Sunday, October 21, 2012

We have the technology to filter lies out of politics


In the wake of the second presidential debate, there was significant consternation over the role of moderator, Candy Crowley. When Republican candidate Mitt Romney pointed to a comment by President Barrack Obama and said he wanted it noted for the record, Crowley confirmed the record based on a speech Obama had made in the White House Rose Garden regarding the Libyan terror attack on a U.S. consulate. Unfortunately for Romney, the transcript favored the president.

Facts can be both embarrassing and liberating. The truth shall set you free.  Validation of truth is what these debates have lacked. Instead, networks like CNN have offered real-time trend lines in green and yellow across the screen depicting word-by-word reactions of focus groups viewing the debate. So, as a viewer, I know what independent voters think of a candidate’s comments, but I don’t know if the remarks are actually accurate or convenient fabrication.

We have the technology to superimpose validation on the screen moments after a candidate makes a statement. We can also designate when he or she is in error. When a two-minute time allotment runs out, we have the technology to mute the speaker’s microphone. When a candidate interrupts, we have the ability to cut off his microphone and even mask his image from viewers. When a politician stretches the truth or snaps it in half, production crews can superimpose a Pinocchio nose on the screen. Three Pinocchio’s and you’re out!

The irony is, we have multiple angles and instant replays on a sports play to determine whether the player scored. Was the ball in or out? Was the shot down before time expired? But when life and death decisions like foreign affairs depend on the results of an election, we have to wait days or sometimes years to learn the truth.

But with the billions pouring into elections, don’t expect to see any real journalism in the near future. Tight elections make the media a lot of money. And that’s the truth.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Is instant replay the answer to sports officiating? Be careful what you wish for!


How would you like a job where everything you do is captured by video cameras from multiple angles? Then, that recording is replayed for your customers, supervisors and shareholders. They watch you work task by task and evaluate your performance.

Sounds like a job from hell, right? Welcome to big league professional and college sports officiating. A few weeks ago, our country was up in arms about replacement NFL officials who got a game ending touchdown call wrong. If there’s one thing we learned during the lockout of NFL refs, it’s how good those officials are.

Major League Baseball’s postseason has already had a number of officiating blunders, including a blown infield-fly-rule call in the National League's Wild Card contest between the St. Louis Cardinals and the Atlanta Braves. Today, an umpire tossed out New York Yankee Manager, Joe Girardi, after the skipper argued about a call the ump blew on a tag at second base.

Managers kicking dirt on the umpire’s shoes is part of what makes baseball a boy’s game played by men. So, is the human factor that decides bang-bang plays. Everybody likes to jaw about the mistakes officials make in pro sports. We forget all the times the cameras prove the official was dead right when we thought he needed to see his eye doctor.

Yet, the talk today on TBS after Girardi hit the showers early was that something needed to be done about the umpiring mistakes and instant replay might be the answer.

As a former television director, I can confidently tell you cameras lie even more than politicians. Angles can create the illusion of reality that can deceive even the savviest viewer. In fact, we use a term in the business called “cheat”. That’s when actors position themselves in a way that makes them appear to be facing or looking in a different direction than they actually are. I can easily make two performers look like their talking face to face, when they’re really reading cue cards over the other’s shoulder.

Roll that concept into the equation when people scream for more instant replays to decide the results of athletic events. The sad part is that sports were once played for the fans in the stands. Now, they’re all about the TV audience. Players don’t pitch, run, throw, catch, interfere, kick, skate, hold, dribble, stick handle, spear, and shoot in slow motion. But replays painstakingly occur in super-slow-motion, at frame-by-frame rates with stop action freezes to split milliseconds. By the way, there are 30 frames in a single second of video, and each frame has two fields. Not football or baseball fields, but electronically interlaced images.

Pitchers hurl fastballs well in excess of 90 miles per hour. Speed demons run 40-yard passing routes in less than 4.3 seconds. Pucks clank off crossbars in less than the blink of an eye, and desperation basketball treys are launched as hundredths of seconds tick down. If you think you can officiate a sports contest better than the zebras and the guys in blue, think again.

Sure, there are memorable mistakes like the night umpire Jim Joyce cost Detroit Tiger pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game, because he blew a call on what should have been the final out. Joyce later cried real tears about his error and Galarraga forgave him. The reason we remember those events is because they are so rare.

I don’t know about you, but I prefer to watch my sports in real time. I can’t imagine baseball being any slower or enduring more breaks in the action of a football game. Besides, if we relied on replays to decide everything, we’d miss the fun of watching all those coaches and managers stomping their feet, waving their fingers and throwing tantrums.

Go Tigers and enjoy the World Series.

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Only innovation can really save the car business, and Apple has the juice to do it.


Generations X and Y grew up chauffeured in boring minivans and SUVs. The midsize cars in which these kids munched goldfish and raisins were virtual clones and brands were indistinguishable.  And now we wonder why those same kids aren’t buying cars? They weren’t inspired by Corvettes, Camaros, GTOs, Firebirds, Mustangs, Barracudas and the like. The 1990s and the 21st century have produced a lot of snoring wheels.

It’s not surprising car guys are predicting that sometime in the next twenty years or so, we may actually see demand for autos decline in the United States. When boomers hang up their keys, you can expect car sales to plummet. Unless, of course, wheels become cool again to their kids and grandkids.

How does Detroit reverse the declining trend? I think the answer is for GM or another carmaker to team up with Apple. The Silicon Valley super-brand has a knack for getting people of all ages to pour money into their products, and dump perfectly good gadgets for newer generations of the same technology. And with its stock value at about $650 per share, the tech giant has the bucks to invest an automotive line of products.

Perhaps an exclusively electric power plant, unlike the Volt, with automated highway capability, active-passive integrated safety technologies to make crashes virtually impossible. Of course, any Apple vehicle would be an icon for design and a real head-turner.

There’s a profound irony here. Steve Job’s adoptive dad, Paul Jobs, was a machinist who Steve described as “a genius with his hands.” The senior Jobs loved to tinker with autos. He’d buy used cars, fix them up and sell them for a profit, frequently schooling young Steve on Detroit style and industrial design.  Deep down, Apple has wheels in its DNA.

I’m only half kidding about Apple marrying an auto manufacturer. There was a time when GM and Ford produced home appliances in addition to cars. Remember the Frigidaire and Philco brands? All that is old is new again. I predict Apple is going to hook up with some other consumer products company. They could probably make anything that works, work better.

Innovative darling, Tesla Motors, is a thriving car company that has designed very hot-looking and expensive electric chariots. The S Model starts at about $50, 000. The carmaker recently announced plans to expand its network of proprietary charging stations to blanket the U.S. in the next two years.  They currently have six power plug-in devices across California that can fully charge a Tesla in one hour. That delivers 300 miles of driving. A half-hour provides 150 miles of Tesla juice. The technology is getting better and electric is going to change the way we think about commuting, especially with gas reaching five bucks a gallon this week in the Golden State.

And Tesla models look nothing like gas-powered clones mainstream carmakers churn out. They’re sexy.

My suggestion is that GM plug into Apple before Tesla or someone else does. I’ll bet Ford wishes they had put Macs in their cars instead of the Microsoft Sync.

Today’s kids pay a bundle for smartphones, tablets and monthly fees for continuous connectivity. If you want them to fall in love with your ride, it has to take them places the information highway can’t. Remember the way the rumble of a 327 V8 engine could send electricity up your spine? America is ready for another jolt of excitement and liberty from mediocre design and paralyzing prices at the pump.

It’s time for Detroit to plug in to what America loves best. It's the power of I, as in innovation and  iPod, iTunes, iPhone and iPad. Now imagine iDrive.