I can’t help but wonder if there’s a significant part of America that think that if you were born in the 20th century you are literally a fossil unworthy of even having a valid opinion.  And as we get deeper into the 21st the ability of those with such an arrogant attitude–even if technically they were indeed born in a year with a 19 as the first two digits–to have an outsized influence is more substantial and, at least in my view, dangerous.

Even when those who are closer to my age than not are reporting, they often answer into executives who are less so, and often are apparently influenced by what they personally observe from a distance from the behavior and anecdotal evidence from their kids and their friends.  And as I have admonished for decades, focus groups of one or two aren’t projectable or conclusive in any sense and should never factor into a business mindset, let alone a decision.  I’ve unfortunately experienced what it’s like when short-sighted executives have ignored that reality check, and even more unfortunately I didn’t pre-negotiate a golden parachute like so many of them did where their mistakes didn’t impact them as much as they did me.

So I get especially agitated when I come across stories like the one that dropped yesterday from THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER’s Alex Weprin, with this tantalizing headline:

The End of TV Is Here

Given that Weprin is one of the few experienced journalists working for a Penske publication that is apparently hell-bent on pursuing a broader, feature-centric path so as to compete less with its sister sites which continue to focus on breaking news (e.g. DEADLINE and VARIETY!), I’ll be willing to cut him a personal break as to whether or not that headline was his call or not.  But what he wrote to support it was (one would hope) his thoughts and words, and bluntly, I expected a lot better from him.

His prompt was the fact that the March 2nd Oscar telecast will, for the first time, be available to stream live on Hulu as well as be able to be viewed on ABC.  He cited this datecdote as his rationale for alarm:

2025 is quietly shaping up to be linear TV’s last gasp, the year when the pieces that were gluing what was left of the pay-TV bundle together break free from it, and migrate toward the inevitable streaming future.  Entering this year, a surprising number of events have required a pay TV subscription (or at least a streaming bundle provider like YouTube TV) to watch live.  In fact, 14 of the top 50 TV broadcasts in 2024 were exclusive to pay TV bundle services, according to data from Nielsen, all of them football games on Fox or ESPN…Come next year, that number will be 0 of 50. Every single thing on Nielsen’s most watched list will be available in a stand-alone streamer in addition to the big bundles.

Well, OK.  That’s technically true.  And yes, the number of households that don’t subscribe to such bundles has increased consistently over time.  But the majority still do subscribe to a “big bundle” and as the cost and diffusion of such services continues to rise, let alone the reality check of navigation challenge becomes more obvious to those who have been previously spoiled by the experience of “channel flipping”, I’m not seeing as much of an existential crisis as those Weprin reached out would like to assert.

And this was on the heels of another ill-timed and ultimately wandering piece authored by WIRED’s Alex Cranz last month.  I don’t know this Alex, and I’m not sure I want to after seeing this lead to a story headlined thusly:

Broadcast TV Is Dying. Trump Is Threatening It Anyway

Broadcast TV seems a little screwed. Viewership has been on a steady decline for the past two decades. More and more people get their entertainment and their news online. The biggest shows are coming to streaming first, and broadcast’s biggest shows are losing their big-name hosts. Naturally ad revenue is on a steady decline as well. Even Trump and his choice for Federal Communications Commission chair, Brendan Carr, are rattling their sabers and threatening to pull the broadcast licenses of networks that run programs or news stories the White House doesn’t like.  It can feel like broadcast television will be gone tomorrow, and with it one of the only totally free sources of news and entertainment.

Sure, it can FEEL like it.  But facts are facts, and once again the reality check shows that, much in the manner that Mark Twain once asserted, “the reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated”.

I could go chapter and verse on how overreactive Cranz and his millennial-courting publication were in his piece, but fortunately for both of us someone as auspiced and passionate as THEDESK.net’s Matthew Keys already did via LinkedIn:

“Broadcast TV is dying.” Wow, what a clickbait headline, but I’m sure the author backed it up with some actual facts in the story, right? I mean, this is WIRED after all!

“I read somewhere that, in some rural places, the ONLY broadcast TV available is a PBS station.” (Where, exactly, is this place? Because I can’t think of too many places in the country where the only OTA station is a PBS member station…well, we won’t know from the article, because that “somewhere” wasn’t linked.)

One commenter goes on to say that MeTV “used to be a cable channel.” It wasn’t. And that broadcast networks are “licensed.” They aren’t.

The fact is, broadcast and cable TV — linear TV — continues to hold its own against streaming platforms, regardless of what someone’s outside perspective or individual use case might suggest.

Remember the Olympics? Remember how Peacock offered all the events, live, and unique features like GoldZone? The WIRED article says that “The Olympics, which were simulcast on Peacock, experienced even more online success.” Yeah, no — here’s the reality: The majority of Olympic prime-time viewership still happened on NBC. https://lnkd.in/gCzJ6Hif

Oh, and, you know those Nielsen “The Gauge” reports? They regularly show broadcast and cable TV’s share — linear TV’s share — of viewership holds its own against streaming TV platforms. https://lnkd.in/g-e8gb7Z

That really doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone who is paying attention to what is going on in linear TV. Sure, broadcast TV might be available in more ways than one these days, but it’s still broadcast TV. And it is far from dying.

I guess they’ll let anyone write in WIRED these days.

Word, my fellow Luddite.  And it’s pretty clear we’re both too “seasoned” to be given that chance ourselves.

If you somehow still think that that paying for separate services on even a rolling basis depending upon what content is available for a month is a process you want to devote time and effort to keep your costs down have at it.  Even the best-intentioned of most of us eventually grow weary or frustrated as the cost-benefit analysis fluctuates with volatility not even seen on Wall Street.  If you’re like the still-statistical plurality, you’re still opting for broadcast TV and a pay bundle, even if it’s a VMVPD.  Which, incidentally, is also streaming.

So, Alexes, what exactly is dying how quickly by how much and why?  Should we wait for another news cycle lull for you to address those burning questions, or does the fact your complainers come from a demographic your bosses deem as worthless enter into your decisions?

And if you call into the category of being as surprised or insulted by the ‘tudes that their pubs are taking, let alone the final tab on multiple streamers, you might want to consider cutting the cord on THEM–and perhaps taking some of those savings into supporting THEDESK.net.  Or, of course, moi.

Until next time…