Pajiba

So lobby right alongside the. As noted (but ignored) earlier this week, Mark Zuckerberg is in the process of setting up a Tech PAC. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324105204578384781088854740.html

Do I believe that the major studios would have a honest to goodness discussion regarding copyright and piracy antagonism? No. The studios would rather pay for laws like the Sonny Bono copyright extension act, or slip the US a SOPA.

I'm offering you a communication channel to studio executives right now. I post regularly about these topics on HN. How about telling me what you think might be a better business model than the existing one? right now, film studios depend on DVD sales to make their investment back, because relatively few films break even at the box office; when you see those big numbers for weekend grosses you have to recall that over half of that revenue stays within the theater chains (film studios are forbidden by law to operate their own chains [1]), and up to half half of the cost of producing a film is in the marketing campaign, which has to be spent before knowing how the film will perform. So rare are box-office profits, in fact, that there's a saying within the film industry that a theatrical run is basically the marketing campaign for the DVD - people are much more likely to take a chance on renting or buying a movie that they know was in theaters (even if they didn't go to see it in a theater). The difficulty and expense of promoting a…

Replace monopoly google with monopoly clear channel and you have exactly that problem.

Your landlord might be renting the wall next to your driveway to Clear Channel or the neighbor might own it and rent it to them. But if it can fit a billboard and be seen from the street it will have one in metro areas where that isn't illegal.

(Additionally) they* have been known to be geo-targeted on particular firms/individuals to mislead, i.e. make the purchaser believe they got better coverage. Probably the most famous example is hiding them from a target instead:

https://www.pajiba.com/celebrities_are_better_than_you/the-longrunning-feud-between-disney-and-robin-williams-that-grew-out-of-aladdin.php

[*] To be clearer, they == "poster campaigns", I have no idea about specific roles to say they = "Clear Channel" in examples of targeted/misleading campaigns.

If Ebert had died before Siskel, your comment would probably not be questioned. Ebert has a reputation now that did not exist throughout nearly the entirety of his career. His reputation was resurrected with his public battle with cancer in 2006. Before then he was this guy:

http://www.pajiba.com/videos/watch-roger-ebert-was-a-total-dick-to-gene-siskel.php

His personality kept at arms length throughout the 80's and 90's.

However when he could only speak through his writings, people saw some sparks of brilliance and began paying him attention. The bravery he showed by appearing at the Sundance Festival after losing his jaw was noticed. And over the last six years he has been recognized as last great critic.

Everything is relative. In my social circles virtually no one watches broadcast or cable TV any more. The ad industry relies on Neilsen ratings to say everything is wonderful in the world of passive consumption, but do you trust their stats?
http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/ineffective-nielsen-ratings-are-ruining-tv-and-no-one-cares.php
Your dismissive idea about not bothering to 'read a variety of garbage' implies you will only read rubber stamped, verified information. The question there, as we all seek versions of the truth, is who is doing the verifying and what is their agenda...
This is why the internet is such a wonderful thing, don't be fenced in by pre chewed and spun information...