I mean that in the most socially casual way...

Because the exact details of the contract are not for public consumption, I’m not sure who - if anyone - got pimped. But, if you look at this strictly in dollars and cents, no one got pimped, they all still end up millionaires.

I think in the end, that’s what we the fans take away. This seems to have been a battle between the haves and the have-mores. I just want to break this down by pros and cons...

Pros: I for one am glad to see an organization negotiating in good faith to be on equal ground. I’m also glad to hear that this isn’t just about the $$$, but, about better long-term benefits for players and better health management for players. I think there were some additional changes to the rules as well to make the game safer. All good. But, I hope the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) has also taken some steps to educate players about how to deal with MONEY.

Con: The players have successfully negotiated for their fair share of the pie, but, what are they going to do with it? They’ve shown great business acumen. But, how many of them will end up living close to the poverty line at some point after they leave the league despite the new provisions? Wouldn’t it have been better to invest some of the money for the future instead of buying 3 homes and 7 cars? What good is having had a Lamborghini if you now can’t walk? Some of these players are basically young kids making hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions. Who’s showing them how not to blow it all in one sitting?

We’ve seen the stories about the players who retire, then later find out they have football-related injuries, can’t afford the health care costs and end up on government assistance. I find that unacceptable. No person who makes millions of dollars a year, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for an extended period of time should find themselves with a food stamp debit card. We all want to live well, but, many players take their good fortune to extremes. Being irresponsible with money shows bad judgement. I can only hope this process has shed some light on the responsibility attached to fighting for equality in compensation.

Con: The way this story is being reported in the news. The reporters who are telling this story forget they’re not talking to lawyers or union members or even people who work in a sports-related jobs. The average person has no idea what re-certification means. I didn’t know what they meant, so of course, I looked it up.

It just means when the contract between the players and the owners expired earlier this year, it also dissolved the players union. So, for the players to have a union again, they had to formally, legally, certify that they want to be a union and sign on the dotted line. You can be an association without being a union. Being a union gave them additional, legal rights they would not be able to exercise as an association.

I think it was just a matter of jargon. Some of it may be the usual - reporters trying to impress other news types instead of remembering, they’re doing these stories for the news consumer, not the competition. I mentioned this in a previous entry, but, they need to remember where they came from. Newsroom 101 - Keep it simple stupid.

Now for the more social take on this deal... WE GET OUR FOOTBALL SEASON!
For those of us who love NFL, we don’t care about the off season bickering - we just want our Sundays and Mondays in front of the TV, pulling for our teams. Go Browns!

Special note: For those of you who will be tempted to leave disparaging comments about the Browns on this entry, save your keystrokes for someone who will be damaged by them. I don’t care if the Browns win or lose - I’m a Browns fan for life. It was no joke when we fought to keep the Browns; Still no joke now. Football fans everywhere know this about Browns fans. Save your keystrokes...

But do comment on the NFL in general. I’m not stupid; I do have a backup team so that I can extend my season into the playoffs. Go Jets!

We’ll see you Sunday’s this Fall...

I finally got to watch the mini-series, The Kennedys. I don’t know what was so controversial about it – maybe I just know too much about the Kennedy’s. I didn’t learn too much new – it was a surprise to me that Jackie smoked... even when she was pregnant. And got happy juice shots. I knew JFK was all hopped up on pills and had a body that failed him all day, everyday. Is that what the Kennedys didn't want people to know? Didn't change anything for me...

But there was another thing that did surprise me… In this version, the creators suggested that JFK’s philandering was a matter of weakness, not dominance. There was one scene when he admitted to Bobby that it wasn’t even about the sex; He did it just because he was alone and couldn’t sleep. I’m not sure about that. Rich and powerful men generally cheat because they can, not because they need to. I think he did it because he could. The creators of this version also made JFK out to be a bit sheepish overall. Don’t buy that either. You don’t get to be one of the most revered Presidents' of the United States by being sheepish.

Of note: The casting was outstanding – spot on. From Joe Sr. to Rose to Barry Pepper as Bobby. Spot on. Katie Holmes as Jackie showed the only flaw and that was in her dialect in some spots. She sounded like she was from Brooklyn sometimes. But, it wasn’t bad enough to make a difference. And the look of the series was as neat as all the scotch they drank.

One noticeable omission was Teddy. There was absolutely no mention of Teddy at all. No mention of Joan either and Joan and Jackie were quite close. It’s a well known fact that Jackie and Eunice weren’t the best of friends, but, Joan and Jackie were. Teddy also worked on JFK’s presidential election campaign, so, he should have been a part of this story as well. Glaring omission...

It was nice to hear more details about how and where Joe Jr. fit in the picture. The stories usually start at JFK and focus mostly on him, Bobby and Teddy. This version started with Joe and showed his place and interactions with his siblings and Joe Sr. Now had they added Teddy to the story, it would likely have been the most authentic, revealing version to date. The ending could have been better, but, all things considered, this version gets an A from me.

I’ve been into the history of the Kennedys since I was a kid, so, for me, this was just another way to confirm the recurring facts and sift out the ones that don’t jive. But, in all that I know, I think this version is one of the best I’ve seen and would give the casual Kennedy-phile a great true-to-life reveal.

I highly recommend this mini-series. All that BS over getting it on air was stupid. And to the Kennedy family – let the truth be what it is. No family is perfect, not even an American dynasty. At least yours has had a significant impact on the history of the United States…

It’s been almost 2 months since Scott Pelley took the anchor chair and he’s away on his first assignment for 60 Minutes. 2 Days into his absence and I’m back on board. Bob Schieffer is awesome.

Day 2 with Bob Schieffer... A paraphrase of his opening line: Rupert Murdoch was in front of the British Parliament today to testify - took a flurry of questions... then he got hit in the face with a cream pie... LMAO.

If CBS wasn’t sure they made a mistake before yesterday, they should be sure now. Even CBS’s Business Correspondent Anthony Mason had to LOL during his introduction from the ease at which Schieffer delivered that line. It was refreshing... it was honest. Fact is, Bob don’t give a damn - He’s not trying to prove anything to anyone. He’s the first anchor CBS has had in that chair since Walter Cronkite who convinces us that he’s genuine. Scott Pelley is killing me...

This is reminding me of NBC’s big gaffe when they gave The Tonight Show to Conan O’Brien and put Jay Leno at 10. Stupid. I understand they were attempting to move the brand forward, but, they would have been better of leaving Jay on The Tonight Show and trying Conan at 10. No disruption of the brand. Now NBC Entertainment just looks like idiots.

This is where we are with CBS. I see it coming - by the end of the summer, there’s going to be another change. I said in my very first blog post that they should have just given the chair to Harry Smith. With good reason, Harry has now left to go to NBC. What were they expecting? You would think they would have learned from the mistakes they made passing over John Roberts years ago. Looks like news executives haven’t gotten any more in-tune with society...

But, my guess is that Bob Schieffer is not interested in a full time job like the evening news 5 days a week. My bet is that he’s perfectly happy living here in WDC, taping Face The Nation every Sunday and thinking on retirement. I want it on record that I want his job. Face The Nation with Billy Abshaw has a nice ring to it... Stay tuned...

But, in just 2 days, Bob Schieffer has given some life back to the broadcast. Even more-so than Katie Couric. Not hard to do following Dan Rather, but... The word is that during his 17 months anchoring the broadcast before Katie took the chair, ratings were up significantly enough to get CBS in 2nd place. Katie Couric only got to 2nd place once or twice, but, nothing prolonged. What does that tell you CBS?

So, here is my suggestion for how CBS should handle this... I’ll use another NBC situation - this one from the early 90’s. The Today Show. Jane Pauley leaves Today. Her replacement is Deborah Norville. Audiences are not warming up to Deborah Norville. She goes out on maternity leave, in comes pregnant Katie Couric as her fill-in. Perfect plan; Katie goes out on maternity leave, Deborah comes back, all is well. However, audiences LOVE Katie Couric. 16 years later, Katie Couric leaves as the highest paid morning show anchor ever with the highest ratings ever.

When you’re learning the art of writing for television news, there is always someone in the newsroom who is happy to tell you this: Keep it simple stupid (KISS).

Note to CBS: Leave all the bad staffing decisions to NBC. KISS...

That even sounds dirty to me...

Netflix has officially become a pronoun. You’ve been Netflixed! Before I get into the rational discussion of NETFLIX, I have to note the mass amounts of outrage spewing from former Netflix consumers. I’m not sure what made anyone at Netflix think a 50% increase in charges would just slide by. This is just the wrong time for that...

I love Netflix. Been a subscriber since 2003, before it became a household brand. I currently have almost 700 titles in my queue - 388 in DVD; 277 in instant. I’m not starting over again. The truth is, I found it a real-deal that I could have streaming for free. That was until I tried to actually watch streaming.

Netflix instant streaming blows. The picture quality is somewhat grainy, it doesn’t fast forward or rewind very well and it buffers constantly. Yesterday, it wouldn’t load at all. Currently, free means I’m getting my money’s worth. So, by September, will it be working better since I will be paying for it? I bet not...

While I’m not currently prepared to cut the chord, I am prepared to start looking around for other movie rental services. I may even go back to DVD’s in the mail because the streaming is not quality enough to pay for. This creates a perfect business opportunity for the competition. Netflix has basically leveled the playing field - Blockbuster needs to sieze the day.

Hypothesis: Netflix will retract the new charges for something in the middle. If they don’t, there will be a whole host of new players in the field. Just what I think...

I just don't know where to begin with this one. I mean, being a journalist is supposed to equal honesty, integrity, a responsibility to the consumer... What the F? I guess to be fair, News Corp has not been implicated in any of the activities of News of the World, but, if you're a journalist, you know how FOX NEWS operates and the answer to that querie is - start asking a lot of questions.

If you're not a journalist, some background: News International is the european media conglomerate owned by Rupert Murdoch. News Corporation is the American media conglomerate owned by Rupert Murdoch. Not 100% about how they are connected/if they are connected/how they fit - doesn't matter, they are both owned by RUPERT MURDOCH. Never met him, but, would rather meet a Bear. At least I'd know what was coming.

I'll give Rupert a little credit, however. He bought The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post, I think in an attempt to give Fox some credibility, but, I think it's just sullied the reputations of the former. NYP is just not what it used to be and having interviewed at WSJ/Dow Jones some years back, it is really not what it used to be. But, I don't know that they've turned to a life of crime. Speaking of crime, let's get back to Fox News...

To be clear, I am 100% non-partisan. Best candidate wins for me. But, there is an unconfirmed rumor of a liberal media bias. I disagree with that with exception of Fox News. I find that the problem is not an inherent liberal bias in the media as much as there is a political slant to the media which manifests itself in partisan individuals. I've witnessed this first hand in the field with other reporters and see it everyday on the news. My rule of thumb - if you can tell which side the interviewer is on, there is bias. Journalism is supposed to be unbiased.

Fox has taken this to a new level. They emphatically take the right, sometimes just for the sake of taking the right. Like News of the World, Fox attracts the people who will do ANYTHING for a story. But, politics aside, when Fox began growing here in the USA, many of the people who went to work for them were the people who lacked credibility in my newsrooms. Therefore, politics aside again, the level of quality they brought to this new network was low. It's still not there and those of us who regard journalism with only the highest standards consider Fox, “The red-headed stepchild.”

Criminal activity at a Rupert Murdoch publication? Should anyone who knows anything about the media be surprised? I don’t think anyone is surprised. I’ll be surprised if there is no criminal activity found at Fox or WSJ or NYP.

I’m curious to hear what people on the outside of the media think about this…