Three Under-The-Radar Series Worth Bingeing

If your Facebook and Twitter feeds are like mine, then you have people talking about TV shows they are watching as “stay at home” orders and “quarantine” guidelines are in play across the globe.

While there are a number of popular series that seem to have captured the attention of homebound individuals (“Tiger King” anyone?) there are a number of shows that aren’t part of the current zeitgeist that are worth checking out.   

Here are three “under-the-radar” series I’d recommend watching. 

ABSTRACT: THE ART OF DESIGN  

In an endless sea of junk food television, it’s nice to challenge yourself every once in a while with something that expands your mind. 

“Abstract: The Art of Design” takes a look into some of the most interesting minds influencing the world of design. Each episode focuses on a different aspect of design — graphic design, product design, architectural design, apparel design, etc. 

The series was created by former WIRED editor-in-chief Scott Dadich. 

The overall vibe of the series owes a debt of gratitude to documentary filmmaker Gary Hustwit’s design trilogy of films from the early 2000s (“Helvetica,” “Objectified,” and “Urbanized”). 

Whether it was intentional or not, “Abstract: The Art of Design” seems to draw considerable inspiration from Hustwit’s films. 

My favorite episodes are “Paula Scher: Graphic Design” (Season 1) and “Jonathan Hoefler: Typeface Design” (Season 2). I handle graphic design duties in our business, and find it inspiring to hear other design professionals talk about their craft. 

Both Scher and Hoefler are based in New York City and were featured in the 2007 documentary “Helvetica” (which focused on the history of the ubiquitous typeface).  

“Typography is painting with words,” Scher says at the beginning of the episode that focuses on her graphic design career. In a world where type is often treated like white noise, it is nice to see the thought process that goes into selecting and designing fonts. 

There are currently two seasons of “Abstract: The Art of Design” available on Netflix. The episodes can be watched in any order. 

If you don’t have Netflix, the first season of the series is currently available to stream for free on the Netflix YouTube channel. 

While some of the episodes might seem esoteric and wordy, it is nice to have a show that chronicles the intricacies involved in the creative process, and the intellectual complexities therein. 

POLDARK 

Bridget and I enjoy watching highbrow British dramas. The dramatic series produced by PBS Masterpiece each year (with British networks like the BBC and ITV) epitomize that sort of entertainment. Year after year, series like “Downton Abbey” have increased the overall appeal of PBS’s content library. 

One of our favorite PBS Masterpiece drama series has been “Poldark” (which aired from 2015-2019). When Bridget and I watched the first episode on the PBS app in 2015, we were instantly intrigued. 

It is based on fiction novels by author Winston Graham, which were also the basis for a PBS series of the same name in the 1970s (the actor who played Ross Poldark in that show appears in a bit part in the updated version). 

“Poldark” is an 18th century period drama set in Great Britain between 1781 and 1803. It follows the exploits of Captain Ross Poldark (Aidan Turner) after he returns home to Cornwall from fighting in the American War of Independence. 

Throughout the show’s five seasons, Capt. Poldark has to deal with familial drama wrapped around economic and political intrigue of the era. Love, betrayal, revenge, and honor are common themes in the series. 

Actress Eleanor Tomlinson is terrific as Ross’s wife Demelza. Her airy presence is a nice counterpoint to the brooding Ross. 

In addition, the show’s storylines benefit from having conniving businessman George Warleggen (Jack Farthing) working to foil Poldark’s plans.  

While the narrative can be melodramatic at times, the overall effect is an incredibly binge-worthy drama. The sweeping vistas are lovely (there are A LOT of wide shots featuring Ross Poldark riding a horse along the cliffs of Cornwall). The musical score by composer Anne Dudley is lovely and helps to set the show’s tone. 

It is a series that is definitely worth your time. Available to stream in the United States on Amazon Prime Video or on the PBS app (via PBS Passport).   

LONGMIRE

“Longmire” is the series that proved to be the catalyst that eventually led us to becoming cord cutters. 

I remember seeing TV spots for the series (prior to the first season’s debut on the A&E network) and thinking, “that looks right up my alley.” 

A few days later, I happened to be at The Bookworm (an independent bookstore in Omaha, NE) and saw author Craig Johnson’s series of Walt Longmire Mysteries on a display table. 

I fondly remember that day. My mom and I had gone downtown to the Omaha Summer Arts Festival. The temps were steamy that day. As a result, we didn’t stay at the art show as long as we had planned, and made a trip to the air-conditioned comfort of The Bookworm. 

My mom ended up buying me the first book in the series (“The Cold Dish”) and I was instantly hooked. 

“Longmire” quickly became my favorite detective series when it debuted on A&E. It was also the highest-rated drama on the network. 

Unfortunately, A&E decided to cancel the show after its third season in 2014 (despite solid ratings). 

Netflix picked the show up and streamed three additional seasons. Upon hearing the announcement that the streaming giant had saved the series, we subscribed to Netflix (about a year before the fourth season debuted in 2015). 

It was the first time we’d signed up for a streaming service of any kind. The experience led to us cutting cable TV entirely in 2015 and watching programming via streaming on Apple TV and “over-the-air” using an attic antenna. 

“Longmire” follows the exploits of Absaroka County Sheriff Walt Longmire (Robert Taylor), an old-school lawman fighting crime in the least populated county in Wyoming (which is the least populated state in the nation). 

Walt’s supporting cast serves as the rough-hewn mortar that holds the series together. Two of those characters are of particular importance. 

Henry Standing Bear (Lou Diamond Phillips) is a local bar owner, member of the Cheyenne nation, and a longtime friend who provides sage wisdom and support to Longmire. 

Victoria “Vic” Moretti (Katee Sackhoff) is his sassy deputy. Her snarky wit is a nice counterpoint to Walt’s laconic tone. 

The series is chock-full of good characters. During its run, “Longmire” had a deep bench of characters that provided texture to each episode. This is a show where the antagonists are just as interesting as the protagonists. 

I love the fact that “Longmire” effortlessly infuses classic western archetypes into a modern-day police procedural. The “old school” nature of the sleuthing is compelling, and far more realistic than the current crop of detective series (there isn’t some “super computer” that magically solves the mystery for our heroes). 

I can’t recommend “Longmire” enough.

I’d also recommend the books by Craig Johnson. I’ve had the opportunity to see the author three times at The Bookworm. 

All six seasons of “Longmire” are available to stream on Netflix. In addition, the Warner Archive Collection produces terrific Blu-Ray versions of each season as well: 

FINAL THOUGHTS

There are a lot of series out there to choose from. It seems like I’m constantly hearing about something new to watch from friends and family members. It’s a far cry from the days when I was a kid and there were only three TV networks to watch.

The three series I talked about in this post are ones that are a bit off the beaten path (the exception might be “Longmire,” which has developed a loyal following over the years). I picked them in part because I haven’t seen a lot of my connections talking about them. 

As much as I try to focus on movies, TV shows, and books that are significant in popular culture, I also try to also focus on hidden gems people haven’t yet discovered. 

“Abstract: The Art of Design,” “Poldark,” and “Longmire” are definitely worth your time.

Previous post: “The Stressful Trip Home” - Disney Trip: Part 8 (The Lost Blog) 

Will Disney+ Be a Worthy Streaming Service?

I’ve been waiting for the right time to talk about Disney’s recently announced streaming service, Disney+.

Disney unveiled its “director-to-consumer” strategy when Bridget and I were at Walt Disney World in Florida (oddly enough). 

If you want to know how “meta” the experience was, I listened to this CNBC interview where CEO Bob Iger discussed Disney+ as I took an hour-long walk around the Art of Animation Resort we were staying at:

Iger told CNBC “you have to look at not only the way the world is going, but we had to assess what the biggest opportunity was for the company to grow over the long term. And clearly, consumers are enjoying a kind of a different form of entertainment in the home — one that is over-the-top, and not necessarily connected to a traditional satellite or cable distributor, or distribution model.” 

Part of the reason I started this blog in 2016 was to talk about cord cutting and various streaming services that would help you ditch traditional cable and satellite TV subscriptions. 

I’ve done some posts on the topic, but not nearly enough. 

I’d been looking forward to seeing what Disney would unveil with its so-called “Netflix competitor.” The Mouse finally unveiled details about their streaming service on April 11 in its “Investor Day 2019” webcast. 

Here are some basics about the Disney+ streaming service...

• Disney+ will launch on Nov. 12, 2019. 
• The price will be $6.99/month, or $69.99 ($5.83/month) if you pay for a year in advance. 
• The service will be ad-free and be rolled out globally. 
• It will support 4K HDR playback.
• Allows subscribers to download content to view offline (as long as they maintain a subscription). 

BAMTech is the company that powers Disney Streaming Services (they are also behind the MLB.tv streaming service). Disney owns a controlling interest in the company. 

The service is segmented into different sections of interest: Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, and National Geographic. 

Disney+ will include original films and TV shows as well as catalog content from the "vault." All of it will be downloadable (something other streaming services only allow with select programming).

In addition, Disney’s recent acquisition of 21st Century Fox was designed to enhance and accelerate the company’s direct-to-consumer business (translation: every episode of “The Simpsons” will be available to stream, select Fox movies like “Avatar” will be included, and documentary-type content from “National Geographic” will round things out).

Kevin Mayer — who is the Direct-to-Consumer & International Chairman at The Walt Disney Company — outlined the company’s strategy during the April 11 presentation. 

Mayer talked about how Disney’s overall content portfolio attracts “a four-quadrant audience: adults and children, males and females.”

Disney is the only studio to top $7 billion in box office receipts for a single year (with consumers buying 900 million tickets to Disney movies in 2018). They have tremendous amount of brand affinity around those properties. 

The same creative teams behind the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the recent “Star Wars” films will be creating content for Disney+.

They demo’d the app during the presentation in a fairly general sense to give an idea of how content would be organized and what will be included with a subscription. 

When Disney+ debuts on Nov. 12, it will feature Star Wars live-action series “The Mandalorian” (set after the events of “Return of the Jedi”), a new live-action “Lady and the Tramp” movie, “High School Musical” The Series, and box-office blockbuster “Captain Marvel.” 

Within the first year, the service will add the original movie “Noelle” (starring Anna Kendrick as Santa’s daughter), the Marvel series “Falcon and Winter Soldier,” Pixar originals, new episodes of “Star Wars: The Clone Wars,” “Phineas and Ferb the Movie,” and “The Imagineering Story” (a documentary takes you into the world of Disney’s theme parks). 

In addition to the “new” offerings, Disney+ will feature 13 signature films on Nov. 12 — including “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” “Pinnochio,” “Cinderella,” “The Jungle Book,” The Little Mermaid,” and “The Lion King.”

The vast majority of Disney’s “recent hit films” will also be available on Day 1. This includes films like “Moana,” “Big Hero 6,” and “Frozen.”

Eighteen of Pixar’s theatrical films will be available on Day 1 (three other films will come to the service within the first year) along with Pixar’s entire library of short films. The original Pixar series “Forky Asks a Question” will debut with the streaming service. 

Many of the movies from the Marvel Cinematic Universe will be available on Nov. 12 (with more being added during the first year). In addition to the new “Falcon and Winter Soldier” series, the studio is also developing a series called “WandaVision” (focusing on the MCU characters played by Elizabeth Olsen and Paul Bettany), and a series focused on Tom Hiddleston’s Loki character. 

Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy outlined what “Star Wars” content would be offered on Disney+. As mentioned, “The Mandalorian” will debut with the service on Nov. 12. Lucasfilm is also working on a series focusing on the Cassian Andor character (played by Diego Luna) from “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.” 

Kennedy also said they are developing “several more live-action series.” Some have speculated a series starring Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan Kenobi could be in the works. 

The library of back “Star Wars” content will be available, but it was unclear what all might be included (and when). They did mention the first two “Star Wars” trilogies (plus “The Force Awakens” and “Rogue One”) will be available on Day 1. 

I would assume animated "Star Wars" series like "Resistance" and "Rebels" will be available. 

In addition to “Star Wars” properties, Ron Howard has suggested a series based on the 1988 movie “Willow” could be in the works for Disney+. YouTuber John Campea discussed this possibility on a recent episode of his show:

In the first year of Disney+, the service will feature “more than 25 original episodic series and more than 10 exclusive movies, documentaries, and specials.” 

Disney+ will eventually become the exclusive streaming home for all content from the company’s various brands. 

The service will debut with an extensive offering from Disney’s catalog including films in the “vault” (which haven’t been seen in a number of years). 

In the first year, Disney+ will have more than 7,500 episodes of television, over 400 library titles, and over 100 recent theatrical film releases (like “Captain Marvel”). 

By the fifth year, they expect to have 50 original series on an annual basis. At that juncture, there will be 10,000 TV episodes and well north of 120 recent films available to subscribers. On top of that, they’ll include all 500 Disney library titles. 

So, what do I think of Disney’s direct-to-consumer streaming strategy?

I think the price point — $6.99 a month or $69.99 if you pay for a year in advance — is a non-intimidating amount to entice a fair number of subscribers during the first 12 months. 

Whether or not consumers stick with the streaming service for the long haul will depend on a variety of factors. 

If the original series and movies are compelling, it will go a long way to making the service a desirable commodity. I also think the popularity of the service will depend on Disney’s theatrical offerings over the course of the next five years. 

It was reported online today that “Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker” (which is being released on Dec. 20) will be the last “Star Wars” movie until Dec. 16, 2022 (with sequels to follow in 2024 and 2026). 

If the news is true, fans of the tentpole property will have to wait three years to see more “Star Wars” at their local multiplex. 

It's possible this is all part of Disney’s strategy to “prime the pump” for the Disney+ subscription service. 

If Disney+ is the only place where you can see fresh “Star Wars” content following the release of Episode IX (until 2022), then that could prove an enticing hook for fans of “a galaxy far, far away...”

Disney is at something of a crossroads right now. They are in the midst of the tremendous success of “Avengers: Endgame” at the box office. 

Because “Endgame” is the culmination of 11 years of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, it likely means the mammoth franchise is moving in a different direction — one that might not see story arcs develop over 20+ films in the future. 

Even if future films follow a similar pattern, Disney suggested the Marvel content offered on Disney+ will intertwine with the MCU in a meaningful manner. 

Disney could narrow windows between theatrical release dates and those MCU films debuting on Disney+. 

In the company’s presentation, they suggested theatrical content won’t debut on the service until “after” theatrical runs — and traditional home video releases. 

But as the years progress, you wonder if that strategy will evolve. 

There are those who speculate “physical media” in home video is dying (a topic I’ll address in an upcoming blog post). 

We all know Netflix is spending insane amounts of money to produce content for its streaming service (making more TV shows and movies annually than a number of established studios).

As the price of consumer electronics continues to drop — coupled with the introduction of advanced technology like 8K televisions — you wonder if Disney+ will become the centerpiece of the Mouse’s content strategy. 

It’s all part of the massive upheaval we’ve seen the past decade. Technology companies find themselves becoming content companies. Entertainment companies find themselves becoming technology companies. The lines are starting to blur between the two. 

I don’t know if Disney+ will be a full-bore competitor to Netflix out of the gate. 

That said, now that Disney holds a controlling interest in Hulu, the combination could prove to be a solid one-two punch (Iger has suggested they’ll offer bundles at some point). 

More than anything, it brings into question the future of entertainment. 

Disney is the glue holding the theatrical box office together. It’s hard to imagine the movie-going experience the past decade without Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars. 

Competitors are struggling to develop tentpole properties as compelling as Disney. As a result, Disney will continue to enhance its prowess. With the purchase of 21st Century Fox, the Mouse has more control over the theatrical schedule than ever before — clearing the lane for domination the next decade. 

If Disney decides to “flip a switch” with Disney+, it could also become the dominant player in the streaming market. 

Can you imagine a world where Disney puts a movie like “Avengers: Endgame” on its streaming service 90 days after theatrical release?

What if Disney decides to stop making DVDs/Blu-Rays entirely, and instead makes Disney+ the “only” way you can watch its movies in your home?

Moves like that would have long-term ramifications. 

In the near term, the key to hooking subscribers will be the quality of original shows like “The Mandalorian” (with Jon Favreau and Dave Filoni behind it, I have high hopes).

When the service debuts on Nov. 12, I’ll be back with a full review. Rest assured...

Additional Resources (which were particularly helpful in composing this post):

Disney’s Investor Day 2019 Webcast

https://www.thewaltdisneycompany.com/the-walt-disney-companys-2019-investor-day-webcast/

Disney’s Investor Day 2019 Transcript 

https://www.thewaltdisneycompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Disney_Investor_Day_2019_transcript.pdf

Previous post: “What Does ‘The Rise of Skywalker’ Mean?”

Cord Cutting 101: How We Watch TV

By Jon Brooks 

We haven’t had a cable TV subscription since July 2016. 

In that time, more people have decided to ditch traditional cable/satellite television packages in favor of over-the-air television and various streaming services. 

In the past two years we’ve seen the growth of multi-channel streaming “bundles” — which are essentially a variant on the tried-and-true “tiered” cable/satellite channel packages we’ve had the past 20 years. The main difference is that you stream the content from these bundles. 

The question is whether these packages will retain their “value” in terms of price for the long haul. 

When we “cut the cord” in 2016, we went cold turkey. 

To this day, we go without “streaming channel bundles” from outfits like Sling or DirecTV. 

This post outlines how we watch television...

MAKING THE MOST OF AN OVER-THE-AIR ANTENNA

Depending on where you live, using an over-the-air antenna to tune in your local affiliates (and their various sub-channels) is a remarkably practical way to enjoy “live” television for free. 

I’ve tried numerous set-top antennas — rabbit ears, leaf-style, and bow-tie variants. Those antennas tend to be affordable and easy to set up. They also tend to have mixed results. 

(Tuning in digital signals is far superior to the analog-era of “ghosting, striping, and shadows,” but it can still be an arbitrary exercise...)

After playing around with indoor antennas for a year, I was ready to try a more “robust” set up in our attic or on the exterior of our home.

As luck would have it, I discovered an old yagi-style antenna in our attic (that looked like it hadn’t been used since the 1970s). 

I had read a number of “tech forum” posts about re-wiring old antennas such as the one in my attic with shielded, hi-bandwidth coaxial cable. 

I outline the procedure of converting our old attic antenna is this blog post from 2016. 

I’m happy to report that it tunes 24 local channels (including all the Omaha affiliates) remarkably well — and the signal is strong enough to power the HDTVs in our living room and basement. 

The MPEG video that is broadcast over-the-air is uncompressed — terrific sound and resolution. 

However, if your antenna is too weak (and around household items that cause interference), it can cause digital “breakups.” A common problem is high wind interfering with smaller antennas. 

Using an attic antenna has eliminated that problem for us for the televisions connected to the antenna.

USING STREAMING JUDICIOUSLY

There are many ways to stream content from services like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu to your TV (in addition to the streaming “bundles” I mentioned at the beginning of this post). We choose to use an Apple TV unit. 

If your goal is to “recreate” the cable or satellite package you are dropping, things can get pricey. 

Here’s what we have:

Netflix Standard Plan - $10.99/month

Amazon Prime - $119/year (or an average of $9.92/month)

CBS All Access (we opted for the commercial free version) - $9.99/month

PBS Passport - $5/month
YouTube Premium (commercial free) – $9.99/month

In addition to these services, we also subscribe to NCHC.tv so we can watch the UNO Hockey program on the road (as well as other games in the conference). The price for NCHC.tv is $109.95/year regularly (but we are auto-renewed with a special deal that is like $89/year).

We’re also testing ESPN’s new standalone streaming service ESPN+ (UNO Hockey had a series at Union College that streamed on the service, so we decided to try it out). ESPN+ is $4.99/month.

The amount we pay per month is about half the $100/month we paid for cable TV.

TO REPLICATE OR NOT REPLICATE

We are paying about $50/month for our streaming services. Looking at the services we use, you’ll notice that it doesn’t replicate a traditional multi-channel cable/satellite package in any manner. 

Some people might not be willing to make such a change. We’ve found that this setup makes sense for our viewing habits — habits that had to adjust back in 2016 when we cut the cord. 

Others will argue that we could get a multi-channel streaming package (with channels like ESPN and HGTV) for the amount we pay for the streaming services we use. 

That is true. 

We could also purchase an over-the-air DVR (like the TiVo Roamio OTA DVR, or the upcoming Amazon DVR (geared toward cord cutters). Such a move would allow us to drop the CBS and PBS subscriptions.   

However, both the PBS and CBS streaming services have been making inroads in original content not found on the broadcast side (PBS is also good about dropping “all episodes” at once for the latest seasons of shows like “Victoria” on the service — and a $5/month donation allows us to “binge” those episodes). 

DO I MISS CABLE TV?

There are certain times that we miss having a multi-tiered cable package, but those moments are few and far between. So much content exists today that it is hard to find the time to watch the programming we have available.

What I like about cord cutting is the ability to “pick and choose” the services you want, and cancel them anytime. 

We use an Apple TV box to stream content on the three TVs in our home, but streaming apps are built into a variety of streaming devices, as well as most televisions and DVD/Blu-ray players on the market — so there are many options out there for consumers. 

WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

I don’t know what the future holds for cord cutters, but there are some exciting technologies on the horizon. 

The next generation of over-the-air television is called “ATSC 3.0” and will provide consumers with stronger digital signals, 4K HDR video, on-demand content, and the ability to receive TV signals on phones, tablets and PCs (all using the same antenna tech we use today).  

FINAL SUM GAME

I remember a world before cable television. 

Part of the reason people ditched antennas for cable TV had a lot to do with the “reliability” (or lack thereof) of TV signals in the analog era.

We didn’t have a cable subscription until I was in high school (despite the fact that a number of my friends had cable in the early 80s).  

There has never been a better time to go “back to the future” and take a cue from television technology of the past. 

Cord cutting is also a great way to try something new, save some money, and use the latest streaming technology to your advantage. 

>> If you enjoyed this blog post, follow me on Twitter/X — @TheJonCrunch 

Previous post: When Kevin Costner Had a Mustache … And Played a Pro Cyclist

Do Paywalls Thwart The Spread of Legit News?

There has been a considerable amount of talk about the rise of “fake news,” and various technological maneuvers to try and combat the spread of low-brow content on the Internet.

It begs the question whether consumers have shrugged off the more traditional news operations because of monetary hindrances like paywalls — a move that limits the content available to non-paying subscribers — and, if such revenue-generating strategies serve to thwart the influence of legitimate news. 

As time progresses, it develops like a slow leak. Drip, drip, drip. Turning future generations away from well-researched, responsible reporting, and soaking society with “citizen journalists” willing to put out a variety of content for free. 

Twenty-two years ago I graduated with a degree in journalism from the University of Nebraska at Omaha, and have owned and operated a media-related marketing communications business ever since. In the intervening years, I have watched the entire communications juggernaut undergo more change than it had the previous 40. 

People used to travel through life with the understanding that they would pay for news. Families had subscriptions to daily newspapers, and would also subscribe to “specialty” magazines with more targeted content. People watched television newscasts with the idea that “commercial breaks” were a way to pay for valuable information. 

But the paradigm has changed. We are creating an entire culture built on the idea that content is free — whether it be news, sports, or entertainment. 

It has happened before our eyes. We’ve seen a rise in consumers “cutting the cord” on traditional cable and satellite television subscriptions. They are dropping these things in favor of cheaper services like Netflix, and free offerings like YouTube. Many are using old-school technology like over-the-air TV antennas to bring free television into their homes. 

Newspapers have been trying to find a way to keep revenue positive. Some have found wealthy benefactors willing to prop up shaky foundations. For example, billionaire Warren Buffett owns the Omaha World-Herald (my city’s daily newspaper), and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. 

While these organizations try to fight off layoffs — as they continue to manage the amount of original content produced on a daily basis — they soldier on with the notion that people will continue paying for news.

The problem is that the gatekeeper function has radically changed. The entities controlling information have names like Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Those entities — through sophisticated analytic filters — determine the content you see. 

There are plenty of operations out there willing to produce content for free (often plastered with banner advertising and sponsored posts). I’m not altogether sure people prefer such “news sources,” but access is free, and free typically wins the day. 

One of my favorite documentaries is the 2011 film “Page One: Inside the New York Times.” The documentary focuses on the fall of daily newspapers, the collapse of automobile and classified advertising in those publications, and the erosion of subscribers to Internet-based outlets. It also focuses on the effort large news organizations undertake to bring consumers news.

This past week, the Omaha World-Herald unleashed a “revamped” paywall — its "Subscriber Plus" digital option ($9.95 per month) is the only way you can see online articles about the Nebraska Cornhuskers, Creighton Bluejays, and UNO Mavericks. In essence, the World-Herald has decided to restrict access to more of the local, home-grown news stories focused on our community (the stories not readily distributed across the globe via the Associated Press). The OWH also lists as a benefit that its web pages will load faster for digital subscribers (which I find to be an odd thing to mention).

We have a Sunday subscription to the Omaha World-Herald (and also have a digital subscription).

On the one hand, the desire to protect content is noble. 

On the other hand, it has a “limiting effect” on the impact and influence a news organization has within a community. It might not seem that way initially, but the long-term effect basically reduces the influence of a publication when people can’t easily read an article shared via Facebook, Twitter, or other social media outlets. You see the comments on articles shared on the Omaha World-Herald's Facebook Page.

It is a harsh reality, but a reality that news organizations share. The quest to keep dollars flowing is just as vital as keeping eyeballs reading. While paywalls might stir up cash in the short term — or at least give value to a print subscription — such efforts thwart readership. 

If I am a media relations professional trying to get coverage via local news outlets, I have to start asking myself how valuable it is to get an article about a business/organization in daily newspapers if the only people who see it are print/digital subscribers behind a paywall. 

Just follow some of the “influencers” on YouTube if you want to see how corporate communications strategies have changed. YouTubers like Casey Neistat regularly pimp products from companies like Samsung — essentially paid-for promotions that reach millions of viewers. 

It doesn’t matter if the content lacks polish or sophistication. Editorial purity isn’t the goal. For advertisers, eyeballs are king, and the kingdom is being run by common folk with clickbait content. 

When you get down to brass tacks, it is a sobering proposition for society...and for the future. 

It’s very possible the situation has no fix. It’s as if the playground teeter-totter has fallen too far to one side, with no capable partner on the elevated end to weight the apparatus back into balance.

Part of the reason I have this blog is because I feel an odd sense of responsibility to bring well written and thoughtful pieces to the endless sea of crowd-sourced content. My goal isn’t to change the world — nor is it to become some advocacy bulwark. I just figure information-hungry people could do a lot worse. Might as well put that journalism degree to use. 

As time moves on, we have to hope there are others who share this same sense of duty.

Previous post: Movie Review: "The Commuter"