Brian Stelter of the New York Times joins the show to talk about TV, media, ratings, Twitter and social media. And I think we even throw a little A-Rod in there as well.

Stelter graduated college in 2007 and had a website that was getting a million monthly pageviews. We talk about how he was able to make a name for himself while in school and what it’s like working for the New York Times while being just out of college. Oh, and we find out he hates the term ‘wunderkind.’

We talk about the difference between writing a blog, and writing a blog for the Times. Which leads to an interesting conversation about the traditional media’s clash with online content and new media.

Speaking of new media, we ask him what he thinks the future of the industry is. We also discuss the journalistic merits of Twitter and talk about the change in dynamic of ‘citizen journalism.’

Shifting gears, we talk A-Rod, but bring the topic up in the context of breaking a news story. How much pressure is there to break news rather than report news? Whoever is first is who gets linked, so how much importance is there in being first?

We also talk about the notion out there that people -- supposed media people on radio -- were upset that information was leaked out about Rodriguez? Wasn’t this country founded on ‘sources?’ Would there have been Watergate without Deep Throat?

Which leads to politics. Are the cable news channels the most competitive of any sect of television? I’ve seen people at CNN try to eat their own, so we ask Stelter his thoughts on the cable news ratings battles. And what was it like covering MSNBC covering the Inauguration? He gives us a unique perspective on the day.

Stelter writes and edits TV Decoder for the Times, so we talk about ratings and wonder if they even matter anymore. With so much content available online and through other channels (literally), how can networks assess the value of a show anymore? In other words, how is anyone making money with so many things to watch and ways to watch them?

It’s an interesting topic, and is somewhat complicated by sites like Hulu and the myriad of BitTorrent sites around the internet. If you can get something for free online, with limited or zero commercials, why would anyone ever pay for it? And if you can go online to watch a show at the precise hour of the day you want to view it, why not just do that rather than watch on your TV or use your DVR? If it’s only because of screen size, like Stelter jokes, TV is going to be in big trouble.

Last week, we were bumped by Congress (at least that’s what I like to say) so we ask Stelter about the delay in the Digital TV roll-out. Why is there a delay? Are we that concerned about six-million people without television for a while? What’s the hold up?

Oh, and last, as a guy who covers TV for a living, we want to know what he watches. Do his favorite shows end up on our 24-hours of programming?

Link to this:

| | | | | |