real-time

[victor steinbok]

I forgot if this was one of the things mentioned in all the previous
discussions--and I don't mean just the latest part of the thread. But AFAIK
there is a second shade of "in real time"--not just "as it happened" (in
fact, I see a flaw in this particular phrasing--perhaps, "as the events
unfolded" as if one were a remote observer and participant at the same
time), but "the entire thing". For example, MLB changed broadcasting rules
to make all baseball games broadcast in their recorded entirety (possibly
replacing some of the commercials). This came about after a Seattle TV
station broadcast a Mariners game because it was initially scheduled for the
same time slot as IIRC basketball playoffs (perhaps even conflicting on the
same channel). The station took the broadcast and pared it down to only bits
that showed when something was actually happening--a lot like soccer game
summaries on FoxSoccerChannel, where a 90 minute game could be compressed
into under 25 minutes. In the case of the Mariners, the came went from over
3 hours to about 45 minutes, including commercial breaks. The next day, MLB
issued its edict that basically said, "Don't do it again!", with a formal
rule coming a bit later. In this case, MLB wants game to be broadcast "in
real time"--that is, the entire broadcast, from beginning to end. This is
why you often see re-broadcasts of games on cable channels that are
unnecessarily long-winded and sometimes even include rain delays. In fact,
when I come across some of these games (including ESPN rebroadcasts of other
sports), they often replay the entire commercials as they were shown in the
original broadcast. Even the ticker is the same. Of course, the irony of
using this as "in real time" means that it's not a "as it happens"
broadcast. For example, a delayed broadcast (for whatever reason) is "in
real time" but not "live".

VS-)

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:

>
> At 5/3/2011 02:37 PM, Dan Goncharoff wrote:
> >I don't like "real-time" but disagree with the alternatives that have
> >been offered. For the POTUS watching the operation, I would go with
> >"as it happened".
>
> I don't mind "viewing the raid in real time" but will acknowledge
> that the NYTimes avoids it at least once.today.  "... the president
> and his advisors gathered in the Situation Room of the White House to
> monitor the operation as it unfolded."  [Behind the fold in the page
> A1 article.  And remember as a former NYC straphanger I fold my NYT
> vertically.]
>
> Joel

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org