But as a friend of mine likes to say, "Republicans are evil and Democrats are idiots."
I'm starting to wonder if this isn't right. Man, I need to disengage from the minutiae of political ... well debate is the wrong word for it, more like drunken pub arguing, but on TV & the Internet. It seems to hothouse everything, and contribute ... well, nothing
Showing posts with label TV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TV. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
TV and information
I've been watching the soi-disant news shows here, and getting more and more dissatisfied with them (as I suppose is obvious from other rants I've made). It occurred to me quite recently that one reason is the quality and type of guest that is always getting interviewed.
I should explain, first - there are 4 free to air channels here, which frankly are all pretty much rubbish: tons of "reality TV" with programmed reactions but nice cheap non-actors, a few game shows still survive, and some very formulaic and guarenteed non-offensive sitcoms and cop shows of various ilks. Then there is 'cable' (although I actually get this via satellite) which is divided into 'basic cable' and 'premium', based essentially on price - which in this case tends to actually relate to the quality of programs, as premium channels to tend to have the few really good and occasionally innovative programs.
The news shows are all on basic cable, or some variation thereof, and there are several channels of them, plus specialised business news and so forth. They all run 24 hours a day, which means they all have 24 hours of broadcast to fill with something, anything. The approach to this varies between channels, but it basically comprises some mix of massive repetition, pointless interviews, and endless editorialising by journalists, generally about subjects they exhibit a stunning ignorance of, or about their own idiot prejudices. Some of that can be amusing of course, especially if they either share my prejudices, or if I'm in the mood to be loudly and rudely mocking at the TV.
Anyway, one of the things I noticed is an awful lot of the people getting interviewed on these shows are other journalists. Now that might be fine in the case of, say, a financial analyst being interviewed about things economic, or a political analyst being interviewed about politics, or even say a political reporter being interviewed about what he's observed. However, an awful lot of it seems to be just reporters being interviewed for their completely uninformed opinions on, say, what the public thinks about X or Y, or what effect a government decree will have on Z, without any training or specialised knowledge at all: essentially just banging on about their own prejudices again, but palmed off as actual news.
Then in addition, you get the people who started as specialists on one subject, but obviously the news director liked them, so they start getting interviewed about broader and broader subjects, until it's completely removed from any knowledge or specialisation they might have. Which I suppose can be entertaining if they are someone who speaks vivaciously and has a fund of stories and metaphors to colour the interview, but in terms of disseminating actual information and real analysis and dissection, it just seems that anything useful gets inundated in a tidal wave of twaddle, misinformation (and of course outright lies and delusions).
This of course is not really different from what I do here, but then I don't ask for money or pretend to some greater significance. Hmm, perhaps I should consider a new career as a talking head? :)
The end result, however, seems to be an enormous echo chamber that outshouts any serious information, reinforces existing prejudice however crazy*, and lacks any real positive attributes at all. I don't have a solution for this**, but it looks like it will not get addressed - in fact it's very hard to see anyone who could address it - and will only continue its' ever-growing din.
*thus the nonsense about Obama being a foreign citizen, born of insane racism and amplified and repeated endlessly
** well none that is either politically or ethically acceptable. Shooting them all probably wouldn't work anyway
I should explain, first - there are 4 free to air channels here, which frankly are all pretty much rubbish: tons of "reality TV" with programmed reactions but nice cheap non-actors, a few game shows still survive, and some very formulaic and guarenteed non-offensive sitcoms and cop shows of various ilks. Then there is 'cable' (although I actually get this via satellite) which is divided into 'basic cable' and 'premium', based essentially on price - which in this case tends to actually relate to the quality of programs, as premium channels to tend to have the few really good and occasionally innovative programs.
The news shows are all on basic cable, or some variation thereof, and there are several channels of them, plus specialised business news and so forth. They all run 24 hours a day, which means they all have 24 hours of broadcast to fill with something, anything. The approach to this varies between channels, but it basically comprises some mix of massive repetition, pointless interviews, and endless editorialising by journalists, generally about subjects they exhibit a stunning ignorance of, or about their own idiot prejudices. Some of that can be amusing of course, especially if they either share my prejudices, or if I'm in the mood to be loudly and rudely mocking at the TV.
Anyway, one of the things I noticed is an awful lot of the people getting interviewed on these shows are other journalists. Now that might be fine in the case of, say, a financial analyst being interviewed about things economic, or a political analyst being interviewed about politics, or even say a political reporter being interviewed about what he's observed. However, an awful lot of it seems to be just reporters being interviewed for their completely uninformed opinions on, say, what the public thinks about X or Y, or what effect a government decree will have on Z, without any training or specialised knowledge at all: essentially just banging on about their own prejudices again, but palmed off as actual news.
Then in addition, you get the people who started as specialists on one subject, but obviously the news director liked them, so they start getting interviewed about broader and broader subjects, until it's completely removed from any knowledge or specialisation they might have. Which I suppose can be entertaining if they are someone who speaks vivaciously and has a fund of stories and metaphors to colour the interview, but in terms of disseminating actual information and real analysis and dissection, it just seems that anything useful gets inundated in a tidal wave of twaddle, misinformation (and of course outright lies and delusions).
This of course is not really different from what I do here, but then I don't ask for money or pretend to some greater significance. Hmm, perhaps I should consider a new career as a talking head? :)
The end result, however, seems to be an enormous echo chamber that outshouts any serious information, reinforces existing prejudice however crazy*, and lacks any real positive attributes at all. I don't have a solution for this**, but it looks like it will not get addressed - in fact it's very hard to see anyone who could address it - and will only continue its' ever-growing din.
*thus the nonsense about Obama being a foreign citizen, born of insane racism and amplified and repeated endlessly
** well none that is either politically or ethically acceptable. Shooting them all probably wouldn't work anyway
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Bits & pieces
Well, we finally managed to get our MMR booster shots done this morning - something we'll need to prove for next weeks' interview with immigration. We went to get it done yesterday afternoon, but the waiting room was full, and after a couple of minutes it became apparent they weren't going to be processing all the people already in there, that day.
So we checked what time they opened (8 a.m.) and showed up early. Just as well, when we got there the parking lot was already almost full, and there were half a dozen people in the waiting room already.
I should perhaps explain this is a government health centre: dead-cheap, so of course under-resourced and always in high demand. Still, it's done now, thank ghu
* * * * * * * * * *
And our long struggle with the dreaded TV set is finally coming to a close, it seems: the repairman has given up on trying to fix it, as they no longer manufacture the parts he requires for it, so (as it is still under warranty), they have agreed to replace it with the equivalent model: so I went to the store last Sunday and picked out the model, then arranged for delivery & installation (not until this Saturday, alas). Finally, we may be able to watch more than half an hour of TV without the highlights being painted neon-green!
Still, it certainly added charm to some of the less interesting programs, and made for a rather, umm, abstract experience at times.
Oh, and what are we watching at the moment? (at least, the pick of whats available)
* True Blood (Alan Balls excellent version of some so-so* vampire books, with Anna Paquin starring)
* Royal Pains (highly recommended, very witty & tight so far)
* Weeds (although this is deteriorating substantially from the first couple of seasons, it still has its' moments)
* Saving Grace (passable cop show set in OKC, which makes a nice change all in itself)
* Big Bang Theory (limp sitcom, altho the best of whats available I think, mostly watch for Johny Galecki's exquisite timing ... not sure I'd recommend it to anyone)
Thats about all that's worth watching at the moment. Some of the TV channels have been quite, um, disappointing: the Sci-Fi channel, which I thought, great! when I saw it would be available, erh, not so much - it seems to be full of Star Trek (NG) reruns, Real-life Ghost Hunter rubbish, and other even less SF-ish things, plus getting commandeered for Ultimate Fight Wrestlemania Homoerotic Grope-a-thons periodically (can you spell sublimation, guys?).
And the History channel is, well, even worse than I expected (which is saying something). The UK History channel I watched occasionally in England was bad enough (sloppy, lowbrow, and full of myths, plus horrendously jingoistic & pro-British), but the american original is ... oh dear god, so much worse: hysterically patriotic, blinkered, and endlessly propagating, not just myths, but outright errors and lies. Did you know Vietnam was a draw? or that the South deserved to win the Civil War (or, the War of Northern Aggression, if you accept the racist bollocks that gets served up when you talk about that).
Still, for all that, there are a lot of channels available, and you can usually find something halfway acceptable if you want to vege out, either on the Classic Movies channel or one of the HBO movie channels. We have also been watching quite a lot of 'My First House' and 'Property Virgin' houses about buying in the USA, trying to pick up familiarity with how it's done, what tricks to look for & what to try out on sellers (heh), and also to gauge relative prices in different parts of the country, as the programs tend to flit all over.
As they also can date back 2 or 3 years, it's also giving me something of a feel of how prices are falling now (if not how much further they have to go yet). One universal, tho, every area, every year, is that the estate agents will always tell you the market is heating up, you better make a good high offer, and if you offer too low you can insult the seller so he won't consider any offer you make. Yeah right, that all depends on exactly how desparate a straight he's in, and whether there are other offers. Of course, as the agents commission is a percentage of the price, it's in their interest to keep this as high as possible.
We are contemplating trying to subvert this: if we buy in LR, we have found a woman who we like & trust as an agent, and if it proceeds that way, I want to discuss with her making a fixed-commission deal (i.e. stipulating a flat payment to her no matter the price of the house), and then getting her to check through all the foreclosures & bank-owned properties: by removing her concerns about her fee, we're hoping she can find us some real deals, rather than steering us to the top of our affordability bracket. Not sure if that'll work, but it seems an idea worth trying anyway.
Anyway enough of that: the other thing on our minds is, of course, planning for our trip to Historicon next week! More on that tomorrow, tho, time to get back to work.
So we checked what time they opened (8 a.m.) and showed up early. Just as well, when we got there the parking lot was already almost full, and there were half a dozen people in the waiting room already.
I should perhaps explain this is a government health centre: dead-cheap, so of course under-resourced and always in high demand. Still, it's done now, thank ghu
* * * * * * * * * *
And our long struggle with the dreaded TV set is finally coming to a close, it seems: the repairman has given up on trying to fix it, as they no longer manufacture the parts he requires for it, so (as it is still under warranty), they have agreed to replace it with the equivalent model: so I went to the store last Sunday and picked out the model, then arranged for delivery & installation (not until this Saturday, alas). Finally, we may be able to watch more than half an hour of TV without the highlights being painted neon-green!
Still, it certainly added charm to some of the less interesting programs, and made for a rather, umm, abstract experience at times.
Oh, and what are we watching at the moment? (at least, the pick of whats available)
* True Blood (Alan Balls excellent version of some so-so* vampire books, with Anna Paquin starring)
* Royal Pains (highly recommended, very witty & tight so far)
* Weeds (although this is deteriorating substantially from the first couple of seasons, it still has its' moments)
* Saving Grace (passable cop show set in OKC, which makes a nice change all in itself)
* Big Bang Theory (limp sitcom, altho the best of whats available I think, mostly watch for Johny Galecki's exquisite timing ... not sure I'd recommend it to anyone)
Thats about all that's worth watching at the moment. Some of the TV channels have been quite, um, disappointing: the Sci-Fi channel, which I thought, great! when I saw it would be available, erh, not so much - it seems to be full of Star Trek (NG) reruns, Real-life Ghost Hunter rubbish, and other even less SF-ish things, plus getting commandeered for Ultimate Fight Wrestlemania Homoerotic Grope-a-thons periodically (can you spell sublimation, guys?).
And the History channel is, well, even worse than I expected (which is saying something). The UK History channel I watched occasionally in England was bad enough (sloppy, lowbrow, and full of myths, plus horrendously jingoistic & pro-British), but the american original is ... oh dear god, so much worse: hysterically patriotic, blinkered, and endlessly propagating, not just myths, but outright errors and lies. Did you know Vietnam was a draw? or that the South deserved to win the Civil War (or, the War of Northern Aggression, if you accept the racist bollocks that gets served up when you talk about that).
Still, for all that, there are a lot of channels available, and you can usually find something halfway acceptable if you want to vege out, either on the Classic Movies channel or one of the HBO movie channels. We have also been watching quite a lot of 'My First House' and 'Property Virgin' houses about buying in the USA, trying to pick up familiarity with how it's done, what tricks to look for & what to try out on sellers (heh), and also to gauge relative prices in different parts of the country, as the programs tend to flit all over.
As they also can date back 2 or 3 years, it's also giving me something of a feel of how prices are falling now (if not how much further they have to go yet). One universal, tho, every area, every year, is that the estate agents will always tell you the market is heating up, you better make a good high offer, and if you offer too low you can insult the seller so he won't consider any offer you make. Yeah right, that all depends on exactly how desparate a straight he's in, and whether there are other offers. Of course, as the agents commission is a percentage of the price, it's in their interest to keep this as high as possible.
We are contemplating trying to subvert this: if we buy in LR, we have found a woman who we like & trust as an agent, and if it proceeds that way, I want to discuss with her making a fixed-commission deal (i.e. stipulating a flat payment to her no matter the price of the house), and then getting her to check through all the foreclosures & bank-owned properties: by removing her concerns about her fee, we're hoping she can find us some real deals, rather than steering us to the top of our affordability bracket. Not sure if that'll work, but it seems an idea worth trying anyway.
Anyway enough of that: the other thing on our minds is, of course, planning for our trip to Historicon next week! More on that tomorrow, tho, time to get back to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)