“The View From the Phlipside” is a media commentary program airing on WRFA-LP, Jamestown NY. It can be heard Monday through Friday around 7:30 AM. The following are scripts which may not exactly match the aired version of the program. Mostly because the host may suddenly choose to add or subtract words at a moment’s notice. WRFA-LP is not responsible for any such silliness or the opinions expressed. You can listen to a live stream of WRFA or find a podcast of this program at wrfalp.com. Copyright 2013-16 by Jay Phillippi. All Rights Reserved. You like what you see? Drop me a line and we can talk.
Program scripts from week of August 1, 2016
This Week’s Podcast:
My name is Jay Phillippi and I’ve spent my life in and around the media. TV, radio, the movies and more. I love them, and I hate them and I always have an opinion. Call this the View from the Phlipside.
Ice Bucket Update
Two years ago, an internet sensation swept across the digital horizon. It was called the “ALS Ice Bucket Challenge”. The concept was simple, you challenged someone to dump a bucket filled with water and ice on their head. If they didn’t accept the challenge they were supposed to make a donation to the ALS fund or some other charity. ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, commonly known as “Lou Gehrig’s Disease”, attacks the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that control muscle movement.
The videos of this ice bucket silliness were suddenly everywhere, as was criticism of it all as a dumb publicity stunt. The party pooper pundits of the world all weighed in on how stupid the whole thing was.
Once the fad crested and faded, most of us stopped thinking about it. Then last week it was back in the news again. I have to admit that I was surprised to hear that one hundred fifteen million dollars had been raised for ALS research by that silly internet fad. I was gratified to hear that the money had helped with a breakthrough in research.
Unsurprisingly, some of that class of grumpy pundits have tried to downplay it all again. So let’s take a look at what is actually going on.
Sadly, the media spent more energy in creating click-bait headlines than they did in truly understanding what the scientists had done. There is no cure or treatment yet for ALS. Terms like “breakthrough” make it seem larger than it actually is. The team had advanced the study of the genetic causes of ALS. They had done this by a study that included thirteen thousand subjects, both with and without the disease. The key here is that without funding provided through the money raised by the challenge, they would not have been able to properly store all those examples. So the study could not have been done without the Ice Bucket Challenge.
Is that sexy science? No. But then science is rarely sexy. Science works away diligently, gaining ground a little at a time until finally enough evidence is amassed for the “big” discovery. And that kind of research takes money, a steady stream of money. One hundred fifteen million dollars is nothing to sneeze at. Until you realize that the best estimate for what it will take to come up with a serious treatment for ALS is two billion dollars.
It’s easy to look down your nose at “silly” internet events like the Ice Bucket Challenge. The reality is that they help. They can’t be the only source of funding (that’s a different subject for a different day), but it is a way that all of us can make a difference in the world and have a little fun along the way.
And I don’t see anything wrong with that.
The videos of this ice bucket silliness were suddenly everywhere, as was criticism of it all as a dumb publicity stunt. The party pooper pundits of the world all weighed in on how stupid the whole thing was.
Once the fad crested and faded, most of us stopped thinking about it. Then last week it was back in the news again. I have to admit that I was surprised to hear that one hundred fifteen million dollars had been raised for ALS research by that silly internet fad. I was gratified to hear that the money had helped with a breakthrough in research.
Unsurprisingly, some of that class of grumpy pundits have tried to downplay it all again. So let’s take a look at what is actually going on.
Sadly, the media spent more energy in creating click-bait headlines than they did in truly understanding what the scientists had done. There is no cure or treatment yet for ALS. Terms like “breakthrough” make it seem larger than it actually is. The team had advanced the study of the genetic causes of ALS. They had done this by a study that included thirteen thousand subjects, both with and without the disease. The key here is that without funding provided through the money raised by the challenge, they would not have been able to properly store all those examples. So the study could not have been done without the Ice Bucket Challenge.
Is that sexy science? No. But then science is rarely sexy. Science works away diligently, gaining ground a little at a time until finally enough evidence is amassed for the “big” discovery. And that kind of research takes money, a steady stream of money. One hundred fifteen million dollars is nothing to sneeze at. Until you realize that the best estimate for what it will take to come up with a serious treatment for ALS is two billion dollars.
It’s easy to look down your nose at “silly” internet events like the Ice Bucket Challenge. The reality is that they help. They can’t be the only source of funding (that’s a different subject for a different day), but it is a way that all of us can make a difference in the world and have a little fun along the way.
And I don’t see anything wrong with that.
What Getty Doesn’t Get
Over the years I have voiced my general support for the rights of people who create works to control the rights to that work. Copyrights protect the creators of music, writing, photography and much more so they can make money, if they so choose, from that work. Seems utterly simple and fair to me.
So the fact that I’m about to blast someone holding a copyright may come as a shock to some. Of course, I don’t believe they ought to have the copyright in the first place.
First, let me introduce Carol Highsmith, a photographer working on a project to document life in the United States at the beginning a new century. She is donating all her work to the Library of Congress, where they can be accessed royalty free. Basically, she is giving them to us, the American people. The Library of Congress calls the donation, which is expected to be over one hundred thousand images, “…one of the greatest acts of generosity…” in its history.
So imagine Ms. Highsmith’s surprise when she got a letter from folks associated with Getty Images, one of the most prominent image licensing companies in the world, demanding that she pay for using one of her own images on her own website! I can sum up her reaction in a single word – lawsuit. A one b as in boy isn’t that a big number billion dollar lawsuit. The claim is that Getty is fraudulently saying that they or a client have a copyright, or the right to license the image.
Getty is claiming this is all just a big mis-understanding. A UK based client claimed that their rights had been infringed and that’s why the letter had been sent to Carol Highsmith. Once they realized their error they claim that they immediately stopped pursuing the issue and notified their client. Of course, they also claim to have no working relationship with the company that sent the letter. This despite having their headquarters in the same building and sharing three executives. It also ignores the other Highsmith images that have appeared in major publications with a Getty byline. But I digress.
Here’s the bottom line. I’m astounded when someone just comes along and decides to take something that isn’t theirs. Carol Highsmith has every reason to be upset, but so do we. Those images were given to us, through the agency of the Library of Congress. I’m astounded that an agency that knows this business as intimately as Getty was willing to put their name on images that they had no right to.
In the end, simply appropriating someone else’s work, shouldn’t ever be part of your business model.
So the fact that I’m about to blast someone holding a copyright may come as a shock to some. Of course, I don’t believe they ought to have the copyright in the first place.
First, let me introduce Carol Highsmith, a photographer working on a project to document life in the United States at the beginning a new century. She is donating all her work to the Library of Congress, where they can be accessed royalty free. Basically, she is giving them to us, the American people. The Library of Congress calls the donation, which is expected to be over one hundred thousand images, “…one of the greatest acts of generosity…” in its history.
So imagine Ms. Highsmith’s surprise when she got a letter from folks associated with Getty Images, one of the most prominent image licensing companies in the world, demanding that she pay for using one of her own images on her own website! I can sum up her reaction in a single word – lawsuit. A one b as in boy isn’t that a big number billion dollar lawsuit. The claim is that Getty is fraudulently saying that they or a client have a copyright, or the right to license the image.
Getty is claiming this is all just a big mis-understanding. A UK based client claimed that their rights had been infringed and that’s why the letter had been sent to Carol Highsmith. Once they realized their error they claim that they immediately stopped pursuing the issue and notified their client. Of course, they also claim to have no working relationship with the company that sent the letter. This despite having their headquarters in the same building and sharing three executives. It also ignores the other Highsmith images that have appeared in major publications with a Getty byline. But I digress.
Here’s the bottom line. I’m astounded when someone just comes along and decides to take something that isn’t theirs. Carol Highsmith has every reason to be upset, but so do we. Those images were given to us, through the agency of the Library of Congress. I’m astounded that an agency that knows this business as intimately as Getty was willing to put their name on images that they had no right to.
In the end, simply appropriating someone else’s work, shouldn’t ever be part of your business model.
In The Neighborhood
The process by which the topics for this program are chosen is not really all that interesting. I spend a lot of time scanning headlines, reading stories, watching various media outlets till I find something that interests me. Even I don’t find it all that amusing.
But sometimes the story twists and turns so much that it adds a little extra zing, at least for me.
A year ago this month, the story broke that the iconic children’s TV show “Sesame Street” would no longer partner with Public Television but had agreed to move first run programs to HBO, in return for new financial backing. It made a lot of people feel uncomfortable about the future of the show. But I wasn’t sure there was enough meat there for a program. Plus, I try to be fair, and HBO should get a fair shake at supporting the show.
What most of us didn’t know was that Sesame Workshop, the producers of the show had lost over twenty-one million dollars in the three years prior to the announcement. What should have also worried us was that to stem that tide they had hired two folks from Nickelodeon, Jeff Dunn as CEO and Brown Johnson as Creative Director. A year before HBO came on the scene there were changes being made. The human cast and what were termed “lesser known muppets” were to be downplayed in order to create more a star system for the big name characters like Big Bird and Elmo. The show was cut to just thirty minutes and the familiar parody segments were dropped. Those were seen as being aimed at the adults and fewer parents were watching with the kids.
Flash forward two years, to just last week. The announcement is made that three of the longest running human characters were being dropped. “Bob” played for 42 seasons by Bob McGrath, “Luis” played by Emilio Delgado and “Gordon”, played
by Roscoe Orman. Suddenly “Sesame Street” was feeling a lot more Wall Street.
Now it felt like there was a story to be told. But before I could record it, things changed again. Generations of fans hit the Twitterverse lamenting the changes but also using imagery referring to “gentrification” and forcing out older folks and people of color. Within days it appears that a roll back may be in the offing. In a statement from Delgado last Friday, he says that the producers have reached out to the three actors about finding an ongoing role in the new “Sesame Street”.
It’s funny sometimes how much a story may change over a long period. In an age of instant media, it’s now also possible for things to change in a virtual blink of an eye.
Nice to see it used to protect special people in our neighborhood.
But sometimes the story twists and turns so much that it adds a little extra zing, at least for me.
A year ago this month, the story broke that the iconic children’s TV show “Sesame Street” would no longer partner with Public Television but had agreed to move first run programs to HBO, in return for new financial backing. It made a lot of people feel uncomfortable about the future of the show. But I wasn’t sure there was enough meat there for a program. Plus, I try to be fair, and HBO should get a fair shake at supporting the show.
What most of us didn’t know was that Sesame Workshop, the producers of the show had lost over twenty-one million dollars in the three years prior to the announcement. What should have also worried us was that to stem that tide they had hired two folks from Nickelodeon, Jeff Dunn as CEO and Brown Johnson as Creative Director. A year before HBO came on the scene there were changes being made. The human cast and what were termed “lesser known muppets” were to be downplayed in order to create more a star system for the big name characters like Big Bird and Elmo. The show was cut to just thirty minutes and the familiar parody segments were dropped. Those were seen as being aimed at the adults and fewer parents were watching with the kids.
Flash forward two years, to just last week. The announcement is made that three of the longest running human characters were being dropped. “Bob” played for 42 seasons by Bob McGrath, “Luis” played by Emilio Delgado and “Gordon”, played
by Roscoe Orman. Suddenly “Sesame Street” was feeling a lot more Wall Street.
Now it felt like there was a story to be told. But before I could record it, things changed again. Generations of fans hit the Twitterverse lamenting the changes but also using imagery referring to “gentrification” and forcing out older folks and people of color. Within days it appears that a roll back may be in the offing. In a statement from Delgado last Friday, he says that the producers have reached out to the three actors about finding an ongoing role in the new “Sesame Street”.
It’s funny sometimes how much a story may change over a long period. In an age of instant media, it’s now also possible for things to change in a virtual blink of an eye.
Nice to see it used to protect special people in our neighborhood.
Call that the View From the Phlipside
Copyright Jay Phillippi, 2016
Theme music for “The View From the Phlipside” and “TVFTP – Podcast” is “Hustle”
Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com), Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0
Stories Are My Life 
Leave a comment