• 25Aug 08

  Political Conventions and Anchors

  
  
  In 1952, back in the days of the CBS News powerhouse (the Edward R. Murrow/Ed Friendly years), good old Walter Cronkite was asked to be the point man for all the network field reporters at both the Democratic and Republican Presidential Conventions.
  
  Since he was the common link for all the coverage, the term "anchor" was born for a TV newsperson.
  • Posted Aug 25, 2008 6:23 pm PT
  • Category:
  • 17 Comments
  • Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 17Aug 08

  Just the Facts

  
  
  Recently, I ran across a thread in the TV.com "Ideas" forum about the "point values" of recaps, and one user admitted that as a trusted contributor, he (or she) wasn't happy so decided to submit single recaps in three separate submissions in order to get triple the contribution values. Sure, things like this get me shaking my head, as do the many, many examples of abuse of the system on this site. But rather than harp on that, I mostly wonder how accurate the data is at TV.com versus an "open" internet project like Wikipedia.
  
  I. TV.COM
  While I generally detest the level system and the fact that data contribution histories are hidden from visitors (unlike Wiki), what tends to bother me more is that errors in factual information or something as basic as grammar and spelling can go unchecked for months and years (even as editors climb the "level system"). One guide for one of the world's most famous musical performers has nearly 4,000 CPs and the summary still reads, "he has set many presidents in the world of music". One of the most popular cartoons has allusions such as, "The battle in this episode ends like the Battle of Dunkirk. Except it wasn't a total evacuation" and "There is an eternal flame, an allusion to the Olympics".
  
  Pros: A good editor is free to not have to check every day to see if someone has added bad information or even information that is not written in the same tense. There are no "wars" in a Wiki-style "comments" section, and "wars" are not allowed on TV.com forums. Cons: Though often more exhaustive, TV.com is often less well-written. Because thousands of people watch over Wiki pages - spelling errors and unsupported and half-baked opinions are far less common than on TV.com.
  
  II. WIKIPEDIA
  I've found that many more people on Wiki really love their topics and don't contribute to become "editor" or to "increase their level". All changes can be easily seen in the "history" section and no contributor is getting any "reward" for fiddling over and over. A major difference is that without the blogs and personal expression of TV.com, most Wiki "friendships" are based mostly on the data on the pages.
  
  Pros: Fewer glaring errors, the system is transparent, so that the work (or vandalism) of specific people can be seen. Cons: There can be some genuine unpleasantness in the "comments" sections of Wikis, sometimes back and forth additions and deletions can go on for months. On one page, I recently ran across a dispute about definitions among contributors from the UK and the US. The US residents accused the Brits of "being losers stuck with failed 19th century definitions" and the Brits responded that the US ideas were examples of the "ignorance typical of the thuggish and pig-headed attitudes of the United States in general". Ah, the internet at its finest.
  
  Of course, heated arguments arise all the time when compiling printed text books and encyclopedias. Maybe the world wide web is just making human nature easier to see. To get back to my original paragraph, I noticed that the recaps added for triple point values by the TV.com trusted contributor are long and have passed "spell-check", but are often missing key verbs and pronouns in the sentences. I feel a little sorry for the person who tries to make them right.
  • Posted Aug 17, 2008 4:21 pm PT
  • Category:
  • 21 Comments
  • Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 7Aug 08

  Partial Olympic Memories

  
  
  Let's all hope the 2008 Olympics are safe for all who are involved.
  
  The first Olympics I remember are the 1968 games in Mexico City, though what I remember is spotty. I mostly recall Dick Fosbury and his new method of going over the high jump bar "backward" and the awe of Bob Beamon's long jump mark. As far as controversy, I missed both the Smith and Carlos medal award ceremony and George Foreman waving a tiny American flag after winning the boxing Gold. I asked the most questions about the closing ceremony, because at that time, four years until the next Olympics seemed more like a century.
  
  By 1972, I was 11 years old and totally up on all the athletes and events. And then it was spoiled for everyone by the killing of the Israeli athletes.
  • Posted Aug 7, 2008 3:05 pm PT
  • Category:
  • 26 Comments
  • Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts