NPR’s Linda Holmes, who writes the Monkey See blog on popular culture, has found her way — sort of — into the percolating podcast v. radio debate with her latest post about a TV show.

She writes today about Tina Fey’s new show — Kimmy Schmidt — which will be on Netflix instead of broadcast TV, like her old show “30 Rock.”

What’s fascinating about the piece is that Fey opines that it’ll be nice not to have the complainers from mass media anymore. She says people who consume media that comes to them — TV and radio, for example — complain more than people who search out specific programs on streaming services.

Holmes, correctly, compares this to the difference between radio and podcasting. In so doing, she offers a valuable perspective on the discussion — raised earlier this week here — about the creative potential of an emerging medium vs. the that of the “old” one.

The reduced pressure of on-demand listening, too, has creative advantages. Certain niche shows can thrive as podcasts not only because the business model is different, though it is, but because the contract is different. The experimental and sometimes very loose nature of some very successful shows (consider Marc Maron’s notoriously shaggy WTF, for instance) suggests that listeners have one expectation for usefulness or inoffensiveness when something is served to them over a broadcast channel that they may not have specifically selected; they seem to have one that’s a bit different when it comes to things that they’ve agreed to try voluntarily.

So not only are there lessons at press tour that apply outside of traditional television, but there are lessons that apply anywhere that the structure of media is changing. Which, of course, is everywhere.

More flexibility, more creativity, more risk, fewer complainers. How is a mass medium supposed to survive against that?

The National Transportation Safety Board has completed its investigation into the November 2013 mid-air collision of two airplanes full of skydivers over Superior, Wis.

It cited the lack of guidance from the Federal Aviation Administration on how pilots should fly formation flights with skydivers. Consequently, the NTSB said, the owner of the skydiving company “did not provide its pilots skydiving formation flight training, and it did not keep records of pilot training nor was it required to do so by the FAA.”

“If both pilots had received adequate skydiving formation flight training, they might have had a consensus about how the formation flight should have been flown,” it said in its report. “If the trail airplane pilot had received such training, he might have been more vigilant about maintaining adequate lateral and vertical separation from the lead airplane during the flight.”

The pilots of each airplane said they discussed how the flight would be flown, but in interviews with the NTSB, all three pilots described different expectations for the separation between each airplane.

The 182 pilot described the trail position as 20 to 30 ft aft of the lead airplane on a 45-degree bearing and lower than the lead airplane. The 185 pilot described the trail positon as one to two airplane lengths (about 26 to 52 ft) aft and left of the lead airplane and at the same altitude as the lead airplane. The chief pilot described the trail position as three airplane lengths (about 78 ft) aft and left of the lead airplane and slightly lower than the lead airplane. Even though none of the pilots stated that the trail airplane should be flown higher than the lead airplane, a video taken of the flight showed that the trail airplane pilot flew the trail airplane higher than the lead airplane until impact.

Everyone survived the crash. The skydivers jumped out, then sold GoPro footage of the incident for $100,000 to NBC News.

For many bicylists, this is rather a typical day in the life.

(Warning: obscenities)

The cyclist in Seattle was OK. It happened at an intersection where another cyclist was killed in 2011. The driver of the SUV eventually turned himself in, according to the Seattle Times.

It’s a reality of cycling life. You never know when a person is going to turn in front of you, or open a door when you’re riding by in a lane that’s meant only for you.

On Streets.MN today, Dana Demaster writes that she got hit in St. Paul last night while with her son.

She’s not a rookie rider by any stretch. She writes that she teaches bike commuting and safety where she works in downtown St. Paul, she served on the board of directors of the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota and she was a co-chair of the Saint Paul Bicycle Coalition. “In other words,” she says, “I know my business. I knew that biking on the sidewalk was more dangerous than taking a lane on Kellogg Boulevard.

I have counselled countless new riders against biking on the sidewalk. Nevertheless, I felt it would be safer to bike slowly on the sidewalk given the construction, the rush hour traffic, the hill up Kellogg Boulevard, and my son on the back of my bike. I stopped at every intersection because bicycles on the sidewalk should act like pedestrians.”

And that’s when an SUV didn’t look where he was going at Kellogg and the I-35 ramp.

I stopped and waited for the walk signal. We started across the intersection when the person driving the SUV, waiting to make a right turn, started forward. He had looked left for traffic coming down the hill eastbound, but did not look right for pedestrians on the sidewalk (or a mother on a cargo bike). He hit us. We fell. My first instinct was rage, but also awareness that he still might not know we were there. I ran over to his driver side window and let loose a torrent of obscenities.

My son and the bike were still lying in the street and I calmed down (a little) when I saw that my son’s eyes were as big as saucers. I stopped and got my son onto the sidewalk. I realized that he was more scared of my reaction than what happened so I tried my best to calm down.

They were OK, thanks to a nurse in another car and the homeless people begging at the intersection.

All that was left was trying to figure out how a person on a bike can get to where they’re going safely.

Maybe I should not have been on the sidewalk. The man who hit us should have looked both ways, even if it was one-way automobile traffic. I know some people would say I should not be biking with my children, should just take our car, that I am taking unnecessary risks by riding a cargo bike in rush hour traffic downtown. Believe me, my children are my life.

If Quinn would have been injured or killed, I do not know how I would continue living. He and his sister are the center of my universe. I took every precaution I thought reasonable. If there were a single bike lane in downtown Saint Paul, I would have taken it.

Others insist streets are for cars. That building bike and pedestrian infrastructure is just catering to a left-wing minority, wasting tax dollars on the fringe. It does not matter what choices I or the man who hit us made – cars are legitimate road users because most people drive cars. I drive, too. We called my husband who came to pick us up in our family’s car. I am thankful we have one.

“Give a mother on a bike at least one safe choice to get through downtown so the sidewalk seems like the best choice when it is not,” she writes.

Is that too much to ask?