jueves, 28 de junio de 2012
Don Grady's Robbie Douglas was one of many retro big-brother TV crushes
Don Grady's Robbie Douglas was one of many retro big-brother TV crushes
Ann Curry's ouster from 'Today' is no quick fix for NBC
Ann Curry's ouster from 'Today' is no quick fix for NBC
NBC still has to replace Ann Curry as 'Today' co-host (maybe with Savannah Guthrie) with no success guaranteed, and its prime-time lineup remains troubled.
Ann Curry offers a tearful goodbye as co-host of NBC's "Today" show. (Peter Kramer, NBC / June 29, 2012
For the second time in less than three years, NBC's ratings woes have led to the unceremonious dumping of a prominent on-air host, this time "Today's" Ann Curry.
On Thursday, the 55-year-old newswoman tearfully said goodbye to viewers with her co-host Matt Lauer, who will remain on the show, at her side. "For all of you who saw me as a groundbreaker, I'm sorry I couldn't carry the ball over the finish line, but, man, I did try," Curry said in a wavering voice as she marked her last day atop TV's No. 1 morning news show.
Curry's swift exit — coming just days after a report that executives were preparing her ouster — was reminiscent of the mess surrounding "The Tonight Show"in 2010, when a previous NBC regime tossed aside host Conan O'Brienafter a nightly 10 p.m. show with Jay Leno bombed and local stations bitterly complained. Leno regained the 11:35 p.m. "Tonight" perch and O'Brien decamped to cable outlet TBS.
This time, the ratings issue looms even larger. "Today"has lost ground this year to its archrival, ABC's"Good Morning America,"with the latter even winning several weeks this spring for the first time since the mid-1990s. With NBC's prime-time lineup mostly in shambles beyond its singing contest "The Voice,"the Comcast-owned network can ill afford to lose the trophy for most-watched morning show, which is estimated to contribute more than $500 million in ad revenue to the bottom line. Curry, who began co-hosting just one year ago following the exit of Meredith Vieira, made the most convenient — if not necessarily most justifiable — target.
"NBC hasn't had much to crow about in recent years, but 'Today' has been a stable ratings-maker and moneymaker," said Jeffrey McCall, a communications professor at DePauw University. "NBC felt it couldn't be patient to see how the Curry-Lauer arrangement might play out in the long run.
"NBC's troubled prime-time schedule is key to the network's overall problems," McCall added. "So few viewers in prime time means there are fewer people who will have 'Today' on in the morning when they turn the television back on. The weak prime-time lineup is also ineffective as a promotional platform to hype 'Today' for the next morning."
Curry seemed a natural fit for the job after Vieira's departure a year ago. One of the most prominent Asian Americans in the news business, she had worked her way up as a correspondent, "Dateline" co-host and "Today" news reader. Her cosmopolitan background (she spent part of her childhood in Japan) gave her a sophistication and keen interest in world affairs that made her something of a rarity in the short-attention-span world of morning TV.
But the rumors started flying as "Today's" once-grand ratings lead over "GMA" began to crumble in recent months. Despite the warmth of Curry's on-camera presence, Lauer seemed not to click with her the way he had with either Vieira or Katie Couric, who left "Today" to anchor the "CBS Evening News" and is now headed for a syndicated talk show on ABC.
Unhappy insiders, perhaps worried that their own jobs were on the line, began to plant negative stories. In March, the media site Gawker published a particularly vitriolic story headlined: "Ann Curry Will Be Fired As Co-Host of the Today Show Because Everybody Hates Her." That item helped seal the image of Curry as damaged goods and pave the way for her ouster. (The network is kicking her upstairs to an NBC News job heading up a seven-person team covering big international stories for "NBC Nightly News," "Today" and other outlets.)
Yet ridding themselves of Curry on "Today" may not give NBC executives the balm they seek — at least if the past is any indication. The network has not announced who will replace Curry, although most speculation centers on Savannah Guthrie, who currently hosts "Today's" third hour (see accompanying story).
"Replacing Curry could move the needle or it could backfire; it's a personality-driven show," observed Brad Adgate, an analyst for ad firm Horizon Media in New York. "Last year Curry was the obvious successor to Vieira, nobody questioned it, viewers liked her — and look what happened."
NBC has previous history with the peril of sudden change-ups for top-rated shows. In 1990, Deborah Norville replaced Jane Pauley as "Today" co-host, whereupon viewership quickly plummeted and critics came to see Norville as a young blond interloper. Leno, meanwhile, has yet to recover the audience levels he enjoyed at "Tonight" before the network's disastrous game of musical chairs.
NBC can expect no quarter from its rivals during this transitional moment. On Thursday morning, the network delivered a news release touting "Today's" ratings win for the week of June 18. Less than two hours later, ABC — which has made taking down "Today" a top priority — shot back with a release noting that during the second quarter of this year, "GMA" narrowed its ratings margin against NBC to the smallest in 17 years.
|
CNN, Fox fumble the call, capping months of media misperception
CNN, Fox fumble the call, capping months of media misperception
This TV frame grab shows CNN broadcasting the Supreme Court's decision on President Barack Obama's health care law on June 28, 2012. Both CNN and Fox News Channel incorrectly reported Thursday that the law's central provision, requiring virtually all Americans to have health
The networks' mistaken calls on the Supreme Court's healthcare ruling came after much media speculation – often flat-out wrong – that sprang up following oral arguments before the high court.
CNN and Fox News botched their initial reports on Thursday's U.S. Supreme Court healthcare ruling, a final media misstep following months of coverage that frequently predicted the high court probably would overturn President Obama's signature domestic initiative.
The mistaken coverage of the highly anticipated decision came not long after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. began reading his majority opinion from the bench just after 10 a.m. EDT Reporter Kate Bolduan announced on CNN: "It appears as if the Supreme Court has struck down the individual mandate," and CNN's website proclaimed "Mandate Struck Down."
On Fox, anchor Bill Hemmer announced: "The individual mandate has been ruled unconstitutional." An on-screen headline announced: "Supreme Court Finds Health Care Individual Mandate Unconstitutional."
Within minutes, both networks corrected their misreporting, which stemmed from the fact that Roberts first announced that the healthcare law would not be upheld under the commerce clause of the Constitution, before he said the law passed constitutional muster under Congress' taxing authority.
In a statement, CNN said it "regrets that it didn't wait to report out the full and complete opinion regarding the mandate. We made a correction within a few minutes and apologize for the error."
Fox offered a statement of explanation, but not regret. "We gave our viewers the news as it happened. When Justice Roberts said, and we read, that the mandate was not valid under the commerce clause, we reported it," said Michael Clemente, Fox executive vice president for news. "Bill Hemmer even added, be patient as we work through this. Then when we heard and read that the mandate could be upheld under the government's power to tax, we reported that as well—all within two minutes."
The faux pas by the two cable outlets were reminiscent of earlier rush-to-judgment news calls, including when some outlets misinterpreted the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush vs. Gore, which handed the 2000 contested presidential election to George W. Bush.
Misperceptions of the court and how it would rule on the Affordable Care Act began long before Thursday's ruling. After oral arguments in March, many observers interpreted tough questioning of Solicitor Gen. Donald B. Verrilli Jr. as a sure sign that the law was in danger.
"This law looks like it's going to be struck down," legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN. "All of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong." On Thursday, Toobin, author of one book on the Supreme Court and currently writing a second, conceded that he blew it. He told the cable news audience that it was "a day for me to eat a bit of crow."
Among those who suggested the eventual outcome was the Los Angeles Times' David Savage. In a story published Monday, the veteran Supreme Court reporter wrote that "lurking in the background is a way to decide the case on tax law grounds."
The Savage story noted that one of the Obama administration arguments was that in "practical operation" the requirement to buy insurance amounted to a tax law. And Congress' power to approve taxes is clear.
"So, in the end, the justices could agree the law's required tax payments are constitutional," The Times story said, "while also making clear the government does not have broad power to mandate purchases."
While pointing primarily at her belief that the law would be upheld under the commerce clause, longtime Supreme Court journalist Linda Greenhouse also predicted after the oral arguments that the law would be upheld.
Greenhouse, who covered the court for the New York Times for three decades and now teaches at Yale, based her argument primarily on the belief that the government had wide latitude under the commerce clause. But she also noted: "In addition, or as an alternative to upholding the individual mandate as an exercise of congressional authority under the commerce clause, some may prefer to treat the individual mandate as a tax, squarely within Congress' taxing power."
In the rough questioning of Verrilli, many court watchers in the Spring missed something that Greenhouse found significant: Chief Justice Roberts' skepticism about the argument by opponents that the law was forcing commerce (in the form of health insurance purchases) on consumers. "I don't think you're addressing their main point," Roberts said to one of the lawyers, "which is that they are not creating commerce in healthcare. It's already there."
Greenhouse predicted in April, correctly, that "the chief justice will be in the majority and will write the controlling opinion."
On Thursday, Greenhouse was busily working on an essay about how the ruling may begin to define the court Roberts has now headed for seven years. She said she understands some mistakes made by the media in covering the complex workings of the institution, but not the ones made on cable TV this time.
"It's the imperative of the instant-answer that causes it and sometimes there isn't an instant answer," she said. "Sometimes you have to stop and think."
The mistaken coverage of the highly anticipated decision came not long after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. began reading his majority opinion from the bench just after 10 a.m. EDT Reporter Kate Bolduan announced on CNN: "It appears as if the Supreme Court has struck down the individual mandate," and CNN's website proclaimed "Mandate Struck Down."
On Fox, anchor Bill Hemmer announced: "The individual mandate has been ruled unconstitutional." An on-screen headline announced: "Supreme Court Finds Health Care Individual Mandate Unconstitutional."
Within minutes, both networks corrected their misreporting, which stemmed from the fact that Roberts first announced that the healthcare law would not be upheld under the commerce clause of the Constitution, before he said the law passed constitutional muster under Congress' taxing authority.
In a statement, CNN said it "regrets that it didn't wait to report out the full and complete opinion regarding the mandate. We made a correction within a few minutes and apologize for the error."
Fox offered a statement of explanation, but not regret. "We gave our viewers the news as it happened. When Justice Roberts said, and we read, that the mandate was not valid under the commerce clause, we reported it," said Michael Clemente, Fox executive vice president for news. "Bill Hemmer even added, be patient as we work through this. Then when we heard and read that the mandate could be upheld under the government's power to tax, we reported that as well—all within two minutes."
The faux pas by the two cable outlets were reminiscent of earlier rush-to-judgment news calls, including when some outlets misinterpreted the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush vs. Gore, which handed the 2000 contested presidential election to George W. Bush.
Misperceptions of the court and how it would rule on the Affordable Care Act began long before Thursday's ruling. After oral arguments in March, many observers interpreted tough questioning of Solicitor Gen. Donald B. Verrilli Jr. as a sure sign that the law was in danger.
"This law looks like it's going to be struck down," legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN. "All of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong." On Thursday, Toobin, author of one book on the Supreme Court and currently writing a second, conceded that he blew it. He told the cable news audience that it was "a day for me to eat a bit of crow."
Among those who suggested the eventual outcome was the Los Angeles Times' David Savage. In a story published Monday, the veteran Supreme Court reporter wrote that "lurking in the background is a way to decide the case on tax law grounds."
The Savage story noted that one of the Obama administration arguments was that in "practical operation" the requirement to buy insurance amounted to a tax law. And Congress' power to approve taxes is clear.
"So, in the end, the justices could agree the law's required tax payments are constitutional," The Times story said, "while also making clear the government does not have broad power to mandate purchases."
While pointing primarily at her belief that the law would be upheld under the commerce clause, longtime Supreme Court journalist Linda Greenhouse also predicted after the oral arguments that the law would be upheld.
Greenhouse, who covered the court for the New York Times for three decades and now teaches at Yale, based her argument primarily on the belief that the government had wide latitude under the commerce clause. But she also noted: "In addition, or as an alternative to upholding the individual mandate as an exercise of congressional authority under the commerce clause, some may prefer to treat the individual mandate as a tax, squarely within Congress' taxing power."
In the rough questioning of Verrilli, many court watchers in the Spring missed something that Greenhouse found significant: Chief Justice Roberts' skepticism about the argument by opponents that the law was forcing commerce (in the form of health insurance purchases) on consumers. "I don't think you're addressing their main point," Roberts said to one of the lawyers, "which is that they are not creating commerce in healthcare. It's already there."
Greenhouse predicted in April, correctly, that "the chief justice will be in the majority and will write the controlling opinion."
On Thursday, Greenhouse was busily working on an essay about how the ruling may begin to define the court Roberts has now headed for seven years. She said she understands some mistakes made by the media in covering the complex workings of the institution, but not the ones made on cable TV this time.
"It's the imperative of the instant-answer that causes it and sometimes there isn't an instant answer," she said. "Sometimes you have to stop and think."
descarga cheat engine
ESPERAR 5 SEGUNDOS Y LUEGO SELECCIONAR SALTAR PUBLICIDAD...
http://adf.ly/2006094/http://www.cheatengine.org/
http://adf.ly/2006094/http://www.cheatengine.org/
Descagar Resident evil 4 RIP
Esperar 5 segundos, luego seleccionar saltar publicidad y listo...
http://adf.ly/2006094/http://depositfiles.com/files/77t1fepdl
La contraseña es: thekratos5794
http://adf.ly/2006094/http://depositfiles.com/files/77t1fepdl
La contraseña es: thekratos5794
Google's Nexus 7 tablet may force a Windows 8-powered NOOK
Google's Nexus 7 tablet may force a Windows 8-powered NOOK
Google's new Nexus 7 tablet appears to be a remarkable piece of hardware for its $199 pricetag, so much so that if Microsoft wants to survive in the consumer tablet market, it may need to build a similarly priced Windows 8-NOOK combination tablet.
It's remarkable what Google has managed to put into a $199 device -- Nvidia quad-core Tegra 3 processor, 1280 x 800 back-lit IPS display, solid build, eight hours of active battery use, and the new Android 4.1 Jellybean under the hood.
Fellow Computerworld blogger JR Raphael notes that: "Its CPU and RAM setup is pretty much the same as what you see in most high-end, $600 Android tablets these days." He adds:
"When you look at this tablet compared to other devices in the same price range -- Amazon's Kindle Fire, Samsung's Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 -- everything else basically looks like crap."
How will Microsoft's Windows RT tablets compete against it? It'll be almost impossible. The RT-based Microsoft Surface is expected to sell for bewteen $500 and $700. At that price, most people will opt either for a similarly sized iPad, or else will make it easier on their wallets and buy the lower-priced Google Nexus 7.
Microsoft appears to be leaving it to its partners to build a smaller Windows 8 RT-based tablet, so if any 7-inchers will be released, expect them to sell them. But they won't be able to compete on price. Given the specs of the Google Nexus 7, Google is likely making no money on them, and is essentially producing them at cost, so that it can make money on content via Google Play.
Microsoft's partners won't be able to do that, especially given that Microsoft is said to be charging $100 for licenses of Windows 8 to tablet partners. There's no way a partner can build a tablet to compete with the Google Nexus 7 at $199, if the partner has to pay $100 to Microsoft.
The only hope for Microsoft is in its partnership with Barnes & Noble. Microsoft has invested $300 million in Barnes & Noble subsidiary called Newco, which will produce the NOOK. Given that Microsoft is part owner of Newco, it could forgo Windows 8 licensing fees, or else make them very low. It will make money on content, such as tying into Xbox Live. Barnes & Noble, meanwhile, doesn't need to make money on the hardware, because it will also make money selling content, so can sell a Windows 8-powered NOOK at cost.
Given that, a Windows 8-powered NOOK could sell for the same $199 price as the Google Nexus 7. That's the only way Microsoft will be able to compete in the consumer tablet market.
Google’s Nexus 7: First impressions
The Asus Nexus 7, Google's first tablet in the Nexus family, is here. You're looking at it right now. We just got our first hands-on pictures of the device... and you'll find impressions, more photos and video below.
There's not that much left to know about the Nexus 7, because all the details leaked out in grand fashion this morning and they're now all confirmed. Most importantly, the 7-inch tablet will come pre-loaded with Android 4.1 Jelly Bean, Google's latest operating system. Available in black or white, an 8GB version will be priced at $199, with 16GB for $249 this July. A quad-core Tegra 3 processor, 1280 x 800 IPS display, 1.2-megapixel camera, 1GB of RAM, and a 4,325mAh battery are also included, consistent with previous leaks. It's also got NFC, so you'll be able to transfer things to other Android 4.0 NFC devices with Android Beam.
The build feels really solid with a nice, grippy rubberized back and metallic-style silver trim. Even though the unit on display was tethered to a table, the Nexus 7 feels remarkably light. It's comfortable to hold, too, with just enough bezel to hold with two hands without needing to rest your thumbs on the screen, and light enough for one hand. The power button and volume controls on the right side feel snappy and responsive and lie snug along the frame.
The headphone jack (as well as the Micro USB charging port) have been conveniently placed on the bottom of the device, which will come as a relief for those annoyed by the top-mounted configurations of competing products. Other sides are mostly bare, but there are two distinct microphone holes on the top and right edges of the system, and four pogo pins which will inevitably let you dock the Nexus 7 for power and possibly a data connection. Even with the abundance of ambient light, the glossy IPS display is bright and readable, and viewing angles are fantastic. Asus has sourced some great displays recently, and the 1280 x 800 display here seems to be no exception.
The speaker isn't bad: a Verge editor who will go unnamed had Carly Rae Jepsen's "Call Me Maybe" ready in a Google Music account, and it blasted out of the slit in back of the device fairly crisply and loudly considering that we were in a large conference hall, and also bounced nicely off a table when we set it down. We'll have to see how it fares in a real-world environment. The placement of the speaker slit at the bottom of the back of the device does mean that you can block it and muffle the audio with your hand if you're holding it low, though.
Interestingly, there's no photo app on the tablet at all: the front-facing camera is strictly for video chatting and the like. Chrome must be out of Beta now, because it's the default browser on this device. Scrolling isn't bad, but it couldn't quite keep up with our thumbs. We're going to dive deep into Android 4.1 Jelly Bean now, so don't expect more updates here, but be sure to check out our video for more of the Nexus 7 tablet!
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)