# How could media producers be so short sighted as to not preserve shows? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 24, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906 "2011-08-24T15:59:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/21 "2011-08-25T12:37:32Z")
It was probably **I Love Lucy** that led the way in syndicating shows. Desi Arnaz was smart enough to do the shows on film instead of live, and since he produced the show, he owned them. Since the show was the most popular of its era, it was simple to package the films and syndicate them. Other shows followed suit. But remember, until the invention of modern cable TV, the market for these was still very limited. Further, until the invention of the home VCR, the idea of selling the shows to the general public just didn’t come up (actually, for TV shows, it was more the DVD, which made entire seasons of TV shows affordable). So any tapes or films had no market. If you can’t sell anything, and there’s doesn’t appear to be any likelihood you could ever do so, it makes no sense to pay money to store them. It was the same thing for silent movies. Once sound came in, there was no reason to keep the old films. Plus they were highly flammable and deteriorated rapidly. So many silent films were lost. It would have happened to sound films, too, only TV came along as a market before the decision to dump them was made. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/22 "2011-08-25T14:24:32Z")
In the UK, one thing that really hurt keeping old shows around was that the contracts with actors/etc. for reruns was very limited. They couldn’t show old programs without going back and signing new contracts with everyone. Which meant spending actual quid. So old tapes were just taking up space and had no (apparent) value and things were lost. The old stuff like _At Last the 1948 Show_ that inspired _Month Python_ would be incredible to watch now. The US was different in this regard in that era. Actors only got paid for a small number of reruns and then nothing. (Which is why _Gilligan’s Island_ was so cheap to air for so many decades.) ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/23 "2011-08-25T15:13:24Z")
As a financial analyst, I’m moved to make an additional point about the time value of money. From the standpoint of a businessman in 1948, at a typical 12% cost of capital, every dollar returned by a tape which becomes commercially viable in 1988 is worth 1.07 cents. Every dollar returned by a tape which becomes commercially viable in 2008 (via DVD) is worth 0.11 cents. Whereas of course every dollar of storage cost must be paid in full, at once, and every year following. Even with such steep discounting, saving _some_ lost shows would have been a good business decision. But saving many others would not have been. Even if it were available, would anybody today want to pay for old _Bowling for Dollars_ episodes or hour after hour of Dumont Network pro wrestling? ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/24 "2011-08-25T15:52:23Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > or hour after hour of Dumont Network pro wrestling? I could find you a pretty sizable market for this in a BIG hurry. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/25 "2011-08-25T15:55:46Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > As a financial analyst, I’m moved to make an additional point about the time value of money. From the standpoint of a businessman in 1948, at a typical 12% cost of capital, every dollar returned by a tape which becomes commercially viable in 1988 is worth 1.07 cents. > > Every dollar returned by a tape which becomes commercially viable in 2008 (via DVD) is worth 0.11 cents. > > Whereas of course every dollar of storage cost must be paid in full, at once, and every year following. > > Even with such steep discounting, saving _some_ lost shows would have been a good business decision. But saving many others would not have been. Even if it were available, would anybody today want to pay for old _Bowling for Dollars_ episodes or hour after hour of Dumont Network pro wrestling? But you can’t really look at the “average” in a situation like this. A single tape of the Beatles performing live or Superbowl I could probably be sold for more than the cost of an entire archive. Then all the sales they’d have made from the first season of Doctor Who or Ernie Kovacs would have been pure profit. Instead networks are now paying large amounts to buy back copies of its own broadcasts. As for the idea that some broadcasts aren’t worth preserving, network policy was to wipe everything. ITV wiped its broadcast of the Apollo 11 landing. Hard to argue that nobody saw any possible historical value in that footage. ---
**Author:** ![Wheelz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wheelz/32/5718_2.png) [@Wheelz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wheelz)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/26 "2011-08-25T17:23:33Z")
It’s also worth noting that, then as now, the real product being sold by TV networks is not entertainment, but advertising. It’s called Show _Business_. The performers got paid by the networks, the networks got paid by the advertisers, and as long as that business model stayed viable I don’t think preserving the shows really entered into the equation at all. That is, until they figured out how to make money by doing so. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/27 "2011-08-25T17:59:36Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > It was probably **I Love Lucy** that led the way in syndicating shows. Desi Arnaz was smart enough to do the shows on film instead of live, and since he produced the show, he owned them. Since the show was the most popular of its era, it was simple to package the films and syndicate them. Other shows followed suit… Arnaz had other motives for shooting on film besides his idea of saving the shows for syndication. At the time almost all non-local shows were made in NYC and broadcast live; with the West Coast getting the crappy kinescope shipped in. Ball and Arnaz lived in Los Angeles and didn’t want to relocate to NYC. The network did not want to show kinescopes in Eastern & Central media markets. To cover the cost of shooting on film Ball & Arnaz recieved lower salaries that would’ve been expected, but owned the rights to all the episodes after the initial broadcast & a repeat or two. Ball once said “We figured either way we couldn’t loose; we’d either make alot of money or have the best home movies in the world”. It did take awhile for them to adapt to non-live television though. Initially shows were filmed in real time, & performed like a play. This was very hard on the actors (probally less so for Vivian Vance) and after awhile they realized they could take their time for costume & set changes and the studio audience was capable of waiting. Later on they even experimented with location shooting. They still tried to keep retakes to a minimum and left flubs in and adibed because film was so expensive. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/28 "2011-08-25T18:22:48Z")
I’m still pissed off that they used the actors’ scripts for the original HAMLET to wrap fish in. Talk about short-sighted!! ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/29 "2011-08-25T18:58:03Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But you can’t really look at the “average” in a situation like this. A single tape of the Beatles performing live or Superbowl I could probably be sold for more than the cost of an entire archive. Then all the sales they’d have made from the first season of Doctor Who or Ernie Kovacs would have been pure profit. Instead networks are now paying large amounts to buy back copies of its own broadcasts. Sure, but without hindsight, how do you know what to save and what not to save? In 1952, nobody knew that Ernie Kovacs was going to become popular later, and in 1963, nobody figured that a low budget BBC science fiction show about a time traveler would become a cult classic. So how do you know to save them? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/30 "2011-08-25T19:18:20Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Sure, but without hindsight, how do you know what to save and what not to save? In 1952, nobody knew that Ernie Kovacs was going to become popular later, and in 1963, nobody figured that a low budget BBC science fiction show about a time traveler would become a cult classic. So how do you know to save them? That was my point. Save everything possible. It’ll cost a lot of money and 999 out of 1000 tapes will never make a cent for you. But that 1000th tape will more than pay for the cost of having saved all of them. Who knows that the future will bring? Maybe in fifty years Lebowskism will be the fastest growing religion in America and old _Bowling for Dollars_ tapes could have been worth millions. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/31 "2011-08-25T19:36:46Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That was my point. Save everything possible. It’ll cost a lot of money and 999 out of 1000 tapes will never make a cent for you. But that 1000th tape will more than pay for the cost of having saved all of them. But in the 50s and 60s, it seemed likely that 9999 out of 10,000 tapes would be worthless, and the one that had any value wouldn’t be enough to cover your storage costs. You’re looking at this from what we know now, but the people _at the time_ were basing their decisions on different information and assumptions. Nowadays, we know that a video has a shot at becoming valuable; back a half century ago, that was not only not clear, but unlikely in the extreme. You have to think like someone from 1960, not someone from 2011 and your unspoken assumptions here are that of someone from 2011. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/32 "2011-08-25T19:41:40Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > It did take awhile for them to adapt to non-live television though. Initially shows were filmed in real time, & performed like a play. This was very hard on the actors (probally less so for Vivian Vance) and after awhile they realized they could take their time for costume & set changes and the studio audience was capable of waiting. Later on they even experimented with location shooting. They still tried to keep retakes to a minimum and left flubs in and adibed because film was so expensive. They also introduced the idea of shooting the shows with [three cameras at once](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Lucy). This allowed for three angles of a spontaneous or great take moment. Brilliant. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/33 "2011-08-25T19:44:06Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Who knows that the future will bring? Maybe in fifty years Lebowskism will be the fastest growing religion in America and old _Bowling for Dollars_ tapes could have been worth millions. [Way to predict religions !!!](http://www.lebowskifest.com/) 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/34 "2011-08-25T22:31:06Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > But in the 50s and 60s, it seemed likely that 9999 out of 10,000 tapes would be worthless, and the one that had any value wouldn’t be enough to cover your storage costs. You’re looking at this from what we know now, but the people _at the time_ were basing their decisions on different information and assumptions. > > Nowadays, we know that a video has a shot at becoming valuable; back a half century ago, that was not only not clear, but unlikely in the extreme. > > You have to think like someone from 1960, not someone from 2011 and your unspoken assumptions here are that of someone from 2011. Keep in mind that the BBC was still routinely throwing out tapes as recently as 1993. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/35 "2011-08-25T22:48:11Z")
The sense of ownership of a show, film or project didn’t really arise until the death of the studio system. **Eve** can likely speak with authority as to just when that happened. I’d been taught it was late 50’s / early 60’s. Until then, you were a carpenter, cameraman or star- under contract. There was no sense of ownership or desire to protect the work, because someone else very clearly owned the work. Post-studio system, independent companies arose and with that arose in greater force the sense of project ownership. Track, for example, the rise of residuals paid to actors on episodic t.v. shows. Rare when the first “Star Trek” was shot and aired. The performers got rich off of the movies, not the t.v. show. However, this link shows that t.v. residuals in some form did predate mid-1960’s television. [This is a pretty good comprehensive view of the history of residuals](http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/264595.html) > [@](#): > > Residuals are negotiated between the producers, and the union > performers belong to. In terms of movies and television, this means > that most residuals are negotiated with the Alliance of Motion Picture > and Television Producers. However, in 1995, the three biggest > television networks broke away from the AMPTP due to their > disagreement with the way residuals for the Fox network were > calculated. The three main unions involved with residuals are SAG > (Screen Actors Guild), the WGA (Writers Guild of America) and DGA > (Directors Guild of America). Because the most information was > available concerning SAG and residuals, this answer will focus mostly > on SAG. > > The first broadcasting residuals were paid in 1941, and concerned the > medium of radio. Radio performers would perform the show twice (once > for the Eastern time zone, then again for Pacific time zone). When > ways were found to record the first performance and broadcast it a > second time, the union of radio performers (AFRA, American Federation > of Radio Performers) insisted on the payment of residuals. > > In 1951, the first residuals were paid for movies being shown on > television. These residuals were paid to members of the American > Federation of Musicians. > > In 1952, the first residual-related strike was held when the Screen > Actors Guild struck against Monogram Pictures. This was the very first > strike conducted by SAG. Walter Pidgeon was the president of SAG at > that time. In 1953, the WGA also conducted a strike to win residual > payments. > > A second SAG strike, in 1955, was held to increase television > residuals. > > In 1960, SAG struck again, for residuals for movies broadcast on TV. > The producers’ guild had to pay a $2.65 million settlement. Ronald > Reagan, who was president of SAG at that time, resigned his position. > The WGA also had a strike in 1960 for residuals. > > In 1973, when Dennis Weaver was president of SAG, a new contract > awarded residuals in perpetuity. The WGA got residuals in perpetuity > in 1977. > > In 1978, SAG went on strike for better commerical residuals. Residuals > increased again under a new contract in 1989. > > Later, in the 1970s and 1980s, residuals were negotiated for new media > including videocassettes, cable, and pay-per-view. Residuals continue > to be negotiated for new media, including DVD and video on demand; and > have played a part in at least 18 union strikes. In the year 2000, for > example, the commerical actors belonging to SAG went on strike to > protest outdated language in their contracts regarding residuals paid > on commercials. > > During the 2000 strike, many famous actors such as Helen Hunt, Tom > Hanks, Nicholas Cage and Kevin Spacey donated money to help support > commerical actors. > > Residuals on movies are calculated as a percentage of the > distributor’s gross receipts (basically, the money a film earns at the > box office). Current residuals on television broadcasts of movies are > 3.6%; video and DVD is 4.5% on the first million and 5.4% thereafter. > For television shows, SAG residuals are calculated by episode, based > on a percentage of the performer’s original pay rate and the number of > times the episode has aired. Writers earn 2% of the license fee as > residuals on TV shows (the license fee is the amount the network pays > the studio per episode for a show). > > It is difficult, without the actual contracts, to know how residual > payments have changed over time. In 1965, when SAG added foreign > distribution residuals, residual payments were $1 million per month. > Compare that to 1985, when for the first time SAG members collected > $100 million in residuals. In 1993, SAG noted residuals had doubled in > six years to top $2 billion; however, whether that was per year or > cumulative is not stated (cumulative seems more likely). ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/36 "2011-08-25T23:18:33Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > They also introduced the idea of shooting the shows with [three cameras at once](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Lucy). This allowed for three angles of a spontaneous or great take moment. Brilliant. I imagine the editing of film by cut and splice, then worrying about audio re-sync, was considerably more time consuming than today’s computer-based non-linear video editing, which makes the 3-cam concept even more challenging in 1955. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/37 "2011-08-26T16:38:47Z")
And it wasn’t just TV shows that were considered virtually worthless. [Jack Warner](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Warner#Postwar_era) sold off most WB cartoons and its pre-1950 library for very little money in the mid-1950s. And this was after people had noticed how much TV was begging for this material. With film, the was the extra headache of nitrate film. It didn’t just cost money to store it, but it might burn down the warehouse as well. (I don’t think much, if any, of the oldest TV shows were shot on nitrate.) It just took a really, really long time for the long term value of these things to sink in. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/38 "2011-08-26T20:28:42Z")
It doesn’t seem to me that it just the older material, but a lot of TV movies from the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s that have never been released on DVD and some cases not even on VHS. There was a movie from 1973, **Sunshine** (Cristina Raines, Cliff DeYoung), where people are still selling bootlegs of original TV broadcast. **Tribes** with Jan Michael Vincent **Bella Mafia** with Vanessa Redgrave released overseas but not in the US. A lot of the these old TV movies actually have better writing than regular Theatrical movies today. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/39 "2011-08-26T22:39:10Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > It doesn’t seem to me that it just the older material, but a lot of TV movies from the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s that have never been released on DVD and some cases not even on VHS. There was a movie from 1973, **Sunshine** (Cristina Raines, Cliff DeYoung), where people are still selling bootlegs of original TV broadcast… [The Star Wars Holiday Special](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Holiday_Special). Never rebroadcast or released on video. George Lucas _wishes_ he could dump every single copy in the river. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2011, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906/40 "2011-08-28T01:50:00Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > I imagine the editing of film by cut and splice, then worrying about audio re-sync, was considerably more time consuming than today’s computer-based non-linear video editing, which makes the 3-cam concept even more challenging in 1955. I posed this yesterday, but it got eaten. ☹ Not at all. A person stands on the stage at Desilu Studios with a very large slate. [Not this large](http://blog.mlive.com/entertainment/detroit_impact/2009/08/large_unity-studios-big-check-allen-park-movie-studio.jpg), but large. An assistant director type would call out, " Roll Cameras A, B, AND C ". You’d hear a chorus of " Rolling " and then the person holding a large slate would clearly say, " Common Marker A, B, C " and clap the slate closed. All 3 cameras are in perfect synch, and that synch signal is generated by a crystal embedded in the sound recording machine. The cameras run at the same crystalled speed, and afterwards, the three frames of the slate closing are matched to the sound, and one can cut from camera to camera angle, film clip to film clip, and maintain synch. A simplified answer, but that’s basically how it works. The cliché of " Rolling… speed " really does mean something. Rolling has nothing to do with the film cameras. It has everything to do with rolling the Sound recording machine. That gets the sound going ahead of the film ( kind of essential ) and generates the crystal synch signal necessary to keep things together. ( 60Hz cycle in the USA, 50Hz cycle in the UK and most other spots ). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-media-producers-be-so-short-sighted-as-to-not-preserve-shows/593906.md?page=3)