days.
70,000 complaints in just two days.
An Oklahoma City station said it received more than 900 calls from complaining viewers in the first two days. The Providence Journal reports that the Rhode Island Broadcasters Association was swamped with so many complaints that reporters were unable to get through for more than 10 minutes at a time.
Other local stations from WSTR in Cincinnati to several stations in Nebraska have reported an overwhelming number of angry callers. And a 70-year-old man in Missouri actually shot his TV because he couldn't figure out how to use his digital converter box.
Based on these developments, you would think that the early DTV switch was a major disaster. Despite local stations' insistence on switching early to save money (the official transition date is now June 12), it would appear that their viewers were not ready, as many people warned. (The stations save money by switching early because they would no longer have to transmit both analog and digital signals.)
Some journalists don't always report what they see.
But good luck in finding that story in many of your nation's top trade and consumer publications, particularly if they are owned by companies that also own local TV stations which desperately want the switch to occur now.
For instance, The Los Angeles Times, which is owned by The Tribune Company, which also owns roughly 20 local TV stations, ran a headline last week that said: "Digital TV Switch Goes Smoothly in San Diego."
"Fears of blank TV screens and pixelated shows largely failed to materialize in San Diego on Wednesday as months of public outreach left the vast majority of viewers capable of receiving pictures via the new all-digital broadcasts," the Times wrote in a boosterish article.
The Columbus Dispatch, whose ownership also owns a local TV station in Columbus, ran a headline that said: "Switch to Digital TV Met With Little Fanfare." The Tampa Tribune, owned by Media General, which owns TV stations in 18 markets, published a headline stating, "Digital TV Switch Doesn't Faze Viewers."
And there were several other examples of newspapers owned by companies that own local TV stations printing Digital TV stories that seemed more appropriate for a collection of short novellas.
But it wasn't just the consumer press that seemed to go into the tank on this story. If you read the nation's leading TV trade publications, you would think the early switch went as smooth as silk.
For instance, Multichannel News ran a headline saying, "Early DTV Switch: Hardly a Hitch." The story actually included the following sentence: "There appeared to be no major fallout from the discontinuation of analog by about one-quarter of the stations on the original transition hard date."
Broadcasting & Cable published a headline that said: "FCC Says It Is Handling DTV Calls So Far." The publication also ran a story featuring a FCC commissioner praising local stations for their cooperation with the switch. And yet another B&C article was published under the headline, "NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) Says DTV Calls Aren't Flooding Switchboards."
TV Week's headline published the day after the switch read: "DTV Switch Encouraging..." The story's lead sentence read: "Initial reports from some of the 421 stations that yesterday switched to digital TV signals suggest the most dire predictions about the transition may have been overblown." (To TV Week's credit, the publication has balanced that view in recent days with additional articles.).
The Hollywood Reporter, which is owned by a Nielsen division, which generates income directly from local TV stations from its TV ratings service, had this to say about the DTV switch: "Few Report Hitches as Digital Switches Flip.:
So, what's happening here? Why are so many publications seemingly so eager to portray the early Digital TV switch as a huge success?
It's quite simple. In the case of newspapers with ownership connections to local TV stations, many are following orders. Their corporate parents have a vested interest in creating the perception that the switch is a success, so by God, their newspapers will toe the line or else.
Don't kid yourselves, folks. Newsrooms do not make decisions based solely on journalistic reasons.
And in the case of the trade publications, they have an historic closeness to the National Association of Broadcasters and other industry heavyweights who want the DTV switch to be portrayed as a success. In fact, their readership is largely made up of industry officials, not average consumers who are still struggling to figure out the complexities of the DTV switch. Consequently, their stories have been largely pro-Digital TV.
In my view, the reality is that the early Digital TV switch was a mixed bag. In some cities, viewers handled it well, but in others, it's a mess and continues to be. And when all local TV stations switch on June 12, it will likely be a similar scenario. In cities where an overwhelming majority of viewers have prepared for the switch, it will go, yes, without a hitch. But in many markets, the changeover will leave tens of thousands without any TV signals and even more than that with spotty reception.
But depending upon which publication you read, you may not get that story.
Comment on this article!
70,000 complaints in just two days.
An Oklahoma City station said it received more than 900 calls from complaining viewers in the first two days. The Providence Journal reports that the Rhode Island Broadcasters Association was swamped with so many complaints that reporters were unable to get through for more than 10 minutes at a time.
Other local stations from WSTR in Cincinnati to several stations in Nebraska have reported an overwhelming number of angry callers. And a 70-year-old man in Missouri actually shot his TV because he couldn't figure out how to use his digital converter box.
Based on these developments, you would think that the early DTV switch was a major disaster. Despite local stations' insistence on switching early to save money (the official transition date is now June 12), it would appear that their viewers were not ready, as many people warned. (The stations save money by switching early because they would no longer have to transmit both analog and digital signals.)
Some journalists don't always report what they see.
But good luck in finding that story in many of your nation's top trade and consumer publications, particularly if they are owned by companies that also own local TV stations which desperately want the switch to occur now.
For instance, The Los Angeles Times, which is owned by The Tribune Company, which also owns roughly 20 local TV stations, ran a headline last week that said: "Digital TV Switch Goes Smoothly in San Diego."
"Fears of blank TV screens and pixelated shows largely failed to materialize in San Diego on Wednesday as months of public outreach left the vast majority of viewers capable of receiving pictures via the new all-digital broadcasts," the Times wrote in a boosterish article.
The Columbus Dispatch, whose ownership also owns a local TV station in Columbus, ran a headline that said: "Switch to Digital TV Met With Little Fanfare." The Tampa Tribune, owned by Media General, which owns TV stations in 18 markets, published a headline stating, "Digital TV Switch Doesn't Faze Viewers."
And there were several other examples of newspapers owned by companies that own local TV stations printing Digital TV stories that seemed more appropriate for a collection of short novellas.
But it wasn't just the consumer press that seemed to go into the tank on this story. If you read the nation's leading TV trade publications, you would think the early switch went as smooth as silk.
For instance, Multichannel News ran a headline saying, "Early DTV Switch: Hardly a Hitch." The story actually included the following sentence: "There appeared to be no major fallout from the discontinuation of analog by about one-quarter of the stations on the original transition hard date."
Broadcasting & Cable published a headline that said: "FCC Says It Is Handling DTV Calls So Far." The publication also ran a story featuring a FCC commissioner praising local stations for their cooperation with the switch. And yet another B&C article was published under the headline, "NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) Says DTV Calls Aren't Flooding Switchboards."
TV Week's headline published the day after the switch read: "DTV Switch Encouraging..." The story's lead sentence read: "Initial reports from some of the 421 stations that yesterday switched to digital TV signals suggest the most dire predictions about the transition may have been overblown." (To TV Week's credit, the publication has balanced that view in recent days with additional articles.).
The Hollywood Reporter, which is owned by a Nielsen division, which generates income directly from local TV stations from its TV ratings service, had this to say about the DTV switch: "Few Report Hitches as Digital Switches Flip.:
So, what's happening here? Why are so many publications seemingly so eager to portray the early Digital TV switch as a huge success?
It's quite simple. In the case of newspapers with ownership connections to local TV stations, many are following orders. Their corporate parents have a vested interest in creating the perception that the switch is a success, so by God, their newspapers will toe the line or else.
Don't kid yourselves, folks. Newsrooms do not make decisions based solely on journalistic reasons.
And in the case of the trade publications, they have an historic closeness to the National Association of Broadcasters and other industry heavyweights who want the DTV switch to be portrayed as a success. In fact, their readership is largely made up of industry officials, not average consumers who are still struggling to figure out the complexities of the DTV switch. Consequently, their stories have been largely pro-Digital TV.
In my view, the reality is that the early Digital TV switch was a mixed bag. In some cities, viewers handled it well, but in others, it's a mess and continues to be. And when all local TV stations switch on June 12, it will likely be a similar scenario. In cities where an overwhelming majority of viewers have prepared for the switch, it will go, yes, without a hitch. But in many markets, the changeover will leave tens of thousands without any TV signals and even more than that with spotty reception.
But depending upon which publication you read, you may not get that story.
Comment on this article!
_________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Click TVPredictions.com to see today's Swanni Sez.
© TVPredictions.com
______________________________________________________
Phillip Swann is
president and publisher of TVPredictions.com. He has been quoted in
dozens of publications and broadcast outlets, including CNN, Fox
News, Inside Edition, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The
Chicago Tribune, The Financial Times, The Associated Press and The
Hollywood Reporter. He can be reached at swann@tvpredictions.com
or at 703-505-3064.
Click TVPredictions.com to read more news and features on TV
technology.