There's also an argument that police and other emergency responders need to upgrade their communications networks, using the spectrum now devoted to our TV signals. I can't argue against that -- they're going to have to respond to the bloodshed that's sure to come in 2009 when millions of Americans who failed to upgrade discover that they can't watch the big game.
But look at this excerpt from the L.A. Times story: "How many TVs would no longer work in a switch to digital is hotly contested. Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, believes that 15 percent of U.S. households rely on over-the-air analog broadcasts. A February report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office put the figure at 21 million households, or about 1 in 5 homes. And the Consumer Electronics Association puts the figure at 32.7 million sets, or about 12 percent of all TVs in use today."
$500 million subsidies. Congressional hearings. Fears of being left "in the dark." I don't mean to sound like I'm advocating revolution, but how bad would it be if some of us couldn't watch all of a sudden? If my TV stopped working tomorrow, I might notice around the time the "60 Minutes" fall season begins.
Broadcasters -- and everyone involved in this situation -- make the case that we can't leave people without their TVs or else they will be left out of the loop on important news broadcasts, emergency alerts and all sorts of other crucial information. What will cause real pain is if people miss "Seinfeld" reruns, the latest "Apprentice" spinoff and Tiger Woods's shocking bogey on the 18th hole.
Maybe millions of people really will be left out by failing to switch to digital. Bring 'em on, baby. It's that many more millions of people I'll be able to entertain on the Internet. And the ad dollars that follow? Well heck, I need a paycheck too.
Here's to digital TV.
Eye Spy a New CBS Web Site
Speaking of moving TV content to the Web, CBSNews.com went public with its revitalization plans, taking on a renovation of the Web site that will include blogging. (It's safe to say that Morley Safer wasn't the prime architect here.)
"To be written by Vaughn Ververs, who had been the editor of Hotline, a Web site covering politics, the new blog, called Public Eye, will assemble questions from viewers, criticism from blogs and other sources, and immediately bring in reactions from the CBS newsroom," the New York Times reported. "Mr. Ververs will be able to interview CBS correspondents and executives and even bring cameras into the network's daily news meetings."
The move, the Times said, is part of the network's response to critics who questioned the network's news judgment after airing a report last year that said President Bush pulled political strings to get out of his National Guard commitments.
It's also a leap past cable -- which the network has not embraced -- into the great wide open of the Web, the Times said: "CBS has decided to treat its Web site much the way other networks treat their cable networks. Its correspondents and producers will create video news reports throughout the day that will be distributed only on its Web site. In addition, Web users will be able to see most of the breaking-news reports used on the network's daily broadcasts, though they will not be able to watch entire programs."
While the Web site will double its Internet news staff, it's not hiring any new reporters. (C'mon Mr. Heyward ! What's up with that?)
