TWIT: Does anyone care anymore?

How the mighty hath fallen...so to speak.

I don't watch TWIT much these days and when I do I'm frequently disappointed.  Which in itself is a surprise since I didn't think things could get any worse.  Looking at the holiday offerings this year for example was much like last year.  Just a bunch of "Best of's" which were compilations of anything but.  Where were the Holiday themed episodes?  The special round tables with the likes of John Hodgman and Jonanthan Coulton?  Where's the New Year's Special!

Oh yeah, Leo don't do that anymore...

Truth be told, the promise of the TWIT was always far more grand than the product delivered.  Big dreams, the resurgence of a 90's tech icon.  A network built on a small but vocal demographic of those for whom their mantra, their religion, their dearest wish was all things tech.

It wasn't a hard sell for devotees of the defunct TechTV ( formerly ZDTV) basic cable channel.  Leo Laporte was an affable "every-man" who just happened to have a silky smooth presentation and at least an idea of what he was talking about.  

You never saw him confuse a Hard Drive with a Video card.  He was someone you felt you could trust.  A family man, someone like you and me.  A trusted friend you drag along with you to CompUSA.

Yes, I'm dating myself but only in so much as the era where Laporte was relevant.


Now?

NotsoMuch...

A check of the current TWIT schedule reveals just how bad things really are.  Entire days of the calendar are blank with most having maybe 2 shows recording and of those only a few stalwart remnants of the near-glory of the network's past.

Nostalgia wasn't enough and even Laporte's attempt to rekindle the vibe of his TechTV days has fallen flat with the announced cancellation of "The New Screen Savers."  Gone as well are the Iyaz Akhtar created, Know How which in later years found itself increasingly squeezed to the margins and finally choked out of existence with the exit of replacement host Fr. Robert Ballacer.  

The good Father's charisma was the only thing keeping many shows afloat in the past few years as he played stand-in for Laporte and other popular (mostly departed) hosts.  His exit in June of 2018 might as well have been the death knell for the network with Laporte the only recognizable face left.  

Those that might have taken up the reigns and brought the network to the lofty heights envisioned by its founder like Sara Lane, Tom Merritt, Brian Brushwood and Shannon Morse now long since gone.  

Their content and audience driven programming replaced by bland, also-ran drivel only an advertiser could love.  

It's not unlike so many popular YouTube channels that now focus their content almost exclusively at the pleasure of their paid sponsorship.  Don't expect a sour word about a Geforce Card from a YouTuber with NVIDIA sponsorship for example. 

So it is with TWIT.  That which destroyed TECHTV has ultimately destroyed TWIT.  It is now an also-ran competing with YouTube channels produced in somebody's garage for the same advertiser dollars.  Laporte has admitted as much saying his reason for cancelling the New Screen Savers was he was trying to... 


"do a network television show on a podcaster’s budget."

And the now all too familiar excuse for any show's demise on TWIT....

“The New Screen Savers” just hasn’t developed a big enough audience to pay for itself.". (source)

Yes folks, that's an admission of what TWIT is today.  A lowly podcast channel with the overhead of a network broadcaster and every show under the gun to perform.  Or so we would be led to believe.

Yet by Laporte's own admission the network was pulling in 13 to 14 million a year (source) which far exceeds 99% of even the largest YouTube channel's revenue.  Apparently that's not enough as the studio moved to a smaller location in 2016 and has since axed or put on hiatus at least half a dozen shows.  

Still it seems there's never enough money for TWIT and every show has to carry it's own weight.  Yet inexplicably shows like Floss Weekly and Ham Nation continue unabated even though they cater to a subset of a niche at best.  

Meanwhile shows more in line with TWIT's general demographic like Coding 101, Know How, This Week In Law and Game On get the axe.

That pool of money is a lot more contentious than it used to be too.  In at least that much we can cut Laporte some slack for TWIT's failure.

TWIT is now competing for advertisers with those same YouTube channels (some led by former TWIT hosts) with far less lofty ideals but a far more consistent viewership. 

A quick peek at the ads you'll see on the average YouTube tech channel are also found on TWIT.  With most TWIT shows struggling to break into a 4 figure audience per episode no matter where you watch them (most are low 3 figure BTW) it's not TWIT dictating the terms anymore.  Advertisers can find far greener pastures elsewhere.

Let's also not forget that YouTube creators don't have the overhead of TWIT (maybe) and can survive on much thinner margins (definitely) while providing the same mediocre content. 

That said, none of the supposed financial strife at TWIT seems to have stopped Laporte and wife/[sic]CEO  from extravagances like month-long European vacations or purchases of luxury items like his Tesla Model X (source)

There was a time when Laporte chafed at the idea of TWIT as a podcast network.  Now, he clings to it for every bit of relevancy it can afford him.

And that aint much friends.

TWIT is now like a favorite TV series that over the years has replaced the entire cast and writing staff.  Nothing remains but the set pieces and it's just not enough.

TWIT isn't dead but it's been a slow roll down the slope to the graveyard and we're far closer than we've been before. 

Money

"Get a good job with more pay and you're OK"

That's what it's all about.

Money

Solver of all the tribulations of a civilization.

Fame, friends, flattery....

All bought with the stuff.

I lust after it too.  I need things otherwise out of reach without it.

Things needed to continue the chase for it.

I'm denied life in its absence.

I'm judged by my accumulation of it.

My happiness a function of it.

So wrong.

Not a tool, a master...

So many promises, so many possibilities, so easy for some.

Never easy for me.  

Sociopath, Greed, Selfishness,  all kindred to it.

Communist?  Hardly, the stench of the beast without benefit of the struggle.

But the struggle.

My value defined by it. 

My simple desires outstretched by the need to retain my soul.

My idealistic philosophy beaten down by its lack of a listing on the NYSE

Do your best and the rewards come naturally

Naive

The rewards come only to those undeserving, without conscience.

I've known rich people...They give nothing without a profit motive.

More is all that is enough.

Modest desires, modest means, meaningless dividends.

Altruism, humanity, love....

Stained with the prerequisite of liquidity.

Peace of mind never a reality.

Even those with more can never rest.

Those with less never rest for want of more.

My value my own.

Meaningless to the rest.

Something's wrong here.

Generosity of spirit subjugated by generosity of wallet.

That I had riches to transcend us above this petty thing of paper.

That I could bring joy without a profit/loss statement.

That I could be so right but so wrong to survive in this.

That you didn't mock me for the truth.

Money.

Money,

Chains of gold, Diamonds and excrement.

My freedom has a price, so does yours.

We, all of us, commodities...Human resources.

Denial of the truth only at a price.  

What's your soul worth.

Mine, whatever they pay by the hour.

Is this what God intended?

You say no but you can't deny the game all the same.

 

I hate stupid people....

Now before you run off and call me an elitist or a snob realize that I'm referring to those who continue to hold outdated and prejudicial views.  

Such as those that have a nasty habit of blaming the victim.

I've included just such an exchange with what I consider to be a charter member of the "stupid people" group.  The topic is predatory lending specifically as to how it relates to the 2008 financial crisis.  

What follows is the unedited exchange....

Stupid Person...

Dumb people making dumb decisions. They should have read the fine print. They should have a good job and a good set of skills so that if they lose their current job by no fault of their own they can find a new one without too much trouble. If you do not have at least these things, you should never consider taking on a mortgage. 

And yes it is shitty that banks gave these mortgages out anyway, but the information is not misleading. At the time of things like Fannie the fine print was still given to the buyer in full. While it may be legalese, that is what lawyers and accountants are for. The banks are happy to give you credit even if you won't pay, and they are perfectly happy to give you all the terms and conditions. There is no serious wrongdoing here except for the buyer being negligent.

Less Stupid Person ( ME ) ....

Thank you Bernie Madoff....

That's the "They deserved to be F'd because they're stupid argument" 

You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions there. Like assuming that everyone out of work or underemployed are stupid and lack skills. Never mind that many skilled and professional jobs have been shipped overseas leaving people with a whole lot of debt and nothing to replace the income. As for the fine print, you literally would have to have a Juris Doctorate degree to understand every term and condition. I suppose you read every word of every EULA you click "accept" to in that case. Good luck getting anything done. 

It's called predatory lending for a reason. There was a time when you could trust your banker, lawyer and even your doctor to do the right thing and give the right information. Now it's all about padding profit margins and when banks started using their deposits as gambling money on wall street speculation...well....all bets were off. You can't trust a banker any more than you can trust a used car salesman so whom are you supposed to seek guidance from? 

Do you think a 25K a year guy with a wife and 2 kids is going to be able to afford 300/hr for an attorney to look over every line of a mortgage? Most people were sold a bill of goods and they believed it because somebody told them that the "pros" would never lie to them. If it were just simple interest that's one thing but try to explain amortization and compounded interest to a bunch of people left behind by a public education system that barely teaches them to tie their shoes. 

In a culture of desperation it's easy to leave your skepticism behind when the "pros" are telling you otherwise. Your admonition of "good job and good set of skills" doesn't fly anymore and it hasn't for 30 years. You're assuming a level playing field and it's not. If you think it is, I've got a bridge to sell you in New York...

A tortured hour

It's 3:34 AM....

The house is dark but then the house is always dark to me even in the middle of the day.

It's hot, too hot.  The thermometer says it's 88 degrees outside but in here it's closer to 100.  Why? I can't afford to turn the AC on.  Such luxuries are for other people.

Madness! a Phoenix summer where the weatherman cheerily announces weeks of 110 degree plus days. No escape, no money for a reprieve from the heat.  No comforts...

Things haven't been so good.  The refrigerator's almost  always empty and what little is there provides meager nourishment for body or soul.  Everything around me seems somehow broken.  Things that should have long since been discarded forced past their prime, patched together and pressed back to service until they can finally give no more.

Broken...

For five years it's been a tough row to hoe.  It's never been easy but this time it's harder.  I know, it's been that way for many but I'm most familiar with my own tribulations.  

Excuse the pain if you've heard it before...

It's the kind of thing that makes you hate television, especially the commercials.  Constant nagging about things nobody really cares about all with the promise of taking your woes away...for a price.

A price I can no longer afford which makes me hate them even more.  It's like being mocked, the proverbial carrot inevitably followed by the stick.  I don't hate them for selling their wares; I hate them for the assumption that I don't know any better.

Buy this car and save money on gas, Enroll in that diploma mill and have a brighter future.  Neither is true and I've got close to 100K of debt to prove it with nothing to show but the collection letters.  The worst part, they sell a lifestyle with expensive trappings but little meaning.

When did becoming a member of the middle class become a lifelong aspiration?  When did simple civilized survival become a goal?

It's 3:44 AM...

Something's rattling on the car, I know what it is, I know every sound it can make but all I can do is hope that it remains little more than an audible annoyance...

Comfort is a luxury.  There is no peace in my surroundings or my soul. 

Middle aged, underestimated, dismissed, hopeless but still defiant!

Pull myself up by the bootstraps!  But I have no boots...

Never cared for that analogy anyway.  It's a fallacy perpetrated by those who never knew the predicament.

Opportunity is made not found but opportunity doesn't happen in a vacuum but lately it seems I do.

Whose fault?  Mine I suppose.  But then far more worthy than I have a similar tale.  We can't all be wrong.

What can I do?  For myself, I'll try anything that doesn't risk the little that remains.  Is it enough?

Time will tell, but do I have the time? 

It's 4:00AM

Do something, do anything.  Unbridled ambition thwarted by petty finances.  Do I believe in myself? Am I all that I thought I once was?

Not a high bar, humility or more appropriately the edge of self-loathing has always been a companion.  Ego and hubris have no place.  But neither did confidence.  I rarely win so I refuse the gamble.

This isn't the life I planned or should I say any of the lives I've planned.  I've started over so many times but always end up in the same place. 

Here...

Keep trying, keep striving all the time fearful of losing the little bit I have left even if I hate the prison it creates.

Do I have time to try again?

It's 4:16AM

Damn! it's hot in here.  The winters are better but I still can't afford the heat.  I sit in the remains of my chair, it too is broken, drenched in my own filthy perspiration the only comfort being the memory of it that will come when I can see my breath waking on some January morning.

Not defeated, not giving up but lost.

How do I move forward?  What's the key? 

4:23 AM

Recruiters, agencies, headhunters.  Hardly better than TV commercials.  Promises not kept, selling a bill of goods only for their own ends.  The product doesn't match the consumer, no sale.

Still I try, find the needle, ignore the haystack...

My own pursuits?  On virtue success, on paper, failure. 

I never wanted to do anything that didn't matter to someone.  It seems that's a dying...virtue.

It's 4:24 AM

Everything still seems broken.  I look around me and see so much that could be done.  I want to fix it, I want to fix me...

I'm not in a vacuum. Others suffer for my affliction.  I want to fix that too.

Keep trying, keep looking, deny the doubt...

Fix it...

It's 4:34AM

If you're paying a subscription you're not buying "Art"

A guy's gotta eat right?

I've noticed an annoying trend over the past few years.  It seems like everywhere I turn on the Internet there's a hand out.   I get that somebody's got to pay for all this stuff but when it comes to online, we're paying too much.

Either you've got a pay wall in your face when you try to consume content or you're constantly getting pitched an "upgrade."

If I go to the online version of a local newspaper more often than not I'm greeted with a demand to purchase a subscription to see their content.  Yeah, I know, newspapers have it rough these days what with all those tablets and smartphones floating around.  At some point, however, I start to question their value when they want me to pay for the same dubious content I can find in the average blog post.  (of course I exclude myself...tee hee hee)  

For example, my local paper's online extension AZCentral.com now requires a paid subscription to access more than a few articles on the web.

In the old days I could just pick up a paper when I wanted it or suffer a few ads to read the same content online.  I didn't have to take out a subscription to get today's hot news story or have a pile of wasted newsprint lying around in the corner of my house. 

Now I have to pay not only for that story but the digital equivalent of the clutter than comes with it.  You just know that the minute you sign up your inbox is going to be flooded with pointless garbage until you turn it off in your subscriber "Profile."

So why did all this happen?  Why does it seem that every digital highway now has a toll booth? 

The claim is that the ad-supported media model has failed with the rise of the Internet.  Advertisers have too many choices for their ad dollars these days and have to spread it around to get their pitch across.  That means declining revenue for traditional media sources or so they claim. 

It's the justification behind the rise of "premium" services like Hulu, Pandora and even TWITCH.TV some of which still show ads even with a paid subscription.  Yes there are free levels of these services but they're usually a shadow of their premium counterparts and cluttered with intrusive ads.

The latest entry into the subscription model is Jay-Z's new "premium" music service, Tidal.  It's claiming CD quality audio over the Internet and exclusive artist tracks to subscribers.   There's no pretense here.  The service unabashedly demands a minimum of $9.99 per month for access to a glorified Internet radio station.  The argument being, " We're not for everybody."  Meaning people who pay are somehow of a different caliber than all of those poor people. 

Classic marketing trick.  Buy your way into the "in crowd." 

The simple premise of the service (minus the marketing fluff) is that starving recording artists (like Jay-Z and Madonna) can make more money and subscribers can get an exclusive experience with premium-only content. 

Hmmm, The last I checked Madonna wasn't eating out of garbage cans and Jay-Z could use $100 bills to wipe his ass with reckless abandon.

Ok, here's where this crap has to stop...

At what point do we just admit that the whole "artist" thing has gone off the rails.  Hey, I firmly believe that you have a right to make a living off of doing what you're best at.   You do not, however, have a right to fleece me to pay for a new coat of paint on your private jet by offering me the artistic equivalent of post-it notes.

And what about all those "little" people like the engineers, producers and song writers?  You can bet Madonna and Jay-Z aren't hammering out hits in their back bedroom with an IPad and some old amp.  C'mon now, someone has to make those middle-aged fading vocals sound passable.  

One thing is for sure.  The people that make these "artists" sound good aren't flying First Class.

But we must protect those poor, suffering "artists." 

In a country where the top 20% of the population controls 85% of the money, you can't sell me on how my $10 a month to Tidal is helping Main Street. It is, however, keeping Easy Street paved with gold.

The problem with the current definition of "Artist" is that it's intermingled with the "business" of art.  It's all about the money and somehow having one hit song on ITunes entitles you to a lifetime of privileged status.

When art becomes business then the result of all those "artistic" efforts is nothing more than a "product."  Mass produced, packaged and disposable.

Art was never meant to be a commodity.  It was meant to be an expression with its primary reward being the appreciation of the work itself.  The great societies of Greece and Rome recognized this and while they may have "commissioned" great works of art, they were never meant for resale.  Rather the intent was meant to enrich a culture and advance a society. 

I can guarantee Krewella will never do either of those things...

In the context of what Jay-Z considers to be "Art" (aka: products)  the great works of a Michelangelo or Beethoven would be held in the same light as a toddler banging on pots while scribbling on the wall with a crayon.  All of which would be behind a pay wall.

In that light, today's popular "artists" are frauds.  They produce commodities for no purpose but their own gain regardless of claims to the contrary.

Art is meant to be shared freely and has no intrinsic value in a vacuum or behind a toll booth.  Which means what Jay-Z and ITunes sell is not art, it's a product and products don't deserve such exalted status.

Real art is only sold once in awhile with its value dependent on a market's interest in that unique article.  Copies, on the other hand, are sold in the millions and their value reflects their status. (aka: fake)

When you pay for streaming content or a newspaper article online with anything but a few seconds to watch an ad you're attributing excess value to fake product.

Would you pay millions for a Van Gogh knockoff? 

Then why would you pay full price for access to the online equivalent of a Redbox rental?   Does anything available on Tidal really rise to the level of being art?  How exclusive can a work be if it's distributed like a magazine subscription?

I'll answer that, it's not.  Art is given freely, products are sold.

So if popularity isn't enough to bring adequate compensation for your (product) efforts then maybe it's time to look at who's got their hand in your pocket.  That or you just suck...

I know, for example, that for all the ads that run on my YouTube videos I make the princely sum of .001 per view on average. 

But then I create content, not "Art" and the market (and YouTube) decides the worth of my "product."

TWIT: Why I bother

After I wrote my last article about TWIT's latest round of upheavals I found myself pondering why it was that I bothered to pay so much attention to a tiny podcast network.

Others have wondered as well...

Hell, I even wonder at times but I think I have an answer.  So let this article serve as my explanation to anyone that questions my motives. 

Some might call the articles I write about TWIT as nothing more than trolling hit pieces born from some beef I have with Leo Laporte.  

And you would be wrong...  

Trolls only seek to garner attention to themselves at the expense of their 

target.  I don't seek a target, I have a vested interest.  One that may surprise you.

You see, I want TWIT to succeed.

Unlike the Revision 3 and 5 by 5's of the world, TWIT is not just another podcast portal with prerecorded content waiting to be pulled off some virtual bookshelf.  It's a living, breathing entity 24/7 that allows its viewers free access to not only relevant content but a chance to peek behind the curtains of an emerging broadcast medium.

Which is something most podcast aggregators don't do.  There's no life to their offerings, just a jukebox carousel of pre-packaged content. 

TWIT was something different.  It's the lovechild of Leo Laporte and TechTV both of which I was an avid fan.  Yes there were reruns but there was also live programming and interactivity with the hosts not to mention the opportunity to see what magic the Wizard (Laporte) was crafting behind the scenes.

This was the prototype for what Internet broadcasting should be.  Viewer driven, dynamic, interactive and compelling. 

It was the kind of programming that you could leave on all day in the background if you wanted to.  No playlists, no stale overproduced content, no empty headed "spokesmodels" that wouldn't know the difference between a smart cache and a Smart car...

But beginning around the early part of 2012 just after the move to TWIT's new studio, the Brick House, things started to change.  There was an increasing emphasis on even long running shows to be profitable.  

While there's no denying that someone has to pay the bills the content began to suffer as ever more ads crept in and Laporte took a less central role.  With no heir apparent to TWIT, leadership flounders and content frequently takes a back seat to the "business" of TWIT.   All the time never realizing that the focus on ad revenue is killing the soul of the network.

So why do I care? 

Because an opportunity is slipping away due to greed, hubris and indifference.  It's not so much about Laporte, TWIT or even any of the shows so much as the impending failure of an experiment that should otherwise succeed.

TWIT is the prototype for online media in a way that CNET could only dream of being.  It's the only option poised to challenge traditional and new media outlets.  If it fails it's unlikely that we'll see it's kind again and frankly there's no good reason for it.  The network continues to shoot itself in the foot and become less relevant by the day as both talent and content migrate to greener pastures.  The only response, to continue the slow slide into oblivion with denial and delusion. 

TWIT is repeating the history of its ancestor in spite of claims to the contrary.  What began as the offspring of TechTV is dangerously close to meeting the fate of G4. 

I'd rather not write its epitaph.

That's why I care.

Financing Education, another mortgage crisis in the making?

Originally published on Technorati as Financing Education, Another Mortgage Crisis in the Making

Every once in awhile you see an article come up about Federal Student Loan programs and this week I saw two.

Reuters published an article a few days ago suggesting some fuzzy math by FinAid.org's Mark Kantrowitz concerning the nation's total student loan debt. It suggested that Kantrowitz may have overstated the number and was actually more like 610 to 800 Billion dollars. Not quite the 1 trillion dollar number being bandied about but historically large nonetheless.

On the political side Ron Paul (Republican candidate for president) in an interview on Sunday's (10/23/2011) Meet the Press on NBC said, "he'd kill the loan program eventually if he were president". His comments were framed in the context of higher education costs being inflated by government intervention.

While it's refreshing that the magnitude of the problem is coming to light, I've yet to see any real action to change it. Last year as part of President Obama's health care reform act, new student loans were going to be directly administered by the federal government. The goal was to eliminate the loan servicers who are in effect the middlemen of the student loan industry. Their function was to handle the administrative aspects of the Federal student loan programs adding fees and costs to the borrowers total indebtedness as well as to the Federal government.

While a welcome change, the legislation did virtually nothing for current loans. Student loan servicers haven't gone anywhere and as student debt grows it's a sure bet that a portion of that increase can be attributed directly to fees and gaming of the system by both schools and loan servicers.

The issue is that this isn't a fair game; in fact it's got worse odds than a Vegas slot machine. As I look at the overall condition of the economy it's not a stretch to believe that default on student loans is going to be the next financial bubble to collapse taking the government backed student loan program with it as well as the banks participating in it.

The Federal student loan programs were meant to give an opportunity to those who'd otherwise not have it. At its core it was meant to back education loans made by private banks with federal money virtually eliminating any risk of non-payment to the bank.

Let's make this point crystal clear. The bank that loaned you the money is at absolutely no risk of default from giving you a student loan. That's why you almost never had to produce a credit report or collateralize the loan. The Federal government in essence vouched for you.

Of course as it is with most government programs without adequate oversight things eventually went wrong. Private Schools and profiteering middlemen (loan servicers) have been able to game the system with increasing tuition rates and complex loan terms. Banks frequently bundle and sell student loans using the loan servicer as a kind of broker. In my own experience, my student loans have been serviced by two servicers and owned by at least 4 different banks since their origination.
Sound familiar? It should. It's not unlike the packaging and reselling of mortgages or the operation of the derivatives market.

The school's role in this has been to; increase tuition, raise the number of required "filler" classes unrelated to the degree program and in the most egregious cases direct their financial aid departments to promote programs more favorable to their relationship with preferred lenders.

It's easy to say "Caveat Emptor" but then how many of us really understand the terms of our loan agreements or their connection to the financial markets that have corrupted the process.

Once you're in the system you do have certain benefits from having a government backed student loan such as the ability to defer payments due to unemployment or disability. The down side is that you suffer the penalty of "capitalized interest" each time you need to defer a loan payment. Your entire balance is recalculated to encompass the unpaid interest into the principal. Over the life of a loan that can mean as much as an extra 10% to the original principal. Add in the standard 3% to 8% standard interest on the loan and you can quickly find yourself digging an ever deeper financial hole.

With more of us barely getting by, exercising options such as loan consolidation, payment deferment or both becomes more likely. Consolidation can lower payments but your term extends indefinitely. This makes it harder to pay down the principal since the amortization schedule becomes a moving target.

 Most consolidation and income sensitive repayment programs try to front load the loan so that only interest is being paid for most of the loan's life with principal payments only applied much further down the line.

This sounds familiar as well, it's not unlike like the interest only mortgages being written before 2008.

There's no end to the traps a borrower can fall into and I won't even get into the dire consequences of default on a student loan. While recent changes help new borrowers, something needs to be done for those already encumbered by a corrupt system.

I'd suggest that after 10 years of repayment history that no more interest can be charged and all payments go directly to the principle balance of the loan. I'd also outlaw capitalized interest as it's a hidden extra cost which is unjustifiable due to the simple fact that the lender still receives interest payments and has no risk. I understand fees to offset risk and that's fair. A government backed loan offers no risk which raises such fees and practices to the level of extortion.

Regardless of who's talking point it is, nothing real has been done for those truly affected. Until it is nothing being said has worth outside of today's 30 second sound bite