We’re approaching the 70^th anniversary of the “War of the Worlds”, the infamous radio broadcast that instilled panic in a nation. We’re also coming up on the 7^th anniversary of September 11^th, another fear-inducing event. Two separate and distinct points in American history, yet both examples of the role that media plays in shaping our society.

Most people know the story of Orson Wells’ infamous radio broadcast. On October of 1938, Wells perpetrated one of the greatest hoaxes in American history. He was able to convince the general public that an alien invasion was taking place in rural New Jersey. The ensuing panic was widespread, unlike anything most police and government officials had ever seen. By the time the “Martians” landed in Jersey, all hell had broken loose. Because most people only tuned in once they’d heard about the “news” from friends, they missed the announcement that the broadcast was a fake (and to be fair, Wells didn’t try overly hard to convince them otherwise once the program was in full swing). Many joined in just in time to hear how a group of aliens were destroying homes and entire towns, many using some horrific type of Martian gas on the unsuspecting populace. When the broadcast was finished, and Wells came on to explain how the story was akin to dressing up on Halloween, the damage had been done: tens (if not hundreds) of thousands believed the broadcast to be real, and many of them were genuinely terrified.

In the end, the broadcast caused an important shift in public perception concerning news and its delivery. CBS, though it did not face public censure, promised in the future not to use the phrase “We interrupt this program—” for anything other than real news bulletins. But beyond that, an even more important aspect of the hoax was revealed: the power of radio (and, later, television) to reach a vast audience. At that time, even phones were not available to the entire public. Many still relied on word of mouth to receive (and confirm or disprove) breaking news, along with their trusty radios. Lost, perhaps, in the anger at being duped by a radio show was the fact that so many had heard it to begin with.

Flash-forward to today. We live in a multi-media age, where news is broken in real time. When the events of September 11^th happened, many of us (myself included) watched the news on television while also streaming news feeds online from Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC. It was an unprecedented amount of information available on a 24-hour feed, and it fit with the idea that audiences have become more discerning, if not more demanding. Unlike that night in October of 1938, the horrors of 9-11 were witnessed first-hand, in living color, by most of the nation. We didn’t need word-of-mouth to tell us whether what we were seeing was real – we could see for ourselves. Like those in 1938, we huddled together, barely able to comprehend what we were hearing. But unlike Wells’ hoax, our tragedy was much too real.

The Olympics begin tomorrow in Beijing, and with that comes the inevitable question: should the athletes use this very public forum to deride China on its human rights violations (including jailing dissidents and violently suppressing protests), or should they remain silent?  It is an issue that has dogged these Olympics since it was announced that Beijing would host the games, and the fervor has only intensified as we’ve neared the starting date.  For the athletes, it’s a sensitive question: to some, the Olympics are a place of competition, the one venue where every country involved can unite in the quest for athletic glory; to others, though, it provides them with a chance to voice their opinions to countless millions, one they may never have again.  It’s a question every athlete will wrestle with, one that depends on which way his or her own moral compass swings.  And it’s a question that will play out every day, with every medal ceremony and interview, across television and computer screens around the world. 

The television aspect is nothing new.  While the Olympics have reached a worldwide audience in the past, this year will see a virtual TV saturation (NBC will provide an unprecedented 1,400 hours of coverage across six of its networks, according to the Associated Press – “more that all previous Summer Olympics combined”; it will also present 2,200 hours of live web coverage and 3,000 additional hours of clips available online).  But what truly makes this Olympics different is that the potential to reach people is even greater, and surpasses mere television exposure.  That’s because, since the last Olympics in 2004, we have seen the advent (and subsequent explosions in popularity) of sites like myspace, facebook, and, perhaps most importantly, YouTube.

For the first time ever, we will be given an almost real-time glimpse into the Olympics – everything from videos to blogs to photos, all created and uploaded instantly.  People at these games will shoot videos from the stands, on the streets, in hotels, and at restaurants…they will have their cameras and computers with them at all times (oftentimes both in one), and you can bet that everything they capture will be uploaded immediately to YouTube (or Liveleak, etc.).  Countless more people will be documenting their experiences on myspace or facebook, writing about what they’ve seen and heard.

The television coverage will be limited by its own rigidly structured design – and for all things sports, there’s no better place to turn.  But this means that the true heart of the games will be found online, on those sites that China and NBC can’t control.  There, we will see the real athletes, unbound and unprocessed.  Throughout their time in Beijing, they will be presented with a sea of people capturing their every move.  What’s more, the athletes themselves will have access to all of these sites; they will add messages to their myspace sites, or perhaps will upload their own videos – documenting everything from the opening day festivities, to the sidelines at the events, even their own medal ceremonies.  Simply put, we are looking at an extraordinary amount of access to this year’s games, the likes of which we’ve never seen before.

Which brings us back to the original question of just how much (if anything) the athletes should say about the way China conducts its affairs.  Because the reality is, they may be unable to avoid it.  If an athlete uses any of the above-mentioned media, they will be opening themselves to scrutiny.  Even a casual remark can be read as making some kind of statement – whether it’s a comment on the friendliness of the host country, or an expression of surprise at the seeming openness of a Communist regime.  The majority of what we will see on television will be about the sports… what we see in the other media will be about the people.  And if the athletes aren’t careful, they could be taking a stand whether they realize it or not.  Which, at the end of the day, might not be such a bad thing – after all, a heartfelt opinion is the best kind.

All of this, of course, will be a moot point if China decides to block access to YouTube and the like, as they did earlier this year during the Tibet protests.  But hey, if that happens, we still have almost 7,000 hours of NBC coverage to look forward to.

The Emmy nominations for 2008 were released, and while premium cable and the broadcast networks are still dominant forces in television, we are clearly seeing a growth of basic cable programming, both in terms of quality and recognition.  Shows like ‘Breaking Bad’, ‘Mad Men’, and ‘Damages’ have all garnered attention this year, and their nominations in various categories reflect that.  For these shows’ networks, AMC and FX, it is validation that ad-supported niche cable shows can appeal to voters and audiences alike.

Every year, the Hollywood community inevitably complains about the shows that didn’t get nominated (I would include myself in that list, seeing as how ‘Battlestar Galactica’ was not nominated for best drama series, while ‘Lost’ was overlooked in the writing and directing categories; however, since the former received a writing nod, and the latter is once again in the running for best drama, I really can’t complain).  But this year is different, and should be remembered as such, for the fact that two basic cable networks have shows that are being considered for best drama.  That is not to take anything away from what the broadcast networks have done; shows like ‘House’ and the aforementioned ‘Lost’ not only withstand the test of time, they actually reinvent themselves to remain fresh and interesting.  The cable networks, too, have remained viable, with shows like ‘Dexter’ and ‘The Wire’ receiving nothing but praise from fans and critics both. 

But the emergence of networks like AMC is notable for the fact that they have come seemingly out of nowhere to challenge convention.  They have presented us with small, character-driven shows dominated by great acting and compelling writing, and as a result have found steadily growing audiences.  They even seem to come up with ways to deal with some of the challenges facing television as a whole, such as the growing worry that people with DVRs are fast-forwarding through commercials: while watching ‘Mad Men’, a show about ad executives in the 1960’s, each first-half commercial break features title cards that give interesting tidbits about the sponsor or product in the ensuing commercials (who knew the first Orkin ad dates way back to 1954?)  Simple yet informative, these commercial teasers, for lack of a better description, keep you interested – they actually make you want to watch the commercial!  It’s creativity like this that illustrates, in a small way, what networks like AMC bring to the mix. 

Basic cable networks in general have been upping the ante in recent years.  It’s fitting that FX has recently changed its slogan to “There is No Box”, because that is how the network approaches its programming.  By thinking beyond what’s safe and what works, they have risen the level of quality; in doing so, they have also questioned many of Hollywood’s beliefs, including what, exactly, a hero should look and act like.  FX (along with TNT and USA) has also helped to dispel the notion that there are no primetime, desirable roles for women over 40 – just ask Glenn Close, Holly Hunter, or Kyra Sedgwick.

Here’s hoping that the broadcast networks take a look at what their basic cable counterparts are doing, and realize that there are in fact lessons to be learned. 

As Comic-Con prepares to descend on San Diego on July 24^th, it’s worth taking a quick look to see just how this small gathering of comic book aficionados became such an annual powerhouse.  Some will say things really took off when the “Harry Potter”, “Lord of the Rings”, and “X-Men” franchises were all released – three enormously popular (and successful) science-fiction/fantasy film series that had a home at the convention; it was there that fans could find the actors, the stories, and all the additional merchandise they could want.  Yet it is simplistic to say that Hollywood has only recently taken notice of the event; it has had a presence there almost since the beginning, after all, with Lucasfilm setting up a booth at the 1976 convention to promote “Star Wars”.  Even Mark Hamill – Luke Skywalker himself – was once a young comic book fan; he recently set his film “Comic Book: The Movie” at the convention, knowing what it’s like to both be on the stage and in the audience.

Beyond merely the industry taking notice, the growth of Comic-Con lies with those actually attending the event.  What we’re seeing is a growing trend of quality.  Comic fans have always been passionate about story; they’ve always had an exacting stance on what the characters can and cannot do.  And they now have the power to demand that quality from the studios and the filmmakers.  As films like “Iron Man” and the new “Star Trek” and “The Incredible Hulk” are brought to the big screen, their fans scrutinize every detail for authenticity… they discuss rumors, dig for advance copies of the script, and theorize to no end.  Some filmmakers find this intrusive, feeling it hinders the creative process.  Others, though, have taken notice, and have in fact embraced these fans (called “fanboys” for their devotion).  For these filmmakers, it makes sense to use this resource.  These directors and writers understand full well that any work based on an existing product will have to get these people’s stamp of approval… an advance thumbs-up can do wonders; conversely, early bad press can be hard to overcome.

In the end, the fans just want to see the best product they can, and while it’s not possible to satisfy all of them all the time, one can still get close. With the growth of the internet – a realm dominated initially by those who love computers – we’ve seen an influx of fan sites like “Ain’t It Cool News”, whose sole purpose was to analyze, discuss, and review their favorite films and television shows.  Now, this site has grown so much since its inception that its founder, Harry Knowles, is now being invited by directors like J.J. Abrams to view a clip of his newest “Star Trek” film – months before its release – in the hopes that he’ll relate something positive to his readers.  This kind of buzz is vital to a film’s success, especially those in the science-fiction and fantasy realms, and guys like Abrams are smart enough to realize it.  That’s why he also uses Comic-con to promote his hit show “Lost”, drawing in the audience with mysteries and teasers well after the show has hit its summer break. 

Comic-Con’s growth can also be attributed to the development of its truest fans.  Back in the 70’s, the convention started with only a few hundred people; one of the first notable guests was not a filmmaker but the sci-fi author, Ray Bradbury.  As the convention grew, it attracted kids of all ages, whose love of comics and films brought them together.  Now, these children are adults, and are themselves responsible for many of the films and TV shows that screen there.  The kids have grown up, yet they still have the same exacting standards as when they were young.  It is this dedication to quality that keeps the convention going, and it will continue to thrive so long as it stays true to this vision.

That, and it also doesn’t hurt that Ray Bradbury will be there again this year…

More than three months after the Writers Guild of America’s strike, Hollywood is facing a new round of labor negotiations that, should they fail, could spell another potentially long strike for the city (and California as a whole).  As the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) negotiate with AMPTP (the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers), the state is still trying to right itself after the WGA shutdown last November.

Anyone who watches television can clearly see the surface effects of the WGA strike – everything from shows cancelled outright, to production schedules that have been pushed back by months – some even until next year (film production also suffered, but that was mostly in rushed scripts and a lack of rewrites on set).  But in order to appreciate the full magnitude of the three months of work-stoppage, one has to dig deeper, specifically into the economic impact the strike has had on all forms of industry-related professions, and on the state’s fiscal health in general.  A report by the Milken Institute, an independent economic think tank, details the numerous ways in which the strike has had (and will continue to have) a lingering effect.  The information contained in this report is all a result of the strike, and shows the roll it played in harming the already struggling state and local economies.

“Substantial”.  This is the word the report uses to describe the strike’s effect on Los Angeles and California, specifically in job loss and overall economic health.  “The state is projected to show a total loss of 37,700 jobs and $2.1 billion in lost output from the fourth quarter of 2007 through the end of 2008. Total personal income and total wages and salaries are projected to decline by $3.1 billion and $2.3 billion, respectively.”  All of these figures, attributable to the strike.  What’s most amazing about these facts is the vast reach of the strike, hitting not just actors and writers and everyone involved in production (hair and makeup artists, lighting technicians, camera operators, set designers, etc.), but also those peripheral to the industry, such as caterers and hotel staff.  The rippling effect of so many people having to tighten their belts has even caused finance, insurance, construction, and health-care to suffer.

According to the report, the strike was one of many factors that helped push California into a recession this year.  As a result, the strike “will continue to resonate over time, causing direct impact on employment, output, and wages and salaries, in turn affecting retail sales and causing ripples through other industries.”  There are also other lingering concerns, for instance a decline in television viewership; people had three months to kill, after all, and ended up turning to alternate sources of entertainment.  Bringing these viewers back into the fold is imperative, for the studios as well as for the advertisers who provide their revenue; however, as mentioned above, television executives are still having difficulties arranging their schedules to bring them back to normal levels.  Until they do, advertisers will remain wary.

This is just a basic overview on the negative effects the strike has had on our economy.  The good news, however, is that “[these effects] will gradually diminish over time; by the beginning of 2009, its effect on most industries will finally drop to a barely noticeable level.”  Unfortunately, this will happen only if SAG and AFTRA can settle their differences and coordinate their negotiations with AMPTP; otherwise, their current contract will expire today, and the unions may call a strike.  If that happens, the impact of the WGA strike will not be replaced, it will in fact be magnified.  We will then be faced with two distinct work-stoppages in less than a year, a frightening prospect for a state that thrives on the entertainment industry flowing smoothly.

I’ve seen more and more articles recently decrying “runaway film production” – film and TV shows leaving our city and our state, and heading toward more tax-friendly environs.  I have heard for years about Canada, for instance, offering a way out to productions seeking to trim costs… their streets and their locations serve well as a substitute for American locales, but at lower prices (for both location use as well as crews).  But I didn’t know why, in the past year, the issue had ballooned.  So I decided to do some research, to discover what moves the “competition” had made, and what (if anything) our state had done in the past few years to halt this trend.

One article I found dated back to November of 2006.  It talked about the need to retain film production in Los Angeles, and was written by our own mayor, Antonio R. Villaraigosa.  He was writing the piece in response to an editorial in the LA Times, which criticized closing the 105 in order to film a scene for “Live Free or Die Hard”; he stated in simple yet concise tones the need for our legislators to do all they can to keep these productions from heading elsewhere.  He writes: “Today, only 11% of all feature films are being made in California, and we cannot afford to cede this integral industry to other cities, especially as competition grows more fierce.”  He then goes on to cite that competition, pointing out that “14 states [have] passed new tax incentives or improved existing incentives for film productions,” and the “troubling, long-term implications to that trend.”  Finally, he rounds out his opinion piece by mentioning his support AB 777, a bill which could provide tax incentives for productions to stay in California. 

Sounds good to me.  So, this being a year-and-a-half ago, I did some research to find out what happened to “Assembly Bill 777 – Motion Picture Production Tax Incentives for California”.  While some criticism was levied against it with respect to its effectiveness, or the cost to California taxpayers, overall the bill seemed to be a good start.  The only problem is, this bill seems to have disappeared.  The most recent reference I could find to AB 777 was dated February of 2007, and talked about cruelty to elephants.  Obviously, the bill had had a makeover.

Searching for similar bills led me to an article from June of 2007.  One line in particular caught my eye, because of its familiarity:  “We will not sit idly by and watch this homegrown industry disappear because other states are being more aggressive.” This from Majority Leader Karen Bass, of Los Angeles.  Very similar to Villaraigosa’s stance, and yet again, I can find no follow-up article discussing a bill being passed.  It seems this push, too, had stalled.

I did, however, find an article from April of this year, which discusses the New York State legislature’s plan to triple their film and TV tax credits for productions within its borders.  The article goes on to say how “New York City [in particular] also offers a 5% credit, so city shoots can reap a total of 35%.”  And what was the reasoning for these increased credits?  Was the legislature responding to some move made by California’s lawmakers, a sort of tit-for-tat?  Was it trying to break the west coast’s hold on film and TV production?  No, these incentives were done “in a bid to regain an edge over [New York’s] credit-happy neighbors Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts.”  That’s right – not to counter any moves that California or Hollywood had made, but to beat the moves made by other states.

Which finally led me to this article, from May 2008, in which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger calls for legislative action, saying “California must increase tax incentives to movie and television studios as a way to keep them from moving their productions out of state.”  These comments came days after ABC Studios said it was moving production of ”Ugly Betty” from Los Angeles to New York – meaning the siphoning has extended to include not just individual shoots, but entire productions as well.  The article adds that Schwarzenegger has been pushing for such legislation for four years, but so far has found no success.

That is our loss – and this loss extends beyond the revenue generated by the productions themselves.  It seems simple to say, but keeping these shoots in Los Angeles and California in general can only have a positive impact, especially on tourism.  Because what else are we primarily known for, if not being the entertainment capital of the world?  Take away our film and TV shoots, and you take a major part of our identity.

Too often, it seems, one hears about the vast differences between the coasts and the central states… “flyover states” they’re called, as though only to be appreciated (if at all) while passing beneath us.  There’s always talk of Hollywood executives being out of touch with these average television-watchers, of their belief that those people tend to embrace simpler, cruder entertainment.  It’s a constant cycle – Hollywood dumbs down television, thinking the average person need only a few explosions and some nudity to be entertained, and the “common man” strikes back that the people in Hollywood can’t make a decent show to save their lives.

To be honest, television is often out of touch.  It does tend to pander to its audience.  It gives us shows like “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila” and “The Moment of Truth”.  This is what is called mindless entertainment: easy to ingest, without needing too much thought to do so.  And these are only two examples that typify the “make it cheap, make it simple, and make plenty of it” mentality, the idea that if this is what the people want, then we’re going to give it to them. 

The thing is, this is not what the audience really wants – not exclusively.  Sure, reality programming can be a nice break, a fun form of escapism.  But can you imagine if that was all television had to offer?  If every channel had some form of Lindsay Lohan’s mother staring back at you?  What a truly horrifying thought.  And yet, given the chance, many TV executives would do just that.  Make it cheap, and make it simple, right?  But the only problem is, audiences aren’t simple.  The emergence of reality shows in the past decade or so does not mean that they have a limited threshold of taste.  If anything, it means they are simply waiting to be challenged more often.

Take a look at any successful TV show, and the reason for its success can be traced to its acceptance by a vast audience – not just those on the east or west coasts (or the middle states), but all across the country.  As such, there can be no such thing as a “flyover state”, because no viewer should be ignored, or pandered to.  People in Kansas or Oklahoma are the heart and soul of any audience (just like those in California or New York), and they have just as much need for good entertainment as anyone.  A truly successful television show has at its heart creators that understand this need, and shape themselves to reach as wide an audience as possible.  Take “Lost”, for example, with its blend of action and special effects, thought-provoking writing, and impeccable acting.  The show is many things to many people, and is able to maintain this balance while never compromising its integrity.  It’s as if the creators started out by looking at their audience and at themselves, saying “we can give people intelligent characters and situations – we can stimulate their hearts and their minds and still get their pulses racing”.  They trusted their audience from day one; they didn’t dumb down their work, or spoon-feed it to their viewers.  In turn, their audience trusted them, and are consistently rewarded because of it.

This is not meant to be a discussion on the merits of reality versus scripted television; as mentioned above, both have something unique to offer.  But it would be nice, at the end of the day, to see a greater number of TV shows embrace the idea that their audience is more clever than they’ve been given credit for.  It would be nice if television executives sought out that balance – if they pushed themselves to spread their visions to as many people as possible without compromising those visions. 

Basically, it would be nice if they just shelved “A Shot at Love 3” and gave us something more…

Go to YouTube and type in “Hilary Clinton”, and you get something along the lines of 96,000 videos; type in “Barack Obama”, and you get approximately 116,000.  Or try Google, where typing the name “John McCain” elicits about 38,000,000 hits.  Welcome to politics in the media age, where everything you need to know is at your fingertips – and even more that you don’t.

We live in a time where those running for the highest office in the country are under a greater, more intense form of scrutiny than ever before.  Each one of the videos or web pages mentioned above give us intimate access to the candidates, allowing us the freedom to leisurely examine their positions, or their public speaking methods, even their clothing or hairstyles.  It seems like we can never get enough… we gorge ourselves on every tidbit we can find, even though there is more information about these people than we could ever hope to read, hear, or see.

As humans, we’ve always had an insatiable need for knowledge; what we’re witnessing now, though, is something else.  It’s as if, by having so much, we’ve become conditioned to expect even more.  It’s not enough to be able to watch a video of Obama anytime we want… now, we can scrutinize his every word, to look for meaning both obvious and covert.  We can watch him frame by frame, in high definition television, looking for a blink or a facial tic that we can use to add meaning to his words – or to imply intent that isn’t really there.  It’s a form of perception-shaping, each according to his own needs or desires.  And then, when we’re done, we can log in to our favorite sites and post our newfound beliefs (or theories) for the whole world to read.

What does this mean to the election process?  One need only to look at Franklin Roosevelt for one answer.  Roosevelt contracted what was believed to be polio in 1921, resulting in his paralysis from the waist down.  Yet he was able to not only continue in public office, but to go on to win the presidency three times.  And throughout all of this, he convinced the American public that he was, if not exactly healthy, then at least getting better.  He did so by manipulating the media into seeing what he wanted it to see: he taught himself to walk using iron braces and a cane to appear vital; he used an extra-sturdy podium with which he could support himself for speeches in public; and he rarely allowed himself to be photographed in his wheelchair (which he used only in private).  He lied about the extent of his illness because he knew that it could not hinder him in serving the people.

Today, however, the line between mainstream media and independent ‘journalist’ has become severely blurred.  If Roosevelt were to try and manipulate the media now, he would in fact be manipulating us, the public at large.  And he would be vilified for it, for lying about something of such significance.  Today, the health of the most powerful man in the world is information that belongs to all of us.  The president cannot have a hangnail removed without the world knowing in advance… he gets a flu, and instantly the story flies around the world as markets tremble in anticipation.  No, chances are that Roosevelt wouldn’t even be nominated today – a candidate felled by a paralyzing illness might be considered a poor choice for whichever party he chose to represent.  Never mind qualifications… in the media age, it’s as much about how you look during your speech as it is what you say.

Which brings us back to McCain, who is questioned because people say he’s too old; or Obama, who comes across to some as a bit of an elitist; or Clinton, who at times is either too severe or too shrill or too mushy.  Thanks to an over-abundance of media outlets and devices, we have resorted to judging our candidates based on qualifications that, at times, have almost nothing to do with the office of the President and more to do with a popularity contest – we can watch a speech on You Tube, read the comments below, and get swept up in the discussions of everyday people debating the most mundane points.  It’s unnerving, to say the least.  And it’s also unnecessary.

Bring on the general election…