Fenway
01-29-2006, 02:00 PM
I as a rule despise Dan Shaughnessy but this morning in the Boston Sunday Globe he went after Red Sox ownership after they announced there will be no more local free television of Red Sox games. ( trust me if Boston pulls this off it will start happening elsewhere ) When this was first announced 2 weeks ago the Red Sox tried to claim it was because WSBK is transmitted into Canada and they were unable to blackout the signal outside Boston. ( it is true that WSBK does not have the power to stop the satellite feed )
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2006/01/29/for_unlucky_ones_sox_out_of_sight/?page=full (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2006/01/29/for_unlucky_ones_sox_out_of_sight/?page=full)
By Dan Shaughnessy, Globe columnist | January 29, 2006
It was an announcement that barely got anyone's attention. A couple of weeks back, the Red Sox and NESN declared the end of their Friday night relationship with Channel 38, committing all locally televised Red Sox games to pay cable.
But what has enraged callers to WEEI and the message boards is how one of the Red Sox owners was quoted.
Tom Werner, one of the Red Sox owners -- and the man who oversees the television arm of the organization -- said, ''We don't want to exclude people who can't afford cable, but we don't want to give free tickets to people, either. We have to balance that concern. Ninety-five percent of people in Boston have cable."
Reminded that this decision might have a significant impact in minority communities, Werner said, ''We have outreach programs. We want to bring more Hispanics and African-Americans to Fenway Park. And remember, there are still a handful of [Fox] games over the air."
''I don't want you to portray me as insensitive," Werner continued. ''I am sensitive. But this is a business decision. And in our desire to remain competitive, we support Sean's decision. We think it's the right thing to do. We'll review the decision in a few years and see if it makes sense."
OK so what is the big deal? Well for people on a fixed income ( especially elders ) it means they are shut out completly and that is simply wrong. According to Scarborough Research, there are 589,635 adults in the Boston market (Eastern Massachusetts from the Cape to Southern New Hampshire and as far west as Worcester) without cable or satellite television. More than 20 percent of the non-cable population is nonwhite and 51.8 percent is made up of households earning less than $50,000. Nineteen percent of the non-cable/satellite people are over 65.
This quote breaks my heart.
Eileen O'Brien, director of the Elders Living at Home Program at Boston Medical Center, said, ''I know people who really look forward to that Friday night game. One of my neighbors is a man who's 75 years old and that's the only way he gets to watch the Red Sox. He won't be able to see any games.
''This is obviously cutting off some of the people who are their oldest and most dedicated fans. We tend to think that everybody has cable but if your fixed income is 500 bucks a month, that's still out of your reach. And some of those people, in some ways, need the Red Sox more than anybody."
I know some people who live in senior housing and because the buildings are concrete the only way to even get the broadcast stations is to pay Comcast $9 a month. Many of these people simply can not afford basic cable which is now at $52.
Selig and MLB insure that all playoff games on ESPN are televised in the home market on "free tv". Is it not asking too much to have him order teams to provide a "limited" number of games on free tv?
I am really angry about this, even Steinbrenner wouldn't go this low.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2006/01/29/for_unlucky_ones_sox_out_of_sight/?page=full (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2006/01/29/for_unlucky_ones_sox_out_of_sight/?page=full)
By Dan Shaughnessy, Globe columnist | January 29, 2006
It was an announcement that barely got anyone's attention. A couple of weeks back, the Red Sox and NESN declared the end of their Friday night relationship with Channel 38, committing all locally televised Red Sox games to pay cable.
But what has enraged callers to WEEI and the message boards is how one of the Red Sox owners was quoted.
Tom Werner, one of the Red Sox owners -- and the man who oversees the television arm of the organization -- said, ''We don't want to exclude people who can't afford cable, but we don't want to give free tickets to people, either. We have to balance that concern. Ninety-five percent of people in Boston have cable."
Reminded that this decision might have a significant impact in minority communities, Werner said, ''We have outreach programs. We want to bring more Hispanics and African-Americans to Fenway Park. And remember, there are still a handful of [Fox] games over the air."
''I don't want you to portray me as insensitive," Werner continued. ''I am sensitive. But this is a business decision. And in our desire to remain competitive, we support Sean's decision. We think it's the right thing to do. We'll review the decision in a few years and see if it makes sense."
OK so what is the big deal? Well for people on a fixed income ( especially elders ) it means they are shut out completly and that is simply wrong. According to Scarborough Research, there are 589,635 adults in the Boston market (Eastern Massachusetts from the Cape to Southern New Hampshire and as far west as Worcester) without cable or satellite television. More than 20 percent of the non-cable population is nonwhite and 51.8 percent is made up of households earning less than $50,000. Nineteen percent of the non-cable/satellite people are over 65.
This quote breaks my heart.
Eileen O'Brien, director of the Elders Living at Home Program at Boston Medical Center, said, ''I know people who really look forward to that Friday night game. One of my neighbors is a man who's 75 years old and that's the only way he gets to watch the Red Sox. He won't be able to see any games.
''This is obviously cutting off some of the people who are their oldest and most dedicated fans. We tend to think that everybody has cable but if your fixed income is 500 bucks a month, that's still out of your reach. And some of those people, in some ways, need the Red Sox more than anybody."
I know some people who live in senior housing and because the buildings are concrete the only way to even get the broadcast stations is to pay Comcast $9 a month. Many of these people simply can not afford basic cable which is now at $52.
Selig and MLB insure that all playoff games on ESPN are televised in the home market on "free tv". Is it not asking too much to have him order teams to provide a "limited" number of games on free tv?
I am really angry about this, even Steinbrenner wouldn't go this low.