I think, because of the Internet, we're not looking at the very, very narrow channels for distribution that there used to be.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There are literally tens of thousands of very good content providers in the world that don't distribute their content through TV channels.
As long as you are a trusted source of news, the distribution channel doesn't matter as much. If we have to move to tablets or phones, that's fine.
We saw simply distribution was changing, content, premium content, premium stars; we're going to be able to do more in the world as it evolves.
Too many radio stations, all they do is syndicated programming, it's just piped in from some satellite someplace, and they don't have much of a connection to the community.
I'm curious to see what kind of distribution it's going to get because of that.
Cable television and the Internet have created an unending demand for information, and there simply isn't enough truth to go around.
A reality that is electronic... Once everybody's got a computer terminal in their home, to satisfy all their needs, all the domestic needs, there'll be a dismantling of the present broadcasting structure, which is far too limited and limiting.
I am still cautiously hopeful about the potential of the Internet. But it seems that the greatest revolution in communication has been hijacked by commercial values.
There used to be three networks, and now there are 40 million networks. There's a lot more competition out there, too. We would bring in 27 million people. Now, they're lucky if they have 17. I looked at the ratings, for the first time in 25 years, just to see, and there were 130 shows on. There used to be maybe 30.
A generation ago, or two, when there were three channels, plus PBS, and when you needed - when you needed 15 million people to make a living, the media could focus on the broad country. And most people had no choice about getting political information. It was there at 6:30 whether you wanted it or not.
No opposing quotes found.