Mark Cuban posts a weblog entry today about his thoughts around what appears to be a lazy reporter for the New York Times (and by lazy I don't mean "doing nothing," but instead "not doing enough") and the content of a column by the Times that Cuban was interviewed for via email last week.

(You can read the actual email responses Cuban sent to the Times' reporter's questions on his blog, by that way. Amazing how things have shifted in terms of information availability over the years. Also, Cuban follows up with another blog entry asking "who has higher ... standards, your typical fulltime blogger, or the NY Times ? Who puts more effort into researching their articles? Who conveys more depth?")

Not like it's a shock or anything that the New York Times would research and publish content with an apparently predetermined end-goal in mind, and it is a column, after all, so opinion's completely within the realm of reason. And Cuban's known for opinions and ideas that writers don't always take at face value. But it's interesting to see what was asked, what answers were provided, and what was published.

Also of interest are Cuban's thoughts about the future of HDTV in the home and the much-higher-def projection they're starting to install in theaters. Personally, I like where he's going with this stuff, and as a former projectionist for a small chain of theaters way back when, I can tell you that I am happy there are a least a couple theater owners out there focused (no pun intended) on the quality of the experience and making it easier to bring quality filmwork to lots of people quickly. It's painful these days to go to theaters where the projection lenses are shoddy or even just not properly aligned and focused, and where the light box and shutter mechanisms simply suck. I've arrived at a point where if a theater doesn't have most or all of the following characteristics, I just don't want to go anymore:

• The proper lens for the screen, meaning uniform brightness and sharp focus across the entire field, whether it's film or digital projection images being shown
• Clean sound and acoustics that doesn't self-cancel or distort
• Seats that you sit in and instantly wish you had at home (these are rare but they do exist, and I can almost predict by ownership when there will be good chairs)
• Food selection that isn't cardboard and chalk derivative - and a bonus if the theater uses peanut oil (yes, be sure to prominently display the use of peanuts for safety) to cook the popcorn
• A theater hall that doesn't smell like someone hosed it down with a mix of sweat and vomit juice between shows (remove the seats and bleach the place twice a year, seriously)

Anyhow, Cuban makes some interesting and valid points in his weblog entry. Again, it's encouraging to see someone focused on quality (as opposed to strict cost/return) as primary business drivers. That's smart. No point in good margins of no one wants to buy the product, and one thing that HDTV at home does do is raise the bar on the expectations of the theater experience - we'll always expect it to be one or two quality and experience notches better than anything at home. The Times article refers to and quotes leadership of Regal Entertainment Group, which is a company that doesn't tend to meet my wishes outlined above.

Someone has to lead and push the limits. Cuban tends to do this. Good for him. Good for us. And Randall Stross of the New York Times, well he probably just needs to get out more. Maybe a movie?

[via memeorandum]