Wow, Piers Morgan was upset that the Grammys weren't carried live on the West Coast.

Imagine how well the telecast — the most-watched edition in 28 years, with nearly 40 million viewers — would have done if CBS had made the CNN host happy.

There's a tendency to get a little carried away with terms like the "social media elite," which New York Times media reporter Brian Stelter referenced in a post about the supposed backlash against the network for not airing the show live across the country. Stelter proceeded to quote random Twitter users venting about the situation, a tactic which has replaced going out to the Sherman Oaks Galleria and finding someone to complain about, well, pretty much anything. With enough time, you can find at least one guy who'll argue Bigfoot is here and being hidden from us by the government, and it's equally valid in the bigger scheme of things.

Now, I don't doubt for a second some people were ticked off about the Grammys being delayed, although frankly, it's hard to think of an award show where the actual winners mean less, with Grammy presentations having been all but eliminated from the telecast. With the emphasis on the performances, people have less reason to worry about tuning in late knowing in advance whether Adele was honored.

The bottom line is you can go on Twitter and find people who will support just about any premise you want to advance. Journalistically speaking, it's lazy, and not particularly representative. And based on the ratings for the telecast — inflated, obviously, by factors like Whitney Houston's death — it meant even less once the Nielsens rolled in.

So if I were scoring the outcome at home, I'd have to call this one traditional network, 1; social media elite, 0.

Filed Under:

Follow @Variety on Twitter for breaking news, reviews and more
Post A Comment 0