Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information - Page 3269 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 494Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #98041 of 98050 Old Yesterday, 12:48 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 187
TV Notes
On The Air Tonight
TUESDAY Network Primetime/Late Night Options
(All shows are in HD unless noted; start times are ET. Network late night shows are preceded by late local news)

ABC:
8PM - Dancing with the Stars: Road to the Finals
9PM - Dancing with the Stars (Season Finale, 120 min., LIVE)
* * * *
11:35PM - Jimmy Kimmel Live! (Chris Pine; Evangeline Lilly; Pitbull and Ne-Yo perform)
12:37AM - Nightline

CBS:
8PM - NCIS
9PM - NCIS: New Orleans
10:01PM - Person of Interest
* * * *
11:35PM - Late Show with David Letterman (Emily Blunt; Adam Resnick; Wu-Tang Clan performs)
12:37AM - The Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson (Kristin Chenoweth; Michael Ealy)

NBC:
8PM - The Voice (LIVE)
9:01PM - Marry Me
9:30PM - About A Boy
10:01PM - Chicago Fire
* * * *
11:34PM - The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon (Bill O'Reilly; Lorde performs)
12:36AM - Late Night with Seth Myers (Jason Sudeikis; Aubrey Plaza)
1:37AM - Last Call With Carson Daly (William H. Macy; Lemaitre perform; music duo Tearist)
(R - Oct. 4)

FOX:
8PM - MasterChef
9PM - New Girl
9:30PM - The Mindy Project

PBS:
(check your local listing for starting time/programming)
8PM - Finding Your Roots With Henry Louis Gates, Jr.: Decoding Our Past (Season Finale)
9PM - Return to the Wild: The Chris McCandless Story
10PM - Jay Leno: The Mark Twain Prize (90 min.)
(R - Nov. 23)

UNIVISION:
8PM - Mi Corazón Es Tuyo
9PM - Hasta El Fin del Mundo
10PM - La Malquerida

THE CW:
8PM - The Flash
9PM - Supernatural

TELEMUNDO:
8PM - Reina De Corazones
9PM - Los Miserables
10PM - Señora de Acero

COMEDY CENTRAL:
11PM - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (John Cleese)
(R - Nov. 5)
11:31PM - The Colbert Report (Politician Kirsten Gillibrand)
(R - Nov. 5)
12:01AM - At Midnight (Jim Gaffigan; Michael Ian Black; Kyle Kinane)
(R - Nov. 4)

TBS:
11PM - Conan (Zooey Deschanel; Breckin Meyer; musician Beck)
(R - Sep. 22)
dad1153 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #98042 of 98050 Old Yesterday, 12:50 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 187
Critic's Notes
TV employs fewer gimmicks during 'sweeps'
By Maria Sciullo, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Nov. 25, 2013

Wednesday is the last official day of the November TV “sweeps” month — that period that comes four times a year when local stations traditionally blast viewers with all sorts of sensational teasers, gotcha stories and wasteful tax dollar reports, all to boost ratings to set advertising rates.

But you may have noticed that the reports recently have not been quite as crazy as they have been in the past.

“My sort of general observation, and I have no data to back this up, but I think sweeps pieces have, in many cases, gotten a little less nutty in the past 10 years,” said Chris Tuohy, a former executive news producer and chair of broadcast and digital journalism at Syracuse University’s Newhouse School of Journalism.

“For a while, you could always count on the ’stranger danger’ pieces, and the hotel horrors.”

Paul Greeley, who writes about local television news and its marketing for TVNewsCheck.com, agreed. “I have not seen too many outrageous stories this particular ratings period as I have in the past, and that’s a good thing,” he said.

(Nonetheless: we interrupt this story to bring you a special report from KIVI in Boise, Idaho. It recently completed a three-part story about Teal Swan, a woman who claims to have been the victim of “Satanic ritual abuse.” Ms. Swan also claims to have witnessed the ritual deaths of more than a half-dozen children and says she reported this to Utah authorities in 2005.)

Yet the general softening of new reports during the “sweeps” periods is perhaps “a nod to how the audience has become more smart and sophisticated, and the same tricks won’t work as maybe they did in years past,” said Stephen Kraycik, a former news manager and producer, now serving as director of student television and online operations at Penn State University.

Nielsen figures, which are used during sweeps periods to help set advertising rates, began measuring audiences in the 1950s, through a combination of monitoring TV sets and families keeping paper diaries. The introduction of “local people meters” — clickable little boxes — in 1987 meant that ratings could be assessed overnight, instead of weekly. In 2009 Pittsburgh stations began getting demographic ratings overnight year-round. This basically negated the need for any special months devoted to sweeps since the demographic data historically gathered in sweeps is now available daily.

It’s still an inexact science, but one that likely has made a difference in local stations running TV news sweeps packages. Viewers will note one sign of a sweeps ratings period’s importance: the on-air talent isn’t allowed to take a vacation.

“We don’t really approach stories differently inside a [sweeps period] book as opposed to outside a book,” said Justin Antoniotti, WTAE-TV news director. “We get ratings every day of the year, so that measurement system is in place whether we’re inside a book or not.”

Indeed, a survey of local newscasts during this latest Oct. 30-Nov. 26 sweeps period turned up the usual menu of animal and “your children’s welfare” features, health and consumer fare. WTAE recently ran a feature about a York County Great Dane that had given birth to 19 puppies.

At the WTAE site, there was a link to the dog’s owner for anyone wanting to buy one, for $850. The day after the Nov. 18 feature ran on television, the puppy video was the third most popular on the site.

But there was also a Paul Van Osdol report on a $365,000 project to replace railroad track in Turtle Creek. As part of the Greensburg Pike bridge project, the “railroad to nowhere” was being touted as a waste of tax dollars.

KDKA-TV news director Anne Linaberger said the station strives to produce “promote-able” content for every newscast, so the line between traditional sweeps stories and everyday features is blurred.

“Not only do we [now] know what our household ratings are, but our demographic ratings as well .... it’s a 52-week-a-year job.”

Still, it’s hardly an accident that a two-part story titled “Patrice’s Secret” aired at the start of the recent ratings period. Ms. Linaberger said former longtime KDKA news anchor Patrice King Brown approached reporter and friend Lynn Hayes-Freeland last month and wanted to finally reveal why she retired in 2011.

The report showed Ms. Brown and her husband, Paul Nemiroff, at home in California. They talked about the life-threatening illness that forced him to leave the cold Northeast climate.

“It did well, and we got a lot of good feedback about it because I think a lot people are interested in her and what she’s up to,” said Ms. Linaberger. “But if she’d come to us in September, we would have done it then.”

Features such as WTAE’s “Action News Investigates” and WPXI’s “Target11” are catchy ways of promoting content. Mr. Tuohy said he’s observed a rise in legitimate investigative pieces, and “that’s something you can feel good about.”

Sometimes, however, the promos for stories are more sizzle than steak.

“For a promo to be effective, the story has to be effective,” said Mr. Kraycik, the Penn State student TV director.

Creative services work with the news side of a station to create an effective promotion campaign. Generally, these promos are on the mark, but the occasional misleading one slips through.

“Sometimes what you would get back, we’d look at it as a news director or manager and say, ‘Wow, this has very little to do with the story we actually produced.”

KDKA ran a promo warning that the switch from daylight saving time could be bad for kids’ health. The actual story turned out to be rather routine: a British study noted that children having less daylight for play might lead to their sitting around, inactive, for a short time.

“I think it really takes both of those departments working together to come up with a promo that is not trying to scare the pants off of people, but legitimately is trying to get them to watch,” Mr. Kraycik said.

“The better the content, the less need there is for over-the-top promotion. Maybe that’s a pie-in-the-sky view of things, but I’d like to think it’s true,” Mr. Tuohy said.

TVNewsCheck’s Mr. Greeley said that when it comes to the modern approach to gauging viewers’ interest, he has a motto: “Sweeps aren’t won during ratings periods, they’re only measured then.”

Still, we probably have not seen the last of the sensational stories.

http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/tv-ra...s/201411250006
dad1153 is offline  
post #98043 of 98050 Old Yesterday, 12:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 187
TV Review
‘The Sisterhood: Becoming Nuns,’ yes
Lifetime series about women pondering the convent is absorbing
By Tom Conroy, Media Life Magazine - Nov. 24, 2013

In an era in which most Americans are vaguely spiritual, it’s almost shocking to see people who are strictly spiritual. The five young women who star in Lifetime’s new reality series “The Sisterhood: Becoming Nuns” are evidently considering entering a life that will be bound 24 hours a day by rules and traditions.

Both they and the nuns who welcome them into their convents for a six-week trial period are intriguing individuals. They will be completely alien to most viewers and somewhat alien even to people raised Catholic.

Although the series has a built-in denouement — by the end of the sixth and final episode of the season, the women will have decided whether to continue the process of becoming a nun — the show is mostly character driven. Thanks to its strong personalities and their unfamiliar way of life, “The Sisterhood” is fascinating.

Premiering this Tuesday, Nov. 25, at 10 p.m., the series follows the five maybe wannabe nuns as they visit three different convents. In the two episodes provided for review, they stay in a Carmelite convent in Germantown, N.Y.

Unlike many modern nuns, this congregation continues to wear the habit, which provides a convenient visual to remind us we’re not watching an all-female, all-ages version of “The Real World.”

The premiere episode sometimes resembles a season premiere of that show, with the five women arriving in dribs and drabs at their new accommodations. Their spartan bedrooms, however, are a far cry from the usual luxurious “Real World” houses.

It’s unclear whether six-week stays in various convents are a typical part of the “discernment” process or are an invention of the show’s producers. It’s also possible that one or more of the young women is a fame hound who is willing to exaggerate her interest in becoming a nun in exchange for some airtime.

But they mostly seem sincere.

As they’re being driven to the convent, Christie, 27, from Glendale, Calif., tells Claire, 26, from Joliet, Ill., that she has visions of Jesus while she prays.

One time, Christie says, they started dancing together. “It was, like, romantic,” she says, “like he was flirting with me. And I was like, ‘Whoa, Jesus, whoa!’ ”

Claire, who has a more figurative interpretation of the idea that nuns are brides of Christ, doubts that Christie’s experience could be called a vision.

Eseni, 23, from the Bronx, N.Y., has a serious boyfriend named Darnell, but she says she always admired the happy nuns who taught her in school. Moreover, ever since her father allegedly cheated on her mother, she has mistrusted men.

Stacey, 26, from New York City, is a charismatic former musical actress. She proudly shows the cameras the dolls she has made, including a miniature Pietà. She decorates her room with what she calls “my picture of handsome surfer-dude Jesus.”

And Francesca, 21, from Harrison Park, N.J., has just finished college. Her hardest adjustment to convent life is not being able to wear makeup, especially in front of cameras.

The nuns, meanwhile, make their life look surprisingly appealing. They speak of the rewards of being in a community but admit that living with so many women isn’t always easy. One of them tells the camera, “It’s amazing to me there’s never been a murder.”

The first episode is largely concerned with introducing the characters. In the second, the wannabes accompany the nuns, whose mission is to care for the aged and infirm, to a nursing home they sponsor. A nun named Sister Bridget has Stacy and Eseni say the rosary with an elderly woman who is dying.

Stacy and Eseni are so emotionally overwhelmed that the elderly woman feels the need to comfort them, saying, “You know what St. Thomas More said: ‘I’ll pray for you, you pray for me, and merrily we’ll meet in heaven.’ ”

The episode takes a slight turn toward “The Real World.” The wannabes sneak out to a liquor store after the hospice visit and have an impromptu party in one of their rooms. Eseni shows the other how to twerk.

The next day, Claire, who doesn’t approve of either drinking or twerking, feels the need to explain to the others that she doesn’t feel superior to them. Dropping the term “drama queen,” she winds up giving the opposite impression.

Using a cliché from shows like “Survivor” and “Big Brother,” Francesca tells Claire, “I feel like now you’re personally throwing me, Francesca, under the bus.”

Despite what Francesca may think, this isn’t that kind of reality show. “The Sisterhood” treats its subject respectfully without trying to minimize its peculiarities. Even if some of it has been tweaked or twerked, it’s eye-opening.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/sis...ming-nuns-yes/
dad1153 is offline  
post #98044 of 98050 Old Yesterday, 12:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 187
Critic's Notes
How should television be defined nowadays?
By Robert Lloyd, Los Angeles Times

What is television? It seems a fair and timely question to ask, now that it's coming at us from so many angles, on so many platforms, from so many producers.

Let's begin near the beginning.

Once upon a time there was a thing called a television set. You knew where you stood with it, and you knew where it stood: in your house, in a fairly stationary, semi-permanent, prominent way — a box, sometimes a very big box, a piece of furniture. It didn't hang on a wall, you couldn't carry it around in your pocket or wear it on your wrist.

For many years, everything that came into a television set came out of the air, on invisible waves of light. Just how much TV you were able to see had to do with how the frequencies in your area were apportioned and how close you lived to a transmitter. There wasn't much of it, compared to today, but there was still more than anybody could watch, even if, like Lyndon B. Johnson or Elvis Presley, you had three sets going at once.

Then television started coming through a cable as well, bringing dozens upon dozens of new channels to what was now just a figurative dial. Eventually it would also arrive through the telephone line or off a satellite or by way of a computer modem — and not into the squat single-purpose set of yore but into other machines that would become televisions just for a time and then go back to being computers, cellphones or a thing to play video games on.

Each new technology created new sorts of content, some of which bore only a cursory resemblance to the TV that preceded it and new sorts of business models that remodeled the older models. Now, for instance, HBO, a premium cable network, and CBS, one of the original broadcast networks, are making their wares available directly over the Internet — doing a Netflix — while Vimeo, the arty YouTube, is selling its first scripted series for $1.99 an episode (It's called "High Maintenance," and it's about marijuana), as if it were iTunes or Amazon.

I once would have described television in terms of the formal qualities of its content: its standardized length, its episodic nature. And, as a professional critic, it seemed for a time necessary to limit the definition, almost as if one were defending "real" television against the barbarian hordes of terrible first-generation Web series — things that either tried to be like real TV and failed, like the twentysomething soap "Quarterlife" from the creators of "thirtysomething," or that wrapped themselves prankishly in the medium, like "Lonelygirl5," revealed to be nothing but a limp conspiracy thriller once it stopped pretending to be an actual vlog.

We have moved on from there into a world of video wonders. Now I am inclined to define television as any moving picture — at all — watched on any sort of screen not located within a movie theater. From a 30-second clip of a baby wombat to a fancy long-arc drama starring people whose other job is being a movie star, whether it was made by unionized professionals or rank amateurs, for fun or for profit, for crass reasons or noble purposes, art, garbage or garbage-art — I am happy to call it all TV. Whether you are shelling out for a full menu of premium channels and streaming sites or just consuming what you can pick up off the Internet for free, there is more to watch, and worth watching, than any reasonable person could ask for, or want.

Many distinctions, which I would call "real but imaginary" — that is, based on actual differences but mostly psychological in effect — have been applied to the medium through its history. In the unimaginably long time before cable, it was understood that VHF channels were qualitatively different from UHF (in L.A., the old home of public broadcasting and of Spanish-language). There was a perceived difference between network television and local television, between older networks like ABC and newer networks like Fox, between broadcast television and cable television, and between basic cable television networks and premium cable television networks. Those perceptions faded with use. Now we are reckoning with streaming services like Netflix and Amazon and Hulu making the jump from content distribution to content creation; they are already lining up for Emmys.

There is a certain amount of trauma that attends these changes. Television networks seem to regard one another as enemies engaged in a total war in which ratings get banner headlines and victory is claimed for dominating such and such a demographic at such and such an hour on such and such a day in such and such a week. They play a zero-sum game in which every pair of eyes tuned in to another network's product is two fewer eyes you can take to the bank.

Regard the apocalyptic hubbub whenever a new brand of competitor edges into the Emmy race to challenge the last-established version of the establishment — first premium cable, then basic cable, now streaming systems like Netflix, each wanting a piece of the pie, each fighting for a seat at the table. The TV table.

As writers about television, we do tend to note the differing circumstances, economies, legal or practical constraints and degree of freedom that influence the kind and number of programs being made. As viewers, however, we do not — one channel is as good as another to a remote control. Obviously, there is a difference — many differences — between a piano-playing cat shot on a smartphone and a scripted program whose creation required hundreds of professionals and hundreds of thousands of dollars. You can't judge one by the standards of the other. And yet, as I would declare it, each is television and, as a televisual life experience, potentially of equal value.

The Emmys, for their official part, have acknowledged that their universe is an expanding one, with awards for original interactive program (including crowd-sourced and/or user-generated narratives) and social TV experience (a synchronous or asynchronous social experience that supports audience communication and interaction for a linear program or an original interactive program) and expressly naming mobile (smartphone or tablet), computer, over-the-top set-top box or console, or Internet-connected/smart TV as platforms to be considered. There is an Emmy too for programs lasting less than 15 minutes — "Too Many Cooks," anyone? — including those that are Web-based. (There is a chance for you too, "The Future With Emily Heller.")

In 2014, and beyond, television is everything and anything that pours into whatever it is you watch it on. Without getting up once from the couch you might on a given evening watch a 1950s sitcom, a cartoon a teenager made in his bedroom, a TED talk, live broadcasts from the Senate or space, highlights of last night's late-night talk shows, a concert video shot on a cellphone, a Korean soap opera, soccer in Spanish and half a dozen cats playing half a dozen pianos. Where the material originated can be interesting and even useful to know, as it is interesting and useful to know that the Mississippi River, which is partly fed by the Ohio River, which is partly fed by the Cumberland River, flows into the Gulf of Mexico or that the Amazon empties into the Atlantic. But it is all one watery body of water in the end.

So it is with television, a stew with ever more ingredients, in an ever bigger pot, and pleasure is limited only because you have to sleep, probably work and will most likely not live forever.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...mn.html#page=1
dad1153 is offline  
post #98045 of 98050 Old Yesterday, 01:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
dad1153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 187
Critic's Notes
Ferguson Coverage Brings Out the Worst in Cable News
By Brian Lowry, Variety.com - Nov. 24, 2013

The long day of build-up to the grand jury verdict in Ferguson, Mo., and its aftermath brought out the worst in cable news, from partisan scorekeeping to chaotic images with very little context.

Ferguson — and the decision not to indict officer Darren Wilson in the killing of Michael Brown — hardly marks the first instance of a high-profile and tragic killing of an African-American youth, following the Florida shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. But it continues a trend of Fox News Channel and MSNBC immediately retreating to their ideological corners, while CNN – despite seeking to remain even-handed – again fell into its more lamentable habits, filling time for hours with a “Breaking News” headline that became increasingly absurd the longer the channel went without any additional news.

What again emerged was cable’s near-addiction to conflict, which the unrest and looting that followed the announcement yielded in abundance. And while one can admire the long hours and bravery exhibited by on-the-scene reporters under trying circumstances, the nature of this sort of coverage yields such a narrow aperture their hard work produces heat, perhaps, but scant illumination.

At one point early on, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell suggested conditions on the street looked relatively restrained “if we are to judge what we can get within our frames,” an almost unwitting admission of just how little one can glean watching the available pictures from a studio — or for that matter, a living room.

Nevertheless, cable news outlets were so smitten by images of burning buildings that they left them up, split-screen style, while President Obama spoke regarding events in Ferguson, as if they didn’t dare look away, even for a few minutes, lest they miss something dramatic.

“Obviously, it’s a chaotic situation,” said MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

Even attempts to keep matters in perspective felt undermined by the constant stream of video accompanying those observations.

“I don’t want to imply that all of Ferguson is aflame,” said CNN’s Anderson Cooper. “Seeing the pictures, you might think that. That is not the case at all.”

Yet as he spoke, he shared the screen with the overhead view of a raging fire. Who are we to believe: the white-haired anchor, or our own eyes?

Not that there’s a solution, or even an alternative. This is a world of real-time information, often for the better, but sometimes for the worse. And in the case of a story such as this, being at the scene live might do more to obscure what’s happening than reveal it, but there’s no denying it makes for dramatic TV.

That said, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to wish that these news organizations – even those with a strong partisan slant – could literally wait until the smoke clears before trying to score political points.

Fox News usually benches its more vociferous talent on election nights, but an event like this didn’t sideline Sean Hannity, who brought back local Ferguson committeewoman Patricia Bynes for what amounted to a rematch, calling her “irresponsible” for having referenced racial profiling and police brutality in the past. Hannity wasn’t looking for answers but rather a straw woman to knock over, and when he abruptly told Bynes he had to let her go, she snapped, “Yeah, you gotta let me go.”

Bynes followed Hannity’s much friendlier chat with former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, there to push his familiar pro-law-and-order mantra, having already triggered anger in some quarters for comments he made the day before regarding black-on-black crime on “Meet the Press.”

At MSNBC, meanwhile, Al Sharpton continued to uncomfortably straddle the line between host and activist, questioning the grand jury’s legitimacy hours prior to its decision, and announcing during his show that he would be with shooting victim Michael Brown’s family on Tuesday — again inserting himself into a story even as he covered it.

“We will not speculate here tonight. Just the facts,” Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly – who interrupted a summer vacation in part to criticize MSNBC for employing Sharpton – stated before the grand jury’s decision.

But there was plenty of speculation to go around Monday – before the grand jury’s determination, and after. And almost nothing about that, given cable news’ current state, would qualify as a surprise.

http://variety.com/2014/tv/columns/f...ws-1201364267/
dad1153 is offline  
post #98046 of 98050 Old Yesterday, 01:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
humdinger70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 55
During the Jets/Bills broadcast on NFL Network, it was announced that 'Inside The NFL' will be shown at 9:00 PM on Wednesdays.

It's usually on Showtime on Tuesdays. Has it moved or is this an additional broadcast? Also noticed the program has a 90-minute run time on NFL (according to my program guide on TWC San Diego) rather than the 60 minute run time on Showtime.
humdinger70 is online now  
post #98047 of 98050 Old Yesterday, 09:08 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,814
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Liked: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by humdinger70 View Post
During the Jets/Bills broadcast on NFL Network, it was announced that 'Inside The NFL' will be shown at 9:00 PM on Wednesdays.

It's usually on Showtime on Tuesdays. Has it moved or is this an additional broadcast? Also noticed the program has a 90-minute run time on NFL (according to my program guide on TWC San Diego) rather than the 60 minute run time on Showtime.
Additional airing. AIUI, the time difference is because NFLN adds commercial/promotional inventory to the show. It runs without commercials on Showtime.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #98048 of 98050 Old Yesterday, 11:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
humdinger70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Hey DrDon, I noticed a glitch in the article numbering. The index isn't always updated.

For example, your reply to my previous message is, right now, tagged as 'post #98050 of 98047'. It does catch up after a while, but it looks confusing. Note: doesn't occur in all threads in this forum, usually the more popular ones.
humdinger70 is online now  
post #98049 of 98050 Old Yesterday, 11:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
humdinger70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Hey DrDon, I noticed a glitch in the article numbering. The index isn't always updated.

For example, your reply to my previous message is, right now, tagged as 'post #98050 of 98047'. It does catch up after a while, but it looks confusing. Note: doesn't occur in all threads in this forum, usually the more popular ones.
humdinger70 is online now  
post #98050 of 98050 Old Yesterday, 03:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nayan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Melbourne, FL
Posts: 2,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 178
Suze Orman's Money Wars - New Daily Television Program

ACCLAIMED PERSONAL FINANCIAL EXPERT SUZE ORMAN DEVELOPING A NEW DAILY TELEVISION PROGRAM, SUZE ORMAN’S MONEY WARS, FROM TELEPICTURES

BURBANK, Calif. (November 25, 2014) — Suze Orman, America’s foremost personal financial expert, is embarking on the next chapter of her television career, developing an all-new daily program to be produced by Warner Bros. Television Group’s Telepictures. The new show will be called Suze Orman’s Money Warsand will air five days per week.


Suze Orman’s Money Wars will focus on families, friends and couples whose disputes about money are affecting their lives. Understanding that fights about money are never really only about the money, Suze will use her signature ability to settle these disputes and help the opposing parties resolve their issues while starting them on the road to financial responsibility.


Orman will conclude her highly successful 14-year run as host of CNBC’s The Suze Orman Show in March 2015 as the longest-tenured program host in the network’s history. Reaching three million viewers on a weekly basis*, The Suze Orman Show helps people make the connection between self worth and net worth.


http://www.suzeorman.com/blog/suze-o...ision-program/

I'm a 'hooker' and a knitter. I guess that makes me bi-stitchual :). Crap I say
Nayan is offline  
Reply HDTV Programming

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off