Detroit: Why Print?

In an effort to save paper and money the company has been asking us to cut back on printing documents. They've even plastered posters around the office that read "Why Print?"

Every time I see one the same question flashes across my mind:

Do they mean the verb or the medium?

If you guys needed any further confirmation of Nelson Muntz' proclamation about my ink-stained business, check out what's happening in Detroit.

That's right. No home delivery Monday through Wednesday, or on Saturday, but online "delivery" daily for those who subscribe.

If you work in this business (and I'm saying a quick prayer for you if you do), then you probably heard rumours about similar moves from different papers across the country. Late last week folks were telling me that the Tampa Tribune would publish online during the week and only print a paper on weekends.

Turns out it's not true, but the changes in Detroit are real and they're coming this spring.

Still not sure how I feel about them.

It stinks to see the Detroit Newspaper Agency (the company that runs the Detroit News and the Freep) lose nine percent of its staff, but those job losses seem modest compared with what's happening elsewhere in that city and in this industry.

I'm still ambivalent about this one.

WHAT I LIKE ABOUT IT.....

Balls.

I have to applaud the folks in Detroit for making a bold move in the face of sliding circulation and slumping revenue. In this situation most newspapers choose one of two options:

They do nothing and go broke, or they cannibalize the product -- cutting staff, cutting budgets, cutting pages -- until they have a half-ass paper nobody wants to pay for anymore.

And they go broke.

There's still a very good chance the News and the Freep will go broke with this plan, but at least they've got one. We'll see in the spring whether they actually intend to enhance their digital coverage and make more of it available to subscribers, but I like that they're actually offering readers an alternative instead of simply gutting the print product while still asking us to pay full price for it.

And they're the first to do it.

That takes huevos.

STILL, I QUESTION

This reliance on the Internet to generate revenue when we still haven't figured out if the Internet will ever generate big revenue for newspapers.

I ALSO QUESTION

The dramatic cutback in circulation when after a quick chat I just had with someone who gets paid to worry about this stuff I learned that circulation (meaning putting newspapers in peoples hands) still brings in money. Clearly in an area as sprawling as Metro Detroit the cost of delivering those papers can skyrocket, and paper and ink are always expensive. But at this point do the avoided costs justify the lost revenue.

I don't know.

Admittedly, I'm not a math whiz. I got an A in the only college math class I ever took, but mainly because my homeboy's girlfriend (now wife) was a math major and "helped" me through all my take-home quizzes.

Still, I just don't know if the numbers will add up.

AND I'M SKEPTICAL ABOUT...

Detroit.

Don't misunderstand me. I love 313. Even interned there straight out of the U.

Detroit News.

In the summer of Eminem I was the only guy in the mainstream media writing about Slum Village. I ate at the IHOP on Jefferson and at Pizzapapalis in Greektown, and rode the slide on Belle Isle.

I love Detroit, even despite the steam that seeps out from every manhole cover, giving the city after dark a creepy, Gotham-esque feel.

But I'm struggling to see how this model works in that city.

I understand that both papers plan to print seven days a week, and both will be on sale at newsstands and convenience stores on days they don't deliver. And I can see a company still selling a lot of papers in a place like New York or Toronto, where you might pass a newsstand on while walking to the subway.

It's even better if, as I suggested last time, you can use public transit as a de facto delivery system, allowing commuters to pollinate the city with your paper.

But there is no train for commuters in Detroit.

Yes, I know all about the People Mover and I repeat, there is no train for commuters in Detroit.

Down there, everybody drives everywhere.

What are the chances that all these folks who no longer receive the paper at home will remember to buy one on their way to work?

About as slim as a newspaper's profit margin, I'd say.

So unless all these people are receiving and reading the online product, you wind up with a lot fewer eyeballs on your paper every day.

I'm sure advertisers will love that.

BUT...

Like everyone else with a stake in this industry, I'm waiting to see what happens in 313. If it's halfway successful, look for the model to spread to other markets.

And if it flops, who cares?

The medium's dying anyway, right?

Spring Training

Ever since I announced on this blog that I'd be covering Major League Baseball in 2009, I know all four of my fans have been eager for me to release the details of my travel schedule.

Relax, mom and sisters. I'll see you guys this weekend, since I'm always in your town.

That leaves one reader, whoever you are. 

For the next two months I'll be right here in the Toronto area, doing whatever sportswriters do when they're not at work -- mostly thinking about what I'll do when I return to work, while dodging phone calls from work.

After that, I head to spring training to cover the world famous Toronto Blue Jays.

I arrive Feb. 18 and stay till March 12. Then it's back to the newsroom for two weeks before I head back for the final week of spring training, March 28 to April 5.

The Jays train in Dunedin, which is the hometown of the most famous short guy in the history of Toronto sports, former Argonauts player and coach Michael "Pinball" Clemons. Our condo -- yes, my rich uncle rents us a condo for the event -- is down the road in Clearwater.

Now how often I'll enjoy Clearwater sunsets like the one pictured above still isn't clear. It's not like I'm there on vacation. As the rookie on the baseball beat I'm looking to hit some line drives in the top of the first and let folks know I belong in the Majors. 

And that means hustling.

So if I miss a few sunsets, so be it. I'm finally up in the big leagues and gettin' my turn at bat!

Besides, if you know me then you know I always find time for salsa.

Not saying I'm as slick as those two, but I do my thing. So if any of you know of any salsa clubs in the Tampa/St. Pete/Clearwater/Dunedin area, feel free to let me know. 

Of course I'm going down there focused on the job, but damn... a month is a long time to ask a man to be alone with nothing with baseball to keep him company.

One Take, One Link, One Endorsement

ONE TAKE -- OSCAR-PAC MAN POST MORTEM

So the final numbers are in from the De la Hoya/Pacquiao pay per view, and it was a stunning success. Looks like both the Golden Boy and his promotional company made enough to survive the impending depression.

Wait, no, it was a huge disappointment. Looks like Golden Boy Promotions (and the sport of boxing) are headed down the toilet, along with the American auto industry, the newspaper business and the governor of Illinois.

I'm with neither ESPN nor the L.A. Times on this one. Instead, I'm with Mos Def because "I find it distressing -- there's never no in between...."

Let's put this in perspective.

Is the 1.25 million pay per view buys Oscar and Pac Man logged last weekend impressive next to the 2.4 million Oscar and Floyd Mayweather put up in May 2007?

Not exactly.

But it's a huge number considering 1) Pacquiao wasn't exactly a celebrity to most Americans before this fight, and probably still isn't one now, and 2) everybody's broke.

The folks at the L.A. Times -- owned by the newly bankrupt Tribune Company -- know as well as anyone how little money people to spend these days. Given the depth of the economic doo doo we're in my hat's off to anyone who can sell a 1.25 million of anything, especially when that "anything" is a sport that even top fighters say is dying.

ONE LINK -- NASTY, DISGUSTING, GRAPHIC

So why is boxing dying?

Most folks think its because most members of that coveted 18-35 white male demographic would rather watch stuff like the link I'm about to show you. Basically, it depicts an unusually tall and rake-thin UFC fighter going shin-to-shin with an opponent and emerging with a badly broken leg.

Like, shattered shinbone.

Like he'll never walk normally again broken.

This is Joe Theismannesque, and then some.

You've been warned. This link is graphic. Don't click if you've just eaten.

But if you love disgusting, catastrophic sports injuries, then click here.

ONE ENDORSEMENT -- BLACK MILK

These days it seems everything I love is dying.

A medium (newspapers).

A sport (boxing).

An art form (hip-hop).

They say they come in threes, and as much as I'd hate to see hip hop die, I'll pull the plug and dig the grave myself if I hear too many more Auto Tuners. Seriously, who really wants to sound like T-Pain?

Anyway, dying don't mean dead, and there still are some talented folks keeping hip hop alive, and that leads me to this week's endorsement:

Black Milk.

A Detroit-based DJ/Producer/MC and heir apparent to the late J-Dilla, and he's making great music these days. Stumbled across some of his tracks online a couple months back and now he's in heavy rotation on my iPod.

My favourite so far:

A welcome antidote to the spreading T-Painification of hip hop, and as long as he's making music the art form will survive.

Not sure what he can do about boxing and daily papers though...

* Photo of Pac Man smashing Oscar originally appeared here.

Another Great Week for the Newspaper Industry

A discouraging last few days if you do what I do for a living.

If it didn't bother you to learn that the New York Times, the one paper that's always supposed to make money no matter what, had to mortgage their new building just to generate cash to run their business, then it had to bug you that the Chicago Tribune and gazillionaire owner Sam Zell filed for bankruptcy Monday.

Still, none of that news rattled me as much as learning Newsday eliminated 100 jobs and the position of general sports columnist. The guys at my favourite sports blog, The Big Lead, say Newsday is setting a trend and that soon we won't have any more general sports columnists.

Dammit!

That's exactly what I wanted to be when I grew up.


Actually, first I wanted to be Lisa Lisa's husband.

Then I wanted to be some kind of undersized pro athlete, before journalism finally found me and I decided one day I'd become a well read, well respected and well paid columnist, like these two guys.

But how many folks even know those two were even newspaper columnists? Newspaper nerds like me know that the guy on the right, fellow Medill alum Michael Wilbon, writes a sports column for the Washington Post. The guy on the left used to, until he joined a growing list of high profile columnists to leave the industry over the last few years.

Why the exodus?

Nelson Muntz can tell you.

Yep.

Circulation continues sliding, papers keep bleeding money and, as "The Wire" creator and former newspaperman David Simon so eloquently points out, there's no love in the industry anymore.

So yeah, Nelson's right. Newspapers are dying and we're not sure if you members of the Internet generation will even turn up for the funeral.

But does it have to come to that?

Isn't there a way, short of a government bailout, to rejuvenate the industry?

The World's Greatest Sportswriter thinks there is.

I'll offer you the ideas below, for free, because I care.

But if nobody takes my advice now, you'll have to bring me in as a consultant later, and I'm warning you now I don't work cheap. I'll need De La Hoya money for my bailout plan.

Actually, the ideas I'm about to outline all fall somewhere between "crazy" and "so crazy it just might work," but either way here are my four easy steps to saving -- or at least bringing a little cash into -- the newspaper industry.

1. I not to put too fine a point on this intricate, abstract matter, but PUT SOME DAMN ADS IN FRONT OF THE VIDEOS.

Newspaper people say they just can't squeeze the same ad revenue out of the Internet that they can out of the (increasingly less popular) printed page. I say they're not trying hard enough.

What about videos, guys?

ESPN's figured it out. Those little ads aren't intrusive, and as long as people click that video, the network might as well make a little extra money from it.

So print folks, what gives?

2. GIVE IT AWAY, GIVE IT AWAY, GIVE IT AWAY NOW

Want to boost the readership numbers that in turn boost ad rates?

Give the paper away.

Next time you're on the Subway in Toronto, look around the car and count how many people are reading newspapers.

You'll find a bunch.

The problem if you love this dying medium is that three quarters of them are reading the free commuter dailies available outside every train station in the city.

Commuters prefer those papers for one reason:

The price.

It's not because they're easy-to-read tabloids, or because the populace has burned out their brains on TV and the Internet and subsequently can only handle the watered down, pre-digested news these papers provide.

People grab them because they're free.

If you don't believe me, leave a copy of the New York Times on a seat in a Toronto subway. If its not spoken for, someone will snatch it and start reading.

Because it's free.

Mainstream papers need to get a clue.

I don't mean doing away with subscriptions, or delivering the paper to homes that don't order it. And I'm not talking about setting up a booth in Union station and trying to force the paper on commuters both skeptical and pressed for time.

No, folks, I'm talking about guerrilla marketing.

I'm talking about sending people on to the subway, leaving a paper in each car.

Because it's free, someone will read.

Because it's on the subway, someone will leave it behind and someone else will read.

Now you've got five or 10 people reading each paper placed on the subway, and now you've got the readership boost you want to take to your advertisers.

Is any of that legal?

I don't know that it matters at this point. As De La Soul said, Stakes is High.

3. CO-OPERATE TO GRADUATE

Season two of "The Wire" and Stringer Bell's got a problem: low quality dope in the West Baltimore drug markets his operation controls. The fiends aren't happy, and they're not spending money. Stringer's not alone in this problem. This low-grade heroin is bleeding every dealer in West Baltimore, but only Stringer has the guts and foresight to look for a solution.

He connects with Proposition Joe, the East side kingpin and the only dealer in the city with a direct line to high-quality heroin. Together the two decide that all the big dealers in Baltimore will form a co-op. No more warring over drug corners and no more worrying about where the good stuff will come from. Everyone pools their money and, through Joe, buys straight from the source. When the price of the raw product drops everyone's profit rises. If the price rises everyone takes a hit.


So when news paper execs say they can't make the Internet profitable, I say they emulate String and Pro Joe and form a co-op.

My idea is far from fully formed, and I'll leave it to people wiser than I to refine the details, but the basic plan goes like this:

Newspapers have figured out that there's not much money in giving away the product for free online. They've also learned that there aren't many page views in restricting your web page to subscribers. It's easy, after all, to navigate to a competitors page and read for free. And the more papers that protect content for subscribers, the more cumbersome the Internet becomes for readers. We all like to read news from around the world, but few of us are prepared to subscribe to 50 papers to do it.

But what if we only had to subscribe once?

I'm thinking newspapers great and small across the continent form a co-op -- even team up with the Googles of the world if they have to -- and offer readers a deal:

Every paper worth reading is now password protected, from the New York Times to the Island Packet, and everything in between, but if you subscribe to the co-op you can access them all.

You don't charge people anything outrageous, because we've already established that everyone's favourite price is $free.99. Ask too much and suddenly people will decide they don't need "real" news anymore.

So you charge something reasonable, knowing that a subscriber anywhere helps newspapers everywhere.

4. GIVE EM THAT GOOD STUFF

Let's remember what prompted David Simon's drug dealers to form that co-op:

A dearth of quality product.

If you don't give people a reason to read, they won't do it, and none of the other stuff I outlined above will even matter.

But to give readers Prop Joe-quality content probably means concentrating a little less on the bottom line and focusing more hiring great story tellers and letting them tell great stories. Do that and you'll always have an audience.

I'm far from the first journalist to make this point, but it makes too much sense not to reiterate.

5. IF ALL ELSE FAILS.... OBAMANATE!





The numbers, pulled from this L.A. Times story, say it all:

The Atlanta paper initially printed an additional 55,000 copies to supplement its weekday press run of 375,000. But heavy sales forced the paper to print 150,000 more copies to meet demand.

USA Today boosted by 500,000 its weekday press run of roughly 2 million. The Washington Post, the fourth-largest paper by circulation, planned to print 350,000 papers and then sell them for $1.50, triple the regular newsstand price.

The Los Angeles Times printed 107,000 papers in addition to its weekday press run of 750,000, and sold some at retail outlets because copies were being pilfered from newsstands. Meanwhile, a steady stream of customers came to the Times' headquarters in downtown L.A. to buy copies of the paper.

Reading these stats it becomes clear to me that the first African-American/Biracial/Kenya-Kan-Hawaiian president holds the key to the newspaper industry's future.

If he can manage to win four or five elections a week for the next decade, newspapers will have cash to last them into the next century.

All we have to do is hope.

Pacquiao Proves Me Wrong

Didn't I warn you guys that my predictions weren't legally binding?

I mean, even the World's Greatest Sportswriter is entitled to the occasional wrong prediction, and in manhandling Oscar de la Hoya Saturday night Manny Pacquiao rendered me only half right.

If you guys can think back about 45 hours you'll remember me pointing out that Pacquiao would press his speed advantage, land a bunch of clean shots and win plenty of rounds over the Golden Boy.

And didn't he do that?

But I also predicted Oscar would fight back.

And he didn't.

More accurately, he couldn't. 

In the bout's immediate aftermath several boxing observers said de la Hoya looked old as he absorbed stinging blows from Pacquiao while offering little in return.

But it goes beyond just looking old. At 35, after 16 years in the pro game, Oscar is old. Too old, anyway, to fight a guy as fast as Pacquiao, who doesn't appear to have lost much speed as he packed on pounds to become a welterweight.

Pacquiao, meanwhile, looked comfortable in his new weight class, and his thrashing of De La Hoya suggests he'll similarly steamroll any other smallish (Oscar entered the ring at just 147 pounds), slowish welterweight he faces.

So what's next for these two?

FOR OSCAR

I've heard several experts predict -- heck, damn near beg  for -- his retirement, which would seem reasonable after such a lopsided loss. Even without the Pacquiao fight he's generated more money than any fighter ever, and earned more money for himself than anyone (excluding Michael Vick) could ever spend. With his legacy set (Olympic Gold, six-time world champ, new pay scale for PPV headliners) and his health intact he has little reason to continue fighting.

Besides pride.

It's a powerful motivator. Powerful enough to propel him into the ring one last time next spring or fall, but not against a top flight fighter in his prime. I'm thinking Oscar takes a vacation, then signs to fight a third or fourth-tier welterweight with a decent pedigree -- someone like former Olympian Terrance Cauthen, former "Contender" Alfonzo Gomez, or even Ricky Hatton's brother Matthew. The fight headlines an expensive pay per view card, Oscar pounds out a lacklustre 10-round decision, then walks away a winner.

MEANWHILE, MANNY SHOULD SEEK OUT

1. Ricky Hatton.

He was in Vegas all week, looking to lure Saturday's winner into a showdown next year.

Think he changed his mind after seeing Pacquiao's performance? Two days have passed and I still haven't heard Hatton call out Pac Man the way he did Floyd a couple years back.

*Checks Google*

Still haven't.

You think Hatton doesn't remember what happened last time he faced an allegedly smaller fighter coming off a big win over De La Hoya?

No reason to think a Pacquiao fight would end much differently.

So it's on promoter Bob Arum to make this fight happen so Pacquiao can flatten Hatton and set up a big money bout with....

2. Floyd Mayweather

You think a $20 million payday is enough to coax the Pretty Boy out of retirement?

Maybe. Turns the trick for sure if you couple it with the the adulation that will follow Pac Man's victory over Hatton. When Floyd realizes the boxing world really has moved on without him, and that there's much more money in fighting than in bankrolling bad music acts, he'll un-retire to fight Pacquiao.

And he'll win.

Sorry, Manny, but Floyd is way too skilled for you. He'll make you eight figures, though, so make the fight.

MANNY SHOULD AVOID

Antonio Margarito and Paul WIlliams.

These plus-sized welterweights present BIG problems for a guy like Pacquiao. If you don't believe me, ask Miguel Cotto how 11 rounds of relentless pressure from Margarito felt. Or ask Margarito how he dealt with Williams' freakish reach and volume punching.

Both men are bad matchups for the Pac Man, and since neither is Oscar de la Hoya, neither brings enough money to the bout to justify the risk.

Fight Night

Cutting it real close with this one, and when this fight's done a few of you will probably accuse me of watching it first then posting a "prediction" afterward.

Yes, I plan to call it that accurately.

The fight in question is, or course, Oscar De La Hoya vs. Manny Pacquiao, and its scheduled to start in a little less than four hours.



Big money bout between the two biggest names remaining in the sport, now that Floyd Mayweather is enjoying his first retirement, and an intriguing matchup between a very good bigger fighter in Oscar, and a great small one in Pacquiao.

Now, before I break this fight down and offer my prediction I should warn you that I'm damn good at this. I'm the guy who picked Sugar Shane over Oscar (twice), Jermain Taylor over Bernard Hopkins (twice) and Hopkins over Antonio Tarver, even though Tarver was the bigger guy and allegedly the harder puncher.

Nevertheless, anyone who uses my prediction as the sole basis for betting on this fight is a damn fool. Even I'm wrong sometimes. I didn't have Joe Calzaghe beating Hopkins, or Margarito breaking Miguel Cotto's will. I know Kelly Pavlik would win the rematch with Jermain Taylor, but I admit I didn't pick him to win the first time.

Again, let me emphasize that I make a bad fight prediction about as frequently Arturo Gatti slips a jab, but if I'm wrong about tonight's fight I don't need regretful gamblers complaining to me Sunday that they went broke following my advice.

Of course, I won't be wrong, but it's fair to issue the disclaimer.

Now that we've set this fight up, lets break it down.

PACQUIAO'S POSITIVES

1. Speed. He'll be the fastest guy De La Hoya has faced since Mayweather, and it's not like Oscar had an easy time neutralizing the Pretty Boy's quickness. And unlike Floyd, Pacquiao punches in volume. Oscar will have a hard time not getting hit.

2. Speed. It's such a big plus I had to list it twice. If you've seen the training footage on HBO's 24/7 then you've seen how dramatic Pacquiao's edge in hand and footspeed is. Yesterday Pacquiao weighed in at 142 pounds, five below the welterweight limit, making clear that he plans to exploit his speed advantage all night.

3. Pop. Not saying he can stop Oscar with one punch or even TKO him late, but even at a smaller size his punches will sting if they land clean. And plenty of them will.

OSCAR'S POSITIVES

1. Size. He's a legit welterweight/supermiddleweight who figures to gain at least 13 pounds between last night's weigh in and tonight's fight. Factor in Pacquiao, who probably won't weigh mich more than the 142 he scaled Friday, and we've got a catchweight bout.

2. The Stick. If Oscar remembers to throw it Pacquiao's in trouble. He needs to be on Oscar's chest to do damage. Period.

3. The Hook. If Oscar lands it Pacquiao goes to sleep.

THE QUESTIONS

How does Pacquiao's trainer, Freddie Roach, affect this fight? Roach trained Oscar for his May 2007 los to Mayweather, and may have gleaned the Golden Boy's weaknesses and imparted some insiders' wisdom to Pacqiao.

Will Oscar gas out? He has faded down the stretch so often it's become part of his legacy. Will Pacquiao's work rate wear him down tonight?

Can Pacquiao hurt Oscar? If he can't he better have plan B ready, because if Oscar will stalk him unless he has a reason to use caution.

THE OUTCOME

De La Hoya by late stoppage.

He's just too big.

For an example, think of Sugar Ray Robinson's 13th round knockout loss against light heavyweight champ Joey Maxim. Or more recently, look how giant welterweight Antonio Margarito ground down Miguel Cotto before winning in the 11th.

No question that Pacqiao is the faster, flashier fighter here. Pound for pound he's well beyond Oscar at thsi point in their careers.

But he doesn't hard enouogh to hurt a full-sized welterweight.

Look for Oscar to press his size advantage, lean on Pacquiao and wear him out, then attack late as Pacquiao tires.

It won't be easy. Pacquiao will land plenty of punches and win a lot of rounds, but Oscar will in the fight.

Especially if he lands that left hook.

A Quick Update

Sorry to disappoint my fans (read: mom and a couple other kinfolk) but I've been bumped from today's episode of Off The Record.

For some reason they decided they'd rather have Jim Kelly.

No, not this Jim Kelly:

The other one.

The Hall of Fame QB who played for the Bills.

He and Dolphins Hall of Famer Dan Marino are in town hyping Sunday's Bills-Dolphins game at the Rogers Centre. Somehow the folks at Off The Record decided that two guys who passed for a combined 96,828 yards and 657 touchdowns, would draw better ratings than the World's Greatest Sportstwriter.

Yeah, I don't know which genius was behind that decision.

I mean, neither of those guys has won a Superbowl, but Morg has a National Newspaper Award, which is kind of like the Superbowl of Canadian journalism.

Well, more like the Grey Cup.

OK, the Vanier Cup... but you get my point.

Anyway, they promised (again) to bring me back (again).

We just don't know when.

I'll let you guys know.....

The Small Screen Part III

Friday afternoon I'm scheduled to appear on TSN's Off The Record, which I'm pretty sure is the longest-running sports talk show on Canadian TV.

It's been a minute.

I made my first appearance last January and talked NFL playoffs with some former CFL players and a really loud guy from CBC.

A few days before the Superbowl the brought me back, and I discussed the Giants' chances of winning with an NFL player, a (now unemployed) CFL coach and yet another loud guy from CBC.

Since then they've invited me to return but our schedules have never meshed. I'd always be out of town or stuck in the office, or out on an assignment somewhere actually earning a living.

But this weekend, with the NFL in town, they asked me back. I happened to be free, so I signed up.

For those of you who haven't seen the show, I'll outline it for you:

One host/moderator, four panelists from various branches of sports, entertainment and the media. Some guests are clever and thoughtful, and others aren't. Almost all are loud. It gets a little hectic on that set sometimes with four panelists and a host all trying to play Chuck D.

You know, "force my opinion with volume!"

Don't expect that from me.  I'd rather make sense at 30 decibels than make a fool of myself at 100. I think viewers are smart enough to figure out how smart I am, so I'll leave the shouting with people with less to say.

Instead, I'll give you on the air what I give you on the blog -- intelligent, irreverent sports talk that's both edgy and educated. And if the opportunity arises I'm not scared to drop a $10 word on the panel. I don't know if I'll top "recidivist" (which I used last time to describe Chris Simon), but I'll do my best.

Anyway, show starts at 6pm eastern.

Tune in if you can.