The Washington Post
Traditional television watching is declining faster than ever as streaming services become a mainstream feature in American homes, according to new research by Nielsen.
Adults watched an average of four hours and 51 minutes of live TV each day in the fourth quarter of 2014, down 13 minutes from the same quarter of 2013, according to Nielsen’s fourth-quarter 2014 Total Audience Report. Viewing was down six minutes between the fourth quarter of 2013 and 2012. And between 2012 and 2011, viewing time actually increased for live TV.
At the same time, more homes turned to online video, with 40 percent of U.S. homes subscribing to a streaming service such as Netflix, Amazon Instant Video or Hulu compared with 36 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013, according to Nielsen. Netflix is by far the most popular streaming service, in 36 percent of all U.S. homes, and Amazon Instant Video is in 13 percent of homes.
The trends have rattled the entertainment industry, with broadcast and cable networks scrambling to take on new competitors on the Web. Cable networks have seen steep ratings declines, which got much worse in the last six months of 2014. Cable ratings among adults fell 9 percent in 2014, three times the rate of decline over 2013, according to Michael Nathanson, an analyst at Moffett Nathanson research.
“It’s hard to ignore our belief that technology is disrupting viewer consumption of linear network programming,” Nathanson wrote in a recent research note.
In response, companies such as HBO, NBC and CBS are launching their own streaming services. The moves could unleash a fast demise of the cable and satellite industries that have fed TV networks with licensing fees.
Television is still king, with viewers of all ages getting the vast majority of their video entertainment and news from live programs and using time-shifted services such as DVRs. But even older viewers — the stalwarts of traditional TV — are spending less time watching live TV and programs saved on DVRs.
Between 2012 and 2014, viewers ages 50 through 64 watched one hour and 12 minutes less of traditional TV each week; they increased viewing of videos over the Internet by 22 minutes. Viewers ages 35 through 49 watched two hours and five minutes less of traditional TV each week and increased viewing of online videos by 35 minutes.
Senator Lankford’s Office
Senator James Lankford (R-OK) released the following statement on the Western District of Oklahoma dismissal of the case involving a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol:
“I’m pleased that Judge Cauthron and the court confirmed what is obvious to Oklahomans – that the Ten Commandments is a vital part of Oklahoma and American history. The Oklahoma State Capitol display of the Ten Commandments is a reasonable recognition of its significance to the fabric of our nation.
“Every day a sculpture of the face of Moses overlooks the House of Representatives as Congress debates the laws of this land. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the Constitution doesn’t require that such displays honoring our historic roots be removed from society, as doing so would ‘sever ties to a history that sustains this Nation’.”
Lankford is Co-Chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, which works to protect the fundamental human right of religious freedom and guards the right of individuals to pray and practice their faith freely.
Attorney General’s Office
Attorney General Scott Pruitt on Tuesday announced Oklahoma’s victory in a lawsuit challenging a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol.
“This is another victory for the State of Oklahoma and one more affirmation that the Ten Commandments monument can remain on display at our State Capitol,” Pruitt said. “The historical relevance of the Ten Commandments and the role it played in the founding of our nation cannot be disputed. I commend Judge Cauthron’s decision to rule in the state’s favor.”
The Honorable Robin J. Cauthron sitting in the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed the case brought by American Atheists, Inc. Oklahoma had filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that their challenge lacked merit.
In September, an Oklahoma County judge also ruled in the state’s favor in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU.
In the last 24 hours or so a lot has been written & reported locally and nationally on the OU Sigma Alpha Epsilon video. I offer these random thoughts.
1. I’ve read a couple of comments from people stating the University should not take action against “Protected Speech”.
2. It’s true that we each have a right to freely express ourselves. However, “protected speech” does not “protect” us from the consequences of the actions we make…no matter how “protected” those actions may be. With “Rights” comes “Responsibilities” and with “Responsibilities” comes “Repercussions” for how we choose to use or misuse those “Rights”.
3. Leadership is not about measuring the “political fallout” prior to doing what is right.
4. Congratulations to the National Office of SAE for shutting down the OU chapter within hours of the viral video making national news. The fraternity members may have had the right to freedom of speech, but their use of that freedom reflected poorly on the private organization they represented. The national headquarters didn’t hide behind protecting the “Brothers”. Instead they chose to protect their “Brotherhood” by showing the integrity and respect they have for their organization.
5. Thank you President David Boren for your quick and clear denouncement of the actions and immediately taking control of the situation. The potential fallout in this controversy was mitigated by real executive leadership.
6. At some point, the names of these young men will make it into the public domain. They will live with the consequences of their actions for years to come. Ten years from now a simple Google search will reveal to potential employers the history of the job candidate they have in front of them. They will live with their decision on a stupid little “chant” for decades to come.
7. One of the greatest lessons that will be lost on many is that the video was shot by either a fraternity brother or a date. Always remember that the most embarrassing moments of our lives can only be recorded by those to whom we feel close. Your enemies won’t record the video, you wouldn’t let them near you when you’re behaving in a way you would never want the world to see.
8. Sometimes we find ourselves surrounded by people we like only to discover their behavior mortifies us. It’s time to make new friends.
9. There is part of me that wants to believe that this was all just some sort of sophomoric moronic attempt to be funny. It’s not. It’s sad. It’s embarrassing. It reinforces the worst in all of us.
10. It’s clear that racism exists even in 2015. There’s no doubt that things are better today than they were 50 years ago. But, on the Golden Anniversary of the March from Selma to Montgomery we should not allow the actions of 18-22 year olds to define the beliefs of an entire state. We are better than this.
11. We simply must use this embarrassment for our state to teach our children and grandchildren the value of others. The sanctity of lives…all lives. The ability to respect those different than ourselves.
12. Regardless of our Race we must take a moment from examining the actions of college students and reflect upon what is inside each of us. The parts of ourselves a video will never be able to see. Whether White, Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Asian, or any other ethnic background you may come from, racism and prejudice can exist in your heart and mind…even if you never take an action like we are discussing. In our effort to figure out why college students could possibly act this way, I hope our judgement begins with ourselves. Within each of us is the first and, many times, the only place where change can begin. In your thoughts on the actions of others, look inside yourself first.
Rep. Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma City) released the following statement today regarding House Bill 1597:
“After further consideration, I have decided to withdraw House Bill 1597, known as ‘The Business Protection Act.’ The bill as introduced did not accomplish my desired purpose.
“Across the country, business owners are being sued by individuals who are asking the owner to perform a service or provide a product that is contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs. When these business owners have refused because of conscience, they were then sued having to face legal battles that resulted in their losing their business and even facing jail. I wanted a tort bill that limited damages between the business owner and the customer ensuring that the business owner would not lose their livelihood.
“I will support the efforts of my colleagues who have introduced bills that do what I intended. I will work with the governor, the speaker of the House and Senate pro tempore to protect the business interests of our state so that all our citizens who take the risk of opening a business can prosper and thrive.”
Jonathan Small & Senator Ervin Yen
Many policy issues will be considered by the Legislature during the 2015 session. No doubt health care will be a topic of discussion. As health care costs continue to grow and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) changes how people get medical care, everyone’s looking for policy reforms and innovations that can make acquiring high-quality health care a reality for more people.
While opinions on health care and the ACA differ, common-sense solutions should be supported. Health care policy reforms must be pursued. Many patients, doctors, employers and providers feel overwhelmed by the current system. Doctors and patients often express that they feel as if they’re just a number and not a name. They feel that in the typical health care model, costs continue to rise with no end in sight. They often feel that the health care system inappropriately at times involves a bureaucracy or a middleman that makes getting services needlessly complex and expensive.
Oklahoma is getting national attention for the growth of direct care arrangements. Direct care arrangements between doctors, patients and employers work similarly to many services consumers buy. In a direct care arrangement, the doctor provides a prospective patient with a set fee for monthly services or a one-time fee for a specific procedure. Doctors across the nation now offer family and primary care services for less than the cost of a phone bill per month and provide excellent care.
For one-time surgical procedures, direct care arrangements make the experience for the patient, doctor (and often the paying employer) more efficient, at a lower cost with higher quality.
Direct care arrangements are resulting in patients being able to trust that they’ll be affordably cared for, not just “covered.” Direct care arrangements facilitate and expand something patients and doctors both long for — a direct relationship with a doctor. Direct care arrangements provide affordable options with predictable costs. These arrangements often make the process of acquiring health care a simple and manageable experience, even removing inappropriate bureaucracy and the middleman when a go-between isn’t necessary.
Direct care arrangements also are freeing patients and even employers to better allocate resources for health insurance, stabilizing costs and letting consumers use health insurance when more appropriate or needed.
Given these outcomes, direct care arrangements should be encouraged. But some are attacking the patient-doctor relationship, asserting that direct care arrangements should be regulated by state insurance departments. This is absurd. Citizens are free to buy multiple goods and services without such exchanges being deemed as “insurance.” The direct purchase of medical services and products should be no different.
To protect the rights of doctors, patients, employers and other providers, lawmakers should provide statutory protections against direct care arrangements being deemed insurance. Let’s make sure Oklahomans are affordably cared for, not just “covered.
Yen, a cardiac anesthesiologist, represents District 40 in the Oklahoma Senate. He is a Republican. Small is executive vice president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, a free-market think tank (www.ocpathink.org).
Mike McCarville’s Opinion
Which is the more disappointing: Rep. Sally Kern’s outrageous bill, or Governor Fallin’s weak-kneed response to it?
Kern’s bill would allow restaurants to refuse to allow service to gays and lesbians just because they are…gay and lesbian.
House Bill 1597 would allow businesses to refuse service “to any lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender person, group or association,” and be immune from civil liability. I guess it could be worse; it could say “to any black (or Jewish, or Catholic, or Gypsy) lesbian….”
Regular readers will know I am no advocate of the alternative life style.
They also know, I hope, that unfairness or the perception of it drives me nuts. As in unequal pay for women. As in stupid administrative rules in our schools. As in discrimination against those of color or ethnicity.
I have no doubt of Sally Kern’s devotion to the country, nor the depth of her beliefs.
This proposal, however, is one that stinks; it is something one might expect in Nazi Germany. Oh…it did happen there, didn’t it?
Enough of the hate, Rep. Kern.
Her proposal should be given the heave-ho, and by her. Now.
As to the governor’s refusal to give an opinion…not the stance of a strong leader. Disappointing, the act of a person without a strong backbone, or a sense of outrage.