NEWS - When the 'News Business' is the News

"Waning trust and a perilous financial landscape challenge the news business" PBS NewsHour 2/23/2021

This is about the lack of open mindedness of many Americans today, they only accept views that match theirs.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  It is a tumultuous time in the news business, with a perilous financial landscape and significant percentages of Americans saying they fundamentally don't trust news sources that don't line up with their opinions.  Gregory Moore, editor-in-chief at Deke Digital, and Radhika Jones editor-in-chief of Vanity Fair, join Judy Woodruff to discuss.

MISINFORMATION WARS - Deepfakes Videos

COMMENT:  This is one of the side effects of today's technology, including the Internet.  Today's technology makes things easier and faster, but also more dangerous.

"Why ‘deepfake’ videos are becoming more difficult to detect" PBS NewsHour 6/12/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Sophisticated and inaccurate altered videos known as “deepfakes” are causing alarm in the digital realm.  The highly realistic manipulated videos are the subject of a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Thursday.  As Miles O’Brien reports, the accelerating speed of computers and advances in machine learning make deepfakes ever more difficult to detect, among growing fears of their weaponization.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 11/24/2017

"Shields and Brooks on sexual misconduct plaguing politics, GOP tax plan pushback" PBS NewsHour 11/24/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including more allegations of sexual misconduct in the worlds of politics and the media, a New York Times report suggesting Michael Flynn may be cooperating in Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, and some surprising opposition to the Republican tax plan.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  But first, another week of sexual misconduct allegations plagued the political and media worlds.  And with Congress returning next week, we look ahead to Republican efforts on taxes and more.

And for all that, we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen.

So, let’s start, Mark, with the sexual allegations cascading across new names this week.  It’s crossing party lines, Al Franken among the Democrats.  Congressman Joe Barton, not sexual harassment, but a personal relationship, pictures have emerged.

What are we — we know that politicians and people in the media aren’t perfect, never have been, but what are we learning now from all this?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Well, I think we’re learning, Judy, the dimensions of it.

I mean, this isn’t the pass at the office Christmas party after two drinks, “Would you like a ride home, Sally?”  I mean, this is abusive stuff, and it’s male-directed, it’s male-dominated, it’s male power.

I’m embarrassed for my gender to read this stuff.  I’m appalled.  Quite frankly, I have not led a cloistered life, but men exposing themselves, just this is a form of human depravity and abuse that is unrecorded and unreported.  And I think it’s — I think we’re seeing a sea change in attitudes in this country.

The one encouraging aspect is, generationally, younger men find the harassment — they agree more with women about the prevalence of it and the unacceptability of it.  And for that, I’m cheered and encouraged.

But I have to say, it’s not a party thing.  Obviously, it’s not an ideological thing.  It’s a power thing, and it’s a male thing overwhelmingly.

Judy Woodruff:  David, do you think we may be seeing a turn, a change in people’s willingness to put up with this?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes, well, certainly the willingness of people to come out, the encouragement of people to come out, the instinctive siding with the people who come out, which I think is the right posture.

I think we are seeing a change.  And what interest me is, I was wondering, would we — Harvey Weinstein, that probably would have happened.  But if Donald Trump were not President, would it have had these massive ripple effects, so it becomes a big national change?

And I think the reaction to Trump is part of the deal here.  And we have talked about Trump maybe polluting our national culture, but it could be the reaction to Trump is also making us hypersensitive and making us want to correct the national culture.

And so you could be a — see a reaction to — the Trump wave, I think, has lowered norms and the standards, but a lot of people would say, no, we’re not happy with this, we’re going to raise norms and standards.

And so I hope this is part of that larger reestablishment of what is decency.

MAKING SEN$E - Tech Control of Our Lives

"How tech giants have shredded our privacy and what we should do about it" by Sam Lane, PBS NewsHour 9/14/2017

Editor's note:  Franklin Foer, a former editor of the “New Republic,” is the author of the new book, “World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech.”  Foer argues that the corporate ambitions of four major technology companies — Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple, or “GAFA” — are “shredding the principles that protect individuality.  Their devices and sites have collapsed privacy.”

NewsHour business and economics correspondent Paul Solman sat down recently with Foer at his home in Washington, where he offered his thoughts on the big tech corporations, the media, “fake news” and what we can do about it.

In his words:

On Google's influence:

Google's ability to pick winners and losers in the information world is a menace.  These companies have the ability to determine which media companies are successful and which ones are failures.  If I adopt a business plan that doesn't line up with Google's, then they're not going to reward me.  If I produce content in a way that somehow doesn't accord with the values of their algorithms, they're not going to reward me … That gives them incredible power in our society.

Google likes to pretend that it's neutral.  That it's this scientific search engine that's just about the mathematics that leads it to say one thing is more important than another …  Who knows why those are better than others?  Only Google.  They don't explain their algorithm to anybody else.  It's highly un-transparent.

On Facebook's algorithms:

If I'm reading my Facebook feed, it's using algorithms, procedures and methods to give me what I want, or what it thinks that I want, or what suits its business plan.

Right now, Facebook wants to make money off of video.  So, even though I prefer words to video, it's giving me video constantly.  And even though I'm somebody who likes to read conservatives, likes to read people on the far left, it's essentially only giving me screeds against Donald Trump because that's what, based on my data, it thinks that I want.

On our dependence on Amazon:

Booksellers initially thought of Amazon as their best friend.  They were coming in and they were challenging Barnes and Noble, and Borders, which were the big, dominant corporations of the day, and that they would disrupt them and make them less powerful, but they could never envision that Amazon would overtake them all.

The problem is that, as producers of books, we're utterly dependent on Amazon.  And Amazon has the ability to pick winners and losers in the book world just as Facebook and Google pick winners and losers in the information world.  And that's just too much power to be invested in one company.

On Apple's disruption of the music and TV industries:

I'm a little bit less hard on Apple in the book because they've been less successful at being an informational gatekeeper in some ways than Google or Facebook.

Apple was very important in terms of disrupting the music business and remaking the television business.  They made it harder for people to make money on the things that they produce.  In news, they've created Apple News and they've tried to steer people towards information.  It is important, and it is powerful, but it's not quite the same power that Google and Facebook have when it comes to the distribution of information.

On the media:

Our media companies — even the New York Times and the Washington Post — are extremely dependent on Google and Facebook for their traffic.  Their readership has declined in terms of subscribers.  So, in order to thrive, they have to get viewers and readers through Facebook and Google.  They adopt the techniques that Google and Facebook reward.  And, in the case of politics, the thing that they reward are the things that tell us what we want to hear …

Media companies are profit making enterprises.  But they're also companies that serve an important democratic function, and at a certain point there's tension between their profit making motive and their democratic motive.

On fake news:

When you see an article on Facebook, it's an article on Facebook.  It's not necessarily an article from the New York Times or Fox News.

People stopped paying attention to the source.  They stopped thinking about the authority of the source, and it just becomes this stew.  We're constantly taking spoonfuls from the stew, not really thinking about what vegetables we're putting in our mouth and what pieces of meat we're putting in our mouth.

That's the problem.  That's why fake news, or less credible theories, are able to flourish.

What's next?

These companies are using our data.  They act as if they own that data, but really that data is ours.  It's a reflection of our psyches, it's a reflection of our personal history.  It's ourselves in numeric form.

I think the fact that they're using something that doesn't fully belong to them requires certain obligations of them.  It's like the environment.  We allow companies to degrade the environment.  The environment doesn't belong to them, but we say, “Okay, you can do a little bit of polluting.  You can do a little bit of logging.  You can do these things that we all suffer from to a certain extent because that's capitalism.”  But, on the other hand, we say, “because you're using the environment, there's certain obligations that you have.  You can't abuse the environment too much.”

I think the same thing should be true for our data.  These companies should be allowed to exploit our data to some extent, but we need to put more severe restrictions on them about how they can degrade our data because it does not belong to them …

"Are big tech companies trying to control our lives?" PBS NewsHour 9/14/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Should we be concerned about the growing power of tech giants?  In his book, “World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech,” Franklin Foer says that more than their size, these companies are a threat because of the ways they shape how we filter information and the world.  Economics correspondent Paul Solman explores the role of tech companies as gatekeepers.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION - The Trump Jr, Flash-Fire

"How are Trump Jr. revelations resonating politically?" PBS NewsHour 7/12/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  How are Americans on both sides of the aisle reacting to revelations about a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer?  Matt Schlapp of the American Conservative Union and Karine Jean-Pierre of MoveOn.org join Judy Woodruff to discuss how the developments are shaping what lawmakers and voters think.

"Trump legal team distances president from son's meeting with Russian lawyer" PBS NewsHour 7/12/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  How do the bombshell revelations in Donald Trump Jr.'s emails affect the Russia investigation?  That was the big question across Capitol Hill, after it was revealed the President's son tried to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton, provided by the Russian government.  John Yang reports on how lawmakers and others are responding.

"Did Donald Trump Jr. break the law? Two legal experts weigh in" PBS NewsHour 7/12/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Donald Trump Jr.'s release of his Russia-related email exchange reignited a legal debate about whether members of the Trump campaign engaged in unlawful activity.  Former White House Counsel Bob Bauer and Jed Shugerman of Fordham Law School join Judy Woodruff to offer different perspectives on the legal questions surrounding the controversy.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 2/17/2017

"Shields and Brooks on Trump using the press as a punching bag, Michael Flynn's sacking" PBS NewsHour 2/17/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week's news, including President Trump's contentious press conference, National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's resignation, as well as the continued scrutiny over other potential contacts with Russia and more.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen.

David, to you first.

That was quite a report from William Brangham, two towns in Texas, two groups of people, both sides of the political aisle.  What does it tell you about just how divided this country is?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  Yes, welcome to life in America these days.

For those of us who have been traveling around, that's reality.  And two things strike me.  The first is, politics is based on social identity, and so, again, there is going to be differences between rural and urban and between left and right.

But what's at the core, why is the chasm so wide between the two, and why are the two universes almost non-overlapping?  It's like whether we're just in-group, out-group, or is there some cultural or ethnic or racial divide that's at the bottom of this?  It's very hard to figure out what unconsciously is making people so fervently in one universe or the other.

But whether it's an identity politics thing, or just we that like to form groups and we like to unify our group by hating some other group, that's the world we're in.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  And, Mark, they couldn't have been more divided than they were.

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist:  They weren't.  They were characteristically Texan.  They were outspoken.  They didn't hide their allegiance or their enmities.

And I thought a particular act of fraternal love was disabling the FOX News Channel when his brother came to visit over Christmas, not exactly a loving act, it would seem, but something that he boasted about to William on national television.

STOP THE PRESS - 'The Hulk' vs Internet Moguls

"Hulk Hogan, media ethics and the battling Internet moguls" PBS NewsHour 5/30/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  When Hulk Hogan won $140 million in court from millionaire Nick Denton's Gawker Media after it published video of him having sex, the verdict raised serious questions about journalistic ethics.  Hogan's suit was funded by Peter Thiel, the billionaire founder of PayPal who Gawker outed as gay a decade earlier.  Hari Sreenivasan talks to Wired's Jason Tanz for more on the case and its implications.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  So, let's go over just basics of what happened in this case, because most people aren't following Hulk Hogan's sex tape saga too closely.

JASON TANZ, Editor-At-Large, WIRED:  Sure.

So, a few years ago, Gawker published an article that included a video of a sex tape that Hulk Hogan had made, actually was made without his knowledge.  They declared it was in the public interest because Hulk Hogan was a public figure and he had gone on record talking about how he had not had sex with this woman, and they had proof that he had.  So they published it, somewhat gleefully, which has always been Gawker's kind of stock and trade.

They have been very forward in their — in what they declare to be in the public interest.  And they thought this was.  Hulk Hogan didn't see things that way.  He brought a lawsuit against them.  The jury found against Gawker to the tune of $140 million, which was a pretty shocking about.

Gawker has appealed the case and they're waiting to see how that plays out.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  So, how does Peter Thiel get involved in this?  He — there's no love lost between the founder of Gawker, Nick Denton, and Peter Thiel.

JASON TANZ:  Nick Denton had suspected that there was actually somebody funding Hulk Hogan's lawsuit, because the way Hogan was prosecuting the suit, he was making decisions that, if he were interested in making money, game theory suggests that he would have done something differently.

He could have taken reportedly about a $10 million settlement.  He also withdrew a part of the lawsuit that would have required a payout from Gawker's insurance.  They actually just withdraw that, so that Gawker would be on the hook and not the insurance company.

So, that indicated maybe there was something else going on.  In 2007, Gawker had — and, specifically, its site Valleywag had outed Peter Thiel as a gay man.  Thiel at the time swore his revenge.  And now, nine years later, he is getting it.  He had a team of lawyers who were looking for various plaintiffs who could file suits that they could fund, and apparently they found more than one.  Supposedly, there a couple of other suits out there that he's prepared to bring against Gawker as well.

ARTS - Downton Abby

Note that I am a fan.

"One last visit to Downton Abbey before fans say goodbye" PBS NewsHour 12/18/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For the past five years, the Crawley family and their household of servants have entertained audiences with comedic one-liners from the Dowager Countess and dramatic calamity befalling nearly every character.  Now the top-rated PBS drama of all time is drawing to a close.  Judy Woodruff talks with creator Julian Fellowes, actress Elizabeth McGovern and others about the show.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  The blockbuster successful British TV series, “Downton Abbey” begins its sixth and final season here on PBS (Masterpiece) next month.  We got an inside look at the show, its creator and explore why so many Americans love it.

The music is instantly recognizable, as is the tail — that’s Isis, the dog — both part of the opening credits to the blockbuster British television drama, “Downton Abbey.”  For the past five years, the Crawley family and their servants have entertained us, and in January, the drama begins its sixth and final season on PBS.

The last chance for a few more one-liners from the dowager countess of Grantham, played exquisitely by Dame Maggie Smith.

And surely, one final calamity to beset lady’s maid Anna and her butler husband Bates.

The mastermind of this runaway success is Sir Julian Fellowes; also an actor, film director, and, in his spare time, a conservative member of Britain’s House of Lords.

So, “Downton Abbey” coming to an end, is this — are you saying goodbye to a dear friend?  Or is it just — have you already moved on?

JULIAN FELLOWES, Creator:  No, I wouldn’t say I have moved on.  I mean, “Downton” has been an extraordinary milestone.  You’ve spent a lot of time in this industry, working very hard on things that don’t do terribly well, the public doesn’t get them or whatever, and then you suddenly ring the bell.  It’s been fantastic.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Fantastic beyond belief, becoming the top-rated PBS drama of all time.

Globally, “Downton” airs in over 220 countries with a worldwide audience of 120 million people.

JULIAN FELLOWES:  I never think it’s a good idea to outstay your welcome.  And it seems right to leave, so, I don’t think we’re doing the wrong thing, but it’s been a happy time.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  A happy time with roots in a book by American historian Carol Wallace, author of “To Marry an English Lord,” Sir Julian’s inspiration for the series.

MEDIA - One Last Zinger, Jon Stewart

"How funny man Jon Stewart became a serious influence" PBS NewsHour 8/6/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Called the nation's "satirist in chief," Jon Stewart’s comedic rants and skewering of the daily news have had far-reaching influence on media and politics.  Now he's leaving "The Daily Show" after 16 years.  Jeffrey Brown looks back at Stewart’s impact.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  One last zinger, one last laugh, one last bow.  Jon Stewart takes his leave of “The Daily Show” tonight.

Jeffrey Brown has our look.

JON STEWART, Host, The Daily Show With Jon Stewart:  Whose team are we on in the Middle East?

(LAUGHTER)

JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour):  Jon Stewart has been called the nation’s satirist in chief, and recently he went at it, once again, with the commander in chief.

JON STEWART:  We’re fighting with Iraqis to defeat ISIS, along with Iran, but, in Yemen, we’re fighting Iran with Iraqis and Saudis.

(LAUGHTER)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  That’s not quite right, but that’s OK.

(LAUGHTER)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  But, look…

JON STEWART:  Whose team are…

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  Look, here’s…

JON STEWART:  Who are we bombing?

JEFFREY BROWN:  It was President Obama’s seventh appearance on Stewart’s “Daily Show,” and his last.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  I’m issuing a new executive order that Jon Stewart cannot leave the show.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

JEFFREY BROWN:  But Stewart is leaving, after 16 years of a kind of faux newscast that took daily events and gave them a comedic, often pointed twist.

CHANGES - Goodby to David Letterman

"Saying goodnight to stupid pet tricks, top 10 lists and David Letterman" PBS NewsHour 5/19/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In the fall, Stephen Colbert will take over the TV time slot that has belonged to David Letterman for 22 years.  The host of CBS' Late Night with David Letterman influenced generations of comedians and brought a new voice to late night.  He was silly with an edge, known for his engaged, and occasionally confrontational interviewing style.  Jeffrey Brown looks back at Letterman’s career and legacy.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  David Letterman will sign off for the last time tomorrow, capping a late-night career that lasted more than three decades, even longer than the late-night titan Johnny Carson.

Letterman, and now a generation of younger comedians, drastically changed the landscape Carson left behind.  And now it’s set to change again.

Jeffrey Brown looks at Letterman’s enduring influence.

TINA FEY, Actress:  My gift to you is, I want to give you the dress.  You can keep it.

(LAUGHTER)

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour):  In the final days of his program, David Letterman has heard raves and roasts.

DAVID LETTERMAN:  How long have we been friends?  I guess you alluded to 30 — oh, you can go back to the morning show.

STEVE MARTIN, Comedian:  The morning show, yes, I was on the show then, but that doesn’t make us friends.

(LAUGHTER)

JEFFREY BROWN:  From a parade of stars, many of whom have joined him often in his 33-year network career.

MEDIA - Comcast Time Warner Cable Behemoth Dead

"Why Comcast Walked Away" by Leticia Miranda, ProPublica 4/23/2015

A Comcast Time Warner Cable behemoth could have spelled trouble for consumers and online innovators.

Update, April 24, 2015:  This story has been updated to reflect Comcast's official announcement that the merger has been terminated.

Today, Comcast announced that the company is walking away from its proposed $45.2 billion merger with Time Warner Cable.  Comcast had recently met with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission.  The deal had been troubled for weeks.

The Justice Department and FCC had reason to carefully evaluate the merger, which was first announced in Feb. 2014 and had been expected at the time to be completed by the end of 2014 or early 2015.  If the two companies had joined, they would have controlled just under 30 percent of the country’s pay TV market and, by one measure, roughly 57 percent of the broadband Internet market (Comcast put the figure at 35 percent).

Comcast’s argument that the merger would have minimal competitive harm seems to have unraveled.  Here’s some of what could have gone wrong.

TV program stifling

Comcast is already the largest video and TV service distributor in the country, according to the Leichtman Research Group.  With a wider geographic footprint, it could have used its weight to push out competition on TV airwaves, according to critics of the merger.  In fact, it already has.  Comcast refused to carry Univision’s sports network, Deportes Univision, one of the largest sports networks in the country and a competitor to Telemundo, which is owned by NBCUniversal and Comcast.  Randy Falco, Univision’s CEO, said in an earnings call in Apr. 2014 just after the merger was proposed that he feared “this type of anticompetitive conduct would continue."  Comcast responded by saying it “has had an extraordinary, long-standing commitment to Hispanic programming,” adding through its merger with Time Warner Cable it is “committed to bringing high-quality Hispanic content to millions of additional Americans.”  Just five months later, Comcast announced that it would offer Univision Deportes to its Xfinity TV subscribers in certain urban Latino markets.

John Bergmayer, senior staff attorney at Public Knowledge, expressed concerned that these practices would expand if Comcast merged with Time Warner Cable, bringing the combined company the ability to reach 33 million cable subscribers.  “In a world of lots of smaller video distributors, no one of them has the ability to single-handedly dictate terms like that since a video programmer could walk away,” he wrote in an email.

Monopoly on broadband Internet service

Aside from TV, Comcast would have a number of mechanisms to squeeze out online companies.  A typical household requires at least 25 mbps of Internet speed to go about their daily online routines.  That might include watching an HD video over Netflix while also posting pictures to Instagram as another person in the home works on their laptop.  Comcast and Time Warner Cable are two of the country’s major providers of broadband service of this speed.  If they were to merge, there would be few other Internet service providers that could compete, leaving many content companies like Google’s YouTube with only one option to reach their subscribers, according to FCC filings by opponents of the merger.  In this scenario, a merged Comcast/Time Warner Cable behemoth could leverage its interconnection points, which is where services like YouTube connect to stream video to their customers.  Comcast could keep YouTube from offering services over its network, degrade their traffic or charge them a high fee to connect to Comcast customers.  DISH Network wrote to the FCC that such chokeholds “over the broadband pipe would stifle future video competition and innovation, all to the detriment of consumers,” adding that the merger would consolidate “too much power in the hands of too few.”  Comcast argued that it would “bring significant benefits to Time Warner Cable customers, including higher Internet speeds and greater reliability.”

More broken promises

Comcast agreed to conditions to facilitate past mergers, but its record of complying with them raised concerns among critics.  The FCC slapped several conditions onto its approval of Comcast’s 2011 merger with NBCUniversal.  For one thing, the agency required Comcast to “visibly offer and actively market standalone retail broadband Internet access service.”  But just a year later an FCC investigation found that the company was not visibly marketing the standalone service and required it to pay a $800,000 fine and extend the service offer for another year.  Comcast also defied what are called “neighboring” conditions.  Bloomberg complained to the FCC that Comcast placed Bloomberg TV in the outer dial away from most other business networks and its own channel, CNBC, in the lower dial with other business news where viewers would be more likely to come upon it.  Comcast argued that the condition only applied to future news neighborhoods, not channels that existed prior to its merger.  The FCC ruled against Comcast and ordered it to place Bloomberg TV in its neighborhood lineup of business news.  Even then, Comcast said this was “not a compliance issue, it’s an interpretive issue.”  Comcast also violated its own voluntary agreement to respect the FCC’s 2010 net neutrality rules.  In February 2014, Comcast was found slowing Netflix traffic over its network which pressured Netflix into a paid agreement to ensure its traffic reached its customers at a normal speed.  David Cohen, Comcast’s executive vice president, said at a telecommunications summit three months later that paid prioritization for traffic was completely legal.  “Whatever it is,” he said.  “We are allowed to do it.”

MEDIA - Vital Arts vs OnLine Entertainment

"How do we keep arts vital in an age of online entertainment?" PBS NewsHour 3/25/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  When was the last time you went to the theater, or watched a modern dance concert?  Why are Americans less connected to the arts?  In his new book, “Curtains?  The Future of the Arts in America,” Michael Kaiser, a former chief of the Kennedy Center, American Ballet Theatre and others, considers what arts organizations can do to thrive and survive.  Kaiser discusses his book with Jeffrey Brown.

JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour):  Have you been to the theater lately, seen a modern dance concert?  Have your children?  Will those theater dance and other arts institutions survive?

The questions are at the heart of a new book with a question in its title, “Curtains?:  The Future of the Arts in America.”

Author Michael Kaiser has headed many arts organizations, including the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the American Ballet Theater and the Alvin Ailey dance troupe.  He now heads the DeVos Institute of Arts Management at the University of Maryland.

And welcome to you.

What’s the — if I say, what’s the essential problem, is it economic, cultural?  What is it?  How do you sum it up?

MICHAEL KAISER, Author, “Curtains?:  The Future of the Arts in America”:  We have faced many challenges in the arts for many years, but more recently, so much entertainment and arts are available online or in movie theaters.  And they are becoming very important competitors to those who present live performances in their theaters.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 2/13/2015

"Shields and Brooks on Obama’s war authority request, Islamic State’s threat" PBS NewsHour 2/13/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including President Obama’s request to Congress to engage in military action against the Islamic State group, Congress’ tangling over the President’s immigration order, and the uproar over Brian Williams’ error and subsequent suspension from NBC.

MEDIA - Indie Movie Deal and On-Demand

"What an indie movie deal means in the age of on-demand" PBS NewsHour 1/30/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Sundance Film Festival is both celebration and marketplace for those who love, create and deal in independent cinema, making it a touchstone for the health of the industry.  While technology has made it cheaper and easier to make a film, it can be harder than ever to break through to audiences.  Jeffrey Brown reports from Utah.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Now, the changing world of making and distributing movies.

Jeffrey Brown was at the Sundance Film Festival this week.  And here’s the second of two reports he filed from there, part of our ongoing series "NewsHour Goes to the Movies."

JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour):  A world premiere at Sundance. Earlier this week, director Joe Swanberg got the red carpet treatment for his new film, “Digging for Fire.”

The 10-day gathering in the mountain resort town of Park City, Utah, is for those who make and those who love independent films, and it’s still a touchstone for the health of the industry.  It’s a scene, all right, a place to see and be seen.

But for Swanberg and other filmmakers, it’s more than that.

JOE SWANBERG, Director:   Sundance is a market.

JEFFREY BROWN:  Yes.

JOE SWANBERG:  I mean, I am here to sell my movie.

JEFFREY BROWN:  Yes.

JOE SWANBERG:  I’m here to see other friends’ films.  I’m here to appreciate good art, but I’m here to sell my movie.  It’s a market.

JEFFREY BROWN:  Just getting here with a film is a major achievement.  For this year’s festival, there were more than 2,300 dramatic film and 1,800 documentaries submitted.  From those, 184 were accepted.

A showing here is great.  A launching from here is even better.  That’s because, while technology has made it cheaper and easier than ever to make a film, it’s in some ways harder than ever to break through, to get people to see your film.

SLEAZE FILES - Death Reality TV

(aka When Reality TV Goes Too Far)

"When a Patient’s Death is Broadcast Without Permission" by Charles Ornstein, ProPublica 1/2/2015

Excerpt

The ABC television show “NY Med” filmed Mark Chanko’s final moments without the approval of his family. Even though his face was blurred, his wife recognized him.  “I saw my husband die before my eyes.”

This story was co-published with the New York Times.

Anita Chanko could not sleep.  At 4 a.m., on an August night in 2012, she settled onto the couch in her Yorkville living room with her dog, Daisy, and her parrot, Elliott, and flipped on the DVR.  On came the prior night's episode of "NY Med," the popular real-life medical series set at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, starring Dr. Mehmet Oz.  Mrs. Chanko, 75, was a fan of the show and others like it.

"It starts off, there's a woman with stomach cancer and her family, and then there's somebody with a problem with their baby, I think it was a heart," she remembered.  "And then I see the doctor that treated my husband."

Mark Chanko, her husband, had died 16 months earlier, in April 2011, after being struck by a sanitation truck while crossing a street near his home.  The doctors and nurses at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center tried in vain to save his life.

On the TV screen, she saw the chief surgery resident Sebastian Schubl, responding to an emergency in which a man is hit by a vehicle.

"And then I see, even with the blurred picture, you could tell it was him," she said.  "You could hear his speech pattern. I hear my husband say, 'Does my wife know I'm here?'."

There was no doubt in her mind:  The blurred-out man moaning in pain was her husband of almost 46 years, the Korean War veteran she met in a support group for parents without partners.

"I hear them saying his blood pressure is falling.  I hear them getting out the paddles and then I hear them saying, 'OK, are you ready to pronounce him?'."

She clenched her fists so tightly that "the palms of my hands almost looked like stigmata" and her mouth got so dry that her tongue stuck to the roof "as if I had just eaten a whole jar of peanut butter."

"I saw my husband die before my eyes."

No one in the Chanko family had given "NY Med" permission to film Mr. Chanko's treatment at the hospital or to broadcast the moments leading up to his death.

Such moments — indeed, all of the intimate details of a person's health — are supposed to be shared only with a patient and whoever they designate, under a federal law known as Hipaa.

In the 18 years since the law was passed, doctors and hospitals have put in place an ever-expanding list of rules meant to protect patient privacy.  Hospitals warn staff members not to discuss patients' conditions on elevators.  Drug stores ask customers to stand back so they don't overhear information about others' prescriptions.

Yet, even in the face of this growing sensitivity, reality shows like "NY Med" have proliferated, piggybacking off popular fictional counterparts like "ER," "Grey's Anatomy" and "House."

Medical ethicists and groups like the American Medical Association worry that these shows exploit patients' pain for public consumption, but their makers argue that they educate viewers and inspire people to choose careers in medicine.

"We have heard many stories of people who were inspired to go to medical school, to become nurses or paramedics, or to head into particular specialties like trauma or transplant surgery after watching our show," Terence Wrong, executive producer of "NY Med," said in an email.  (He declined to discuss Mr. Chanko's case or to be interviewed for this article.)

Hospitals like NewYork-Presbyterian, meanwhile, have seized upon such shows as a way to showcase themselves, vying to allow TV crews to film their staff and patients — even emergency-room patients sometimes in no condition to give permission.

When the first season of "NY Med" was broadcast on ABC in 2012, the hospital's vice president of public affairs at the time, Myrna Manners, told PR Week, "You can't buy this kind of publicity, an eight-part series on a major broadcast network."  (A second season, also based at the hospital, ran over the summer and garnered more viewers than the first. ABC has not announced whether another season is planned.)

For the Chankos, the episode of "NY Med" added a coda of anger to more than a year of grief.  Their daughter, Pamela Chanko, said seeing the specifics of her father's injuries and death on TV sent her spiraling back into clinical depression.  "It just sent me straight back to square one," she said.

Kenneth Chanko, Mr. Chanko's son, filed complaints with the hospital, the New York State Department of Health, ABC, a hospital accrediting group, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' civil rights office.

The show had caused him "great emotional distress and psychological harm," he wrote in a complaint to the hospital.  "I had to unnecessarily relive my father's death at your hospital a second time, while knowing that the public at large was able to — and continues to be able to — watch my father's passing, for the purposes of what can only be described as drive-by voyeuristic 'entertainment.'"

ABC quickly removed the segment involving Mr. Chanko from its website, DVDs and future viewings (although not from the promotional blurb for the episode, which still says "Sebastian Schubl, a Dr. McDreamy-like young trauma surgeon, tries to save the day when a critically injured pedestrian struck by a vehicle is brought to the ER.")  In 2013, the state cited the hospital for violating Mr. Chanko's rights.

That was not enough for the Chankos, who sued ABC, NewYork-Presbyterian and Dr. Schubl for damages.  An appellate panel recently dismissed the case, but the family has asked for that decision to be reviewed.  Dr. Schubl and the hospital declined to comment for this article, citing the continuing litigation.  ABC referred a reporter to Mr. Wrong's statement.

In court filings, the hospital and ABC do not dispute that they did not have consent from Mr. Chanko or his family, but they say the patient is not identifiable to the public.  The network has asserted that because "NY Med" is produced by its news division, it is protected by the First Amendment.  Lawyers for NewYork-Presbyterian have argued that the state does not recognize a common law right to privacy and that any privacy right Mr. Chanko did have ended upon his death.  They say that the Chankos themselves are responsible for their loss of privacy.

"There would today still be no identification of the patient or his family but for the latter's publication via this lawsuit," a brief for the hospital says.

The day Mr. Chanko was hit by a private garbage truck had been entirely forgettable, his wife said.  "If I had a diary, I'd leave the page blank."

They arrived home past 11 p.m. after spending a few days at their second home in Goshen, Conn., in Litchfield County.  As they unloaded their luggage, Mr. Chanko looked in the refrigerator and noticed they were out of milk and bananas.  He decided to run across York Avenue, in the Yorkville section of Manhattan, to a deli.

After Mr. Chanko had been gone a few minutes, the building doorman buzzed up and asked Mrs. Chanko to come downstairs.  Not understanding the urgency, she said she would be down in a bit.

The doorman buzzed again.  Moments later, the doorbell rang.  When she answered, a longtime neighbor grabbed her arm.  "Anita, you have to come with me," she recalled the neighbor as saying.  "Mark needs you.  He's been hurt."

When she got downstairs and walked outside, Mrs. Chanko saw an ambulance and her 83-year-old husband on a gurney, his head bandaged.  The neighbor drove her to NewYork-Presbyterian.  There, she watched as the medical team hurriedly pushed the gurney carrying her husband near the emergency room.

"I rushed up because I wanted to run alongside him and just hold his hand and reassure him and say, 'You'll be OK,'" she said.  The doctor said no.  "That would have been my last chance to even say something to him."

Mr. Chanko was initially alert and awake, and able to respond to questions, medical records show.  But he was in bad shape:  His pelvis had been broken in several places, as had his left femur.  The skin was ripped off his right leg.

Outside the operating room, doctors and nurses could not detect Mr. Chanko's pulse and resuscitated him.  In the operating room, he became more unstable, medical records show.  Twice more they tried to bring him back.  He was pronounced dead at 1:17 a.m.

Dr. Schubl and a social worker walked into the conference room, where the family was waiting, and shut the door.

"I did everything I possibly could," Dr. Schubl told them.  "Unfortunately, he did not survive.  I am sorry."

The family did not know until the episode was broadcast that a camera was focusing on the closed door of the room where they had gathered and that audio of Dr. Schubl was being recorded.

Afterward, on the episode, Dr. Schubl turned to the camera and said, "Rough day.  Rough day."

"It was the last clip before the commercial," Mrs. Chanko said, "or as I put it, 'Watch this man die, now we're going to sell you some detergent.'"

ORAL HISTORY - StoryCorps, the Great Idea

"StoryCorps gives America a microphone and the chance to tell a story" PBS NewsHour 12/22/2014

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  The holidays are a time of the year when people get together with their loved ones and it’s often a period for reflection and intimate conversations.

Tonight, we look at a kind of unique oral history project that’s built a legacy from gathering thousands of those kinds of conversations and many more.  Its founder just won a major award for his work, which may be well known to many of our viewers.

Hari Sreenivasan recorded this conversation in our New York studio.

NARRATOR:  Time now for StoryCorps.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  For more than a decade, the StoryCorps project has been recording and archiving the stories of everyday Americans, more than 50,000 in all so far, that are as varied as a family of five becoming homeless and forced to move into a shelter.

SHERRY GILLIARD:  I remember pulling my hood over my head because I was embarrassed.  I didn’t want her to see me, you know, or a colleague says, we’re going to go volunteer and we’re going to feed the families, and it would be at my shelter.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  To an Alzheimer’s patient speaking with his wife about his losses.

ROBERT PATTERSON:  One thing that I experience with Alzheimer’s is, I live in the moment, because I can’t remember what happened yesterday.  I can’t remember what happened 10 minutes ago.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  To a mother speaking with the man who killed her son.

MARY JOHNSON:  I just hugged the man who murdered my son.  And I instantly knew all that anger and animosity, all that stuff that I had in my heart for 12 years for you, I knew it was over.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  StoryCorps’ vision comes from its creator, Dave Isay.  The idea?  Get two people together in a room or booth with a microphone, primarily friends or loved ones, and let them talk and listen to each other.

It began with a soundproof booth in Grand Central Station in New York City.  Today, the project has a van that travels around the country, as well as recording rooms in several cities.  The stories are archived at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., but they also are made available to the public more easily.

HISTORY - The Real Betty Boop?

BETTY BOOP

They might have drawn Betty Boop white, but her history may have been black.  The character was actually stolen from Cotton Club singer Esther Jones — known by her stage name “Baby Esther” and the baby talk she used when she sang songs like “I Wanna Be Loved By You (Boop- Boop-BeDoo).  Her act later “inspired” cartoonist Max Fleischer to create the cartoon character Betty Boop and Esther tried to win the rights back to her character until the day she died.

MEDIA - Colbert Transition to CBS Late Night Show

"Stephen Colbert leaves the pundit behind to play himself" PBS NewsHour 12/18/2014

Excerpt

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  Finally tonight, there’s a finally tonight coming from late-night comic Stephen Colbert.

Jeffrey Brown looks at his run and what’s ahead.

STEPHEN COLBERT, “The Colbert Report”:  Truthiness.

(LAUGHTER)

JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour):  He gave the late night world something called truthiness.

STEPHEN COLBERT:  Now, I’m sure some of the word police, the wordinistas over at Webster’s are going to say, hey, that’s not a word.

JEFFREY BROWN:  An approximation of fact that somehow captured the moment in American journalism and culture.  He presented “The Word,” a circular monologue that began in one place, meandered through puns and sight gags, and ended back where it started.

Night after night for nine years on “The Colbert Report,” Stephen Colbert did it all in character, a character named Stephen Colbert, an excitable, hyperactive, brash, but also reasonable voice of conservative bluster, clearly modeled on the cable TV and radio styles of Bill O’Reilly and others, all played for laughs and lessons.

MEDIA - Goodbye to Multiple Platforms

"Why media companies are ditching their newspaper operations" PBS NewsHour 8/11/2014

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  .... The latest turn in the evolving business of newspapers.

After years of being one part of the media’s broader strategy to grow and diversify, companies now are shedding print altogether.  Gannett, which owns USA Today and many other papers, became the latest to spin off its print operations last week, that a day after The Tribune Company made a similar move, and days after E.W. Scripps and Journal Communications announced similar plans as part of a merger.

Ken Doctor covers media for his website, Newsonomics, and his column for the Nieman Journalism Lab.

Ken Doctor, welcome to the program.

And I have just named some of the spinoffs that have happened.  Why is this happening now?

KEN DOCTOR, Newsonomics:  Well, it’s financial.  It’s Wall Street.

If you look at what’s happened with the newspaper industry, it’s been really a long dissent.  Profits are down, work forces are down, products are thinner.  And the broadcast industry is much healthier.  So, on Wall Street, you want a healthy business.  You don’t want the distressed business.

Essentially, the newspaper business is being sequestered or separated out from these better broadcast assets.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  So, this idea of having multiple platforms with television, with print and digital, that’s just gone goodbye?

KEN DOCTOR:  It is kind of ironic now, because we heard from the CEOs of these diversified companies that synergy was very important.

And, of course, on our smartphones and our tablets, we expect video from newspaper companies and we expect stories from broadcast companies.  And one idea here was multiplatform, multidevice.  But now these companies are separate.

So, importantly, this is a financial move.  It’s not a strategic one and may not really be in the best interests of the communities they serve or their readers.

Greed Personified

MEDIA - Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

"Comedian John Oliver makes fun of serious news" PBS NewsHour 7/14/2014

Excerpt

JOHN OLIVER, “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver”:  If we let cable companies offer two speeds of service, there won’t be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolt on a motorbike.

(LAUGHTER)

JOHN OLIVER:  They will be Usain Bolt and Usain bolted to an anchor.

(LAUGHTER)

JEFFREY BROWN:  The highly divisive debate over who controls Internet speed and access, so-called net neutrality, is hardly standard comic fare.

JOHN OLIVER:  The point is, the Internet in its current state is not broken, and the FCC is currently taking steps to fix that.

(LAUGHTER)

JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour):  But it’s just the kind of policy and political subject that John Oliver tackles, often in surprising depth, on his new HBO comedy program “Last Week Tonight.”

JOHN OLIVER:  We need you to channel that anger.

JEFFREY BROWN:  His admonition to viewers to write to the FCC even briefly shut down the agency’s comments section of the Web site.  Born in a suburb of Birmingham, England, Oliver studied English and joined a comedy troupe at Cambridge University.  He performed stand-up in festivals, pubs and clubs around England, before coming to this country and joining “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” in 2006, eventually sitting in as host while Stewart took time off.

The new program has probed, poked fun, and raised serious questions around a variety of news topics, from India’s elections to Supreme Court decisions.