Things that baffle you? (1 Viewer)

[Clinton McClure]

They could be doing like some of my wife’s friends and putting a fully lit and decorated tree in every room of their home. I guess you have to do something constructive if your job let you work from home for the past 8 months, although I can think of a lot better uses for the time and money than an insane amount of trees. One of those crazy girls has either 10 or 11 trees in her house.

Myself, I was sent out yesterday to pick up two projectors to light up the entire front and south sides of the house that face the streets (we live on a corner lot), some outdoor lights to string along the patio rails out back, and a bunch of net lighting to throw over our shrubbery. I get to go out in the cold and damp and do all that stuff whenever the rain lets up this afternoon. At least I’ve got beer.

 

[TJPC]

I wish we had a better attitude toward tree decoration. Both my wife and I loath the process, and even my daughter hated putting it up when she still lived with us. My wife also hates the clutter and we often take it down on Boxing Day.

As I said in another thread, we are skipping it this year, but our tree now is just about the smallest 2’ artificial one we could find. I have always wanted to find some service that would wire the ornaments on the branches and we could put a cover on it in the basement the other 11 months of the year.

 

[Malcolm R]

I thought my Big Lots was pretty well-stocked with Christmas decor a couple weeks back, but it's now all gone. I can't believe it.

Big year for decorations all around, I guess, as they were mostly sold out of Halloween stuff a couple weeks before that holiday, too.

 

[Malcolm R]

It baffles me why on the TV special for the lighting of the Rockefeller Center tree, they wait until the very end of the show to light the tree. We only get to see it for a couple of minutes at the end then the show is over. Meanwhile, for nearly two hours they have all these people performing holiday songs under a dark, depressing tree looming over everyone.

If they'd light the tree at the start of the show, we could see the beautiful tree as a backdrop for all the music. It would be much more cheerful and festive.

A two hour show to see the tree lit for just a few minutes at the end. Why?

 

[BobO'Link]

Because it's more "dramatic" and the producers/network likely believe people would tune out as soon as it's lit.

 

[Malcolm R]

Because it's more "dramatic" and the producers/network likely believe people would tune out as soon as it's lit.

I'd think if that were true, most would skip the first 1:55 and just tune in for the last 5 minutes.

I watch to enjoy (most of) the music. It would be nice to have a lit tree during those performances.

 

[Tony Bensley]

It baffles me why on the TV special for the lighting of the Rockefeller Center tree, they wait until the very end of the show to light the tree. We only get to see it for a couple of minutes at the end then the show is over. Meanwhile, for nearly two hours they have all these people performing holiday songs under a dark, depressing tree looming over everyone.

If they'd light the tree at the start of the show, we could see the beautiful tree as a backdrop for all the music. It would be much more cheerful and festive.

A two hour show to see the tree lit for just a few minutes at the end. Why?

Because it's more "dramatic" and the producers/network likely believe people would tune out as soon as it's lit.

On the other hand, at least this was one event that didn't have to be cancelled due to the pandemic (Although based on the resulting crowd size I just saw, I'm thinking they should have!). Waiting to light the Tree until almost the very end does seem rather extreme, though.

CHEERS!

 

[Clinton McClure]

Because it's more "dramatic" and the producers/network likely believe people would tune out as soon as it's lit.

Same reason newscasts don’t show the weather segment first.

 

[BobO'Link]

I'd think if that were true, most would skip the first 1:55 and just tune in for the last 5 minutes.

I watch to enjoy (most of) the music. It would be nice to have a lit tree during those performances.

I agree - but having worked in broadcasting for over 20 years I've seen such decisions made for those type of reasons.

Same reason newscasts don’t show the weather segment first.

And that's a very good example. Those are *almost always* placed before sports so you can't anticipate just when the segment will air. The only time weather leads is if there's a current weather emergency and even those tend to be expanded teasers so you'll have to watch more of the newscast to get better information.

 

[Malcolm R]

Same reason newscasts don’t show the weather segment first.

Weather is often first on the news around here, or immediately after the big headline story. It's not the full 5-minute report that's given later in the show, but they give current conditions and flash up a 7 day forecast for those that don't want to wait around.

 

[bmasters9]

Weather is often first on the news around here, or immediately after the big headline story. It's not the full 5-minute report that's given later in the show, but they give current conditions and flash up a 7 day forecast for those that don't want to wait around.

Same on my local CBS (WSPA; now no longer to be seen for now [as are other Nexstar-owned stations of all networks] because of the DISH/Nexstar dispute).

 

[Angelo Colombus]

Noticed yesterday and today on the MSN news page that Penny Marshall has died...she passed away back in 2018!

 

[Jeffrey D]

Same on my local CBS (WSPA; now no longer to be seen for now [as are other Nexstar-owned stations of all networks] because of the DISH/Nexstar dispute).

This is a good issue, as far as baffling is concerned- how are TV stations and cable/satellite providers allowed to deny customers service? Seems that a government agency should be speaking for the citizens when it comes to this issue.

 

[Angelo Colombus]

What has made me angry since August with my Directv service is that the volume on most commercials has gone up enough for me to grab the remote and turn down the volume. Somebody told me that some law expired back in August giving the networks the ok to raise the volume on commercials??

 

[Johnny Angell]

This is a good issue, as far as baffling is concerned- how are TV stations and cable/satellite providers allowed to deny customers service? Seems that a government agency should be speaking for the citizens when it comes to this issue.

I don’t believe cable/sat is regulated to the same extent OTA is. Stations are licensed to serve the public good, since they are using air waves that belong to the public. I doubt there’s any law requiring cable companies to carry local stations since they are available OTA.

I’ve always thought it odd that cable/sat has to pay the OTA stations to carry them on their service. My attitude is they are adding value to the broadcast stations by making them available to their subscribers.

The reason a cab/sat company drops a stations is because they can’t agree on a price to pay the station. They always end up with a deal, but it shafts the subscriber for a period of time.

I know all this via my law degree from “Law & Order.”

 

[BobO'Link]

I don’t believe cable/sat is regulated to the same extent OTA is. Stations are licensed to serve the public good, since they are using air waves that belong to the public. I doubt there’s any law requiring cable companies to carry local stations since they are available OTA.

I’ve always thought it odd that cable/sat has to pay the OTA stations to carry them on their service. My attitude is they are adding value to the broadcast stations by making them available to their subscribers.

The reason a cab/sat company drops a stations is because they can’t agree on a price to pay the station. They always end up with a deal, but it shafts the subscriber for a period of time.

I know all this via my law degree from “Law & Order.”

The cable TV/broadcaster link is complicated and has changed several times over the years. There are what's called "Must carry rules" governing that relationship and they've changed a few times over the years. Originally, local TV operators could request to be carried on local cable TV and the cable operator had to comply - in spite of most preferring to put on a more lucrative channel. They were declared to be unconstitutional in 1985 and it was up to the cable companies if they carried local channels or not - depending on requirements of franchise contracts (which could have that stipulated). However, that all changed in 1992:

The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, enacted by Congress after extensive hearings and over a presidential veto, re-established the must-carry rules for cable operators. These modified rules gave local broadcasters a choice between requiring a cable operator to transmit a broadcast signal or preventing the cable operator from retransmitting a signal unless the operator paid a retransmission fee. If the broadcaster chose retransmission, the cable operator was not required to carry the broadcaster’s signal. Therefore, popular network-affiliated stations usually sought a retransmission fee, while unaffiliated local stations took the cable carriage option. The 1992 act also varied the application of must-carry rules according to the channel capacity of the cable system.

What that did here was the sole local broadcaster opted for "retransmission" as they're "significantly viewed" and, for most viewers, a required channel. The cable company complied as they felt they'd get tons of complaints if they dropped the channel (I used to work for that broadcaster and would welcome them being dropped for several reasons). That raised the cost of cable TV by several dollars per month.

IMHO, if the cable companies would tell those local broadcasters to take a hike, and stick to it, it wouldn't be long before those same broadcasters who are now gouging their viewers would come crawling back requesting to be carried for free. After all, they add value to themselves by being carried and I know from working for one that they increase commercial fees based on that cable viewership. So they're charging more to advertisers because they're on cable while also charging the cable company to be carried, and thus gouging their viewers for something that's available for free with an indoor antenna. And the viewers get no choice.

 

[Angelo Colombus]

A couple of days ago it was Penny Marshall and now it's Regis Philbin...who passed away back in July! I think i will change my home page.

 

[Dave Moritz]

I do not think I will ever get use to and will always be baffled with people being so addicted to there cell phones! I do not get why people have to mess with there phones while they are driving. They act like that text or phone call is more important than the safe operation of that metal missile they are driving down the road! And it baffles me about peoples behavior in public where they loose there temper when someone calls them out or suggest they should not do something.

 

[BobO'Link]

Many, many, years ago after once answering my cell phone on the way to work (work phone - work call - I do not own one myself, then or now) and blowing through a traffic light, distracted while dealing with an issue (fortunately early morning, no traffic, and no cops), I realized just how much more distracting talking on a phone is than talking to a person in the seat next to you. I stopped making or receiving calls when driving. After getting a car with a bluetooth phone connection I found phones are still much more distracting than that person - I now pull over if the call can't wait. If I'm moving, I'll answer (depending on the caller and always via hands free - it's illegal here to use your phone while driving, though I see dozens of violations, sometimes police, daily on the way to/from work), say "I'm in the car... I'll call you back when I get stopped somewhere." and hang up.

I've never liked telephones and dislike cell phones infinitely more than traditional home/land line phones. People who are on them constantly baffle me - then and now.

 

[Malcolm R]

Constant ads on TV for Clorox and Lysol products. These products haven't been easily found in stores for months, and they're selling everything they make practically instantly. Why the need for advertising of products that are selling like crazy and constantly out of stock?