One of my guilty pleasures is "American Idol". I'm usually pretty good at predicting who's going home (although Allison's departure May 6th was disappointing beyond words).
No, I'm not going to start posting weekly "Idol" updates. I can't do better than EW's Michael Slezak and won't even try. No, what prompts this missive is something I've seen at least three times this season on the "Idol" results show and it's become a pandemic in the pop/hip-hop music industry. My question is this: Does anyone just sing anymore for us to listen to? First it was Flo Rida. Then Jamie Foxx. And now most recently none other than "Idol" judge Paula Abdul has treated us to a "song" on the "Idol" results show in which their sterling pipes are processed through the device known as a vocoder. I didn't mind this piece of equipment when it was used as a device to augment a song (such as Bon Jovi's "Livin' On A Prayer" or Cher's "Life After Love"). Now you can't turn on a hip hop station without hearing almost every vocal delivered through the vocoder.
I find it especially egregious when it is used on a show like "Idol", which is supposed to be about singing talent. When one of the people judging the contestants and another who is acting as a "mentor" resorts to using a special effects device to deliver a song, what does that tell these pop-star hopefuls about how far true vocal talent will get them in the music business?
Please, let's cut down on the use of the vocoder. And if we can't, someone please convince the producers of "American Idol" to book only guest stars who actually can sing without trickery.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Quickie Review of a Movie Now on Video
Just watched "A Good Year" with Russell Crowe. Beautiful scenery of Provence France. Other than that, let it be said here that Ridley Scott should never attempt to make another movie in the romance genre. I can't even call it a romantic comedy, because it was barely funny in places and Crowe's character was unlikeable enough to even make the romance angle not that enjoyable. All in all, I think I would've rather gone to work on a Sunday night than watched this movie.
Opening Day 2009
I can't let Opening Day go by without doing my annual Texas Rangers report. Last year, I posted after a week had gone by and mentioned my guarded optimism. The negatives I pointed out came to fruition but despite that, the Rangers still finished in second place, albeit with a losing record at 79-83.
For 2009, I'm going to state it right here- I am even more optimistic about Texas this season! Strange I know- there doesn't seem to have been any appreciable change in the league worst pitching staff or the league worst defense. And yet I think both those areas will improve- maybe not dramatically, but they will improve. The starting rotation seems to be healthy for a change and if one goes down, there are at least two options before having to go down to the farm for a replacement (Jason Jennings and Scott Feldman). Plus, free agent Ben Sheets is still looming as a possibility come July or August. At the back end of the bullpen, CJ Wilson appears to be healthy this year and Frank Francisco continues looking good as the closer. I can see the staff ERA coming down. Even if it only goes down half a run a game and is still over 5, that still translates to 81 less earned runs a game.
Defensively, gold glover (yes the Rangers did have a Gold Glover with their defense) Michael Young is moving to third. He may not win a Gold Glove there, but will still probably be an improvement on Ramon Vasquez, who manned that corner most of the time last year. Elvis Andrus, who is projected as a future Gold Glover will now be the shortstop, but if he doesn't work out, future Hall of Famer Omar Vizquel is there for back-up. Pitchers accounted for way too many errors last year and a rigorous off-season session put together by Nolan Ryan stressed fielding the position. I'm not as sure about the outfield strength defensively, but I figure if the Rangers can cut down their errors by only 10-15 on the year (only 1 less error every 11-16 games), that could translate into ten less runs or more.
That brings us to the offense. Gone are Milton Bradley and Gerald Laird (Ramon Vasquez too, but he played many different positions). I don't see much drop-off from those two, as their replacements are Nelson Cruz and Jerrod Saltalamacchia. Cruz was a monster in Triple-A last year and has been projected as a future All-Star. Saltalamacchia should be able to do at least as well as Laird, but if he doesn't, Taylor Teagarden has a lot of potential as his back-up. Add to that a full year from Chris Davis, hopefully an injury-free year from Hank Blalock and the same consistent performance from Hamilton, Byrd, Murphy, Kinsler and Young and the offense should be as good if not better than last year. If they score less runs than last year, it won't be by much.
In conclusion: Equal offense plus slightly better defense plus slightly better pitching and I can see this team winning ten more games this year. 89-73 might not make the playoffs but it will put my Rangers strongly in the mix and make for an exciting year.
For 2009, I'm going to state it right here- I am even more optimistic about Texas this season! Strange I know- there doesn't seem to have been any appreciable change in the league worst pitching staff or the league worst defense. And yet I think both those areas will improve- maybe not dramatically, but they will improve. The starting rotation seems to be healthy for a change and if one goes down, there are at least two options before having to go down to the farm for a replacement (Jason Jennings and Scott Feldman). Plus, free agent Ben Sheets is still looming as a possibility come July or August. At the back end of the bullpen, CJ Wilson appears to be healthy this year and Frank Francisco continues looking good as the closer. I can see the staff ERA coming down. Even if it only goes down half a run a game and is still over 5, that still translates to 81 less earned runs a game.
Defensively, gold glover (yes the Rangers did have a Gold Glover with their defense) Michael Young is moving to third. He may not win a Gold Glove there, but will still probably be an improvement on Ramon Vasquez, who manned that corner most of the time last year. Elvis Andrus, who is projected as a future Gold Glover will now be the shortstop, but if he doesn't work out, future Hall of Famer Omar Vizquel is there for back-up. Pitchers accounted for way too many errors last year and a rigorous off-season session put together by Nolan Ryan stressed fielding the position. I'm not as sure about the outfield strength defensively, but I figure if the Rangers can cut down their errors by only 10-15 on the year (only 1 less error every 11-16 games), that could translate into ten less runs or more.
That brings us to the offense. Gone are Milton Bradley and Gerald Laird (Ramon Vasquez too, but he played many different positions). I don't see much drop-off from those two, as their replacements are Nelson Cruz and Jerrod Saltalamacchia. Cruz was a monster in Triple-A last year and has been projected as a future All-Star. Saltalamacchia should be able to do at least as well as Laird, but if he doesn't, Taylor Teagarden has a lot of potential as his back-up. Add to that a full year from Chris Davis, hopefully an injury-free year from Hank Blalock and the same consistent performance from Hamilton, Byrd, Murphy, Kinsler and Young and the offense should be as good if not better than last year. If they score less runs than last year, it won't be by much.
In conclusion: Equal offense plus slightly better defense plus slightly better pitching and I can see this team winning ten more games this year. 89-73 might not make the playoffs but it will put my Rangers strongly in the mix and make for an exciting year.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Does Media Bias Exist?
If it's a presidential election year, the words "Media bias" are going to bandied about right and left (or conservative and liberal if you'd like). The right will talk about a liberal media bias (specifically the major broadcast networks, MSNBC, the NY Times & The Washington Post) and the left will say there's no such thing while at the same time denigrating Fox News Network for exactly the same thing. The question is, is there such a thing as media bias?
Before addressing this, let me preface by letting you know I am a moderate Republican. I do not consider myself a "conservative" or a "liberal". I prefer our country be ruled from the center, whether Democrats or Republicans are in power. I also make a living as a member of the media. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, some of you will take what I have to say as gospel while others will be convinced I have a huge ax to grind.
The simple answer is yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as media bias. The problem is, it is a simplistic answer. The real answer is much more complicated. There is intentional and unintentional media bias. There is also the fact that finding scandal, no matter which party commits it, drives ratings and/or circulation, so the media are constantly looking for candidates, officeholders and celebrities to make a mistake. As a Republican, I might tend to see bias when it goes against my party, while paying little attention when the bias is against the opposition.
Here's an example of media bias (from my own biased point of view). In her first interview since being named as John McCain's VP choice, ABC's Charles Gibson asked Sarah Palin if she hesitated for a moment before accepting the position of running mate. She said no. Gibson persisted. Was there ever a moment of doubt that you could do the job? Palin answered no. Gibson persisted. Doesn't that take a lot of hubris (arrogance)? The moment that question came out, it became a case of media bias. Gibson already had made up his mind that someone in Palin's position must have had at least a moment of self-doubt when asked to serve as a VP candidate. Why is that? If I'm offered a promotion at work, am I supposed to express to anyone that I have a doubt as to whether I can do the job? And is it arrogant of me not to? I don't think so.
I don't know where Gibson's bias in this one individual example comes from and I will concede it did NOT have to do with the Republican Party or conservatives. My personal opinion is that Gibson feels someone who hasn't been on the national stage before should have self-doubt about taking a position that would put them on that stage.
At the same time, maybe Gibson has, as I'm sure many Americans have, a bias against the state of Alaska as it pertains to the rest of the country. While this is a moot point, I would be willing to bet that had Palin come into the interview with the exact same qualifications but was instead from the state of Rhode Island (or Delaware, home to VP candidate Joe Biden), the question of hubris or even the initial questions about hesitancy and self-doubt, would not have come up. Why? Because the national media is more familiar with the state of Rhode Island, due to its proximity to Washington DC and New York, where most of said media members work and thus, the media would already know who this person is.
Unintentional bias occurs when someone in the media doesn't understand the context from which their subject speaks. Again, I point to Gibson's Palin interview. There was much made of his question to her about what she meant when speaking in her church about our servicemen in Iraq and if she was saying we were fighting a war from God. He then ran a clip of Palin speaking in her church that most certainly gave me the impression she did indeed believe that. Palin said that's not what she meant and explained her context. I wasn't buying it.
About two hours later, a network ran the same clip of Palin in church, but then added what she had said next in the church. It totally put Palin's explanation to Gibson in agreement. This time, the editing of the church clip turns into a case of media bias. In this case, I'd like to think this was unintentional bias- that someone (either an editor or Gibson himself) with a more limited understanding of religion didn't even realize how much the context of the church remarks changed when cutting the last section off. Intentional or not, now you have two cases of bias in the same interview and the perception becomes that once again the media is biased against conservatives and even Christians.
While I have not spent as much time looking at the opposition party, I'm sure there are examples that Obama supporters can bring up about the same thing. Hillary Clinton, I'm sure, feels there was a lot of media bias towards Obama in the primaries. The fact is, it does exist, sometimes on purpose, sometimes not. And until some members of the mainstream media get off their own high horses and really try to examine the subject, it will continue to exist.
Before addressing this, let me preface by letting you know I am a moderate Republican. I do not consider myself a "conservative" or a "liberal". I prefer our country be ruled from the center, whether Democrats or Republicans are in power. I also make a living as a member of the media. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, some of you will take what I have to say as gospel while others will be convinced I have a huge ax to grind.
The simple answer is yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as media bias. The problem is, it is a simplistic answer. The real answer is much more complicated. There is intentional and unintentional media bias. There is also the fact that finding scandal, no matter which party commits it, drives ratings and/or circulation, so the media are constantly looking for candidates, officeholders and celebrities to make a mistake. As a Republican, I might tend to see bias when it goes against my party, while paying little attention when the bias is against the opposition.
Here's an example of media bias (from my own biased point of view). In her first interview since being named as John McCain's VP choice, ABC's Charles Gibson asked Sarah Palin if she hesitated for a moment before accepting the position of running mate. She said no. Gibson persisted. Was there ever a moment of doubt that you could do the job? Palin answered no. Gibson persisted. Doesn't that take a lot of hubris (arrogance)? The moment that question came out, it became a case of media bias. Gibson already had made up his mind that someone in Palin's position must have had at least a moment of self-doubt when asked to serve as a VP candidate. Why is that? If I'm offered a promotion at work, am I supposed to express to anyone that I have a doubt as to whether I can do the job? And is it arrogant of me not to? I don't think so.
I don't know where Gibson's bias in this one individual example comes from and I will concede it did NOT have to do with the Republican Party or conservatives. My personal opinion is that Gibson feels someone who hasn't been on the national stage before should have self-doubt about taking a position that would put them on that stage.
At the same time, maybe Gibson has, as I'm sure many Americans have, a bias against the state of Alaska as it pertains to the rest of the country. While this is a moot point, I would be willing to bet that had Palin come into the interview with the exact same qualifications but was instead from the state of Rhode Island (or Delaware, home to VP candidate Joe Biden), the question of hubris or even the initial questions about hesitancy and self-doubt, would not have come up. Why? Because the national media is more familiar with the state of Rhode Island, due to its proximity to Washington DC and New York, where most of said media members work and thus, the media would already know who this person is.
Unintentional bias occurs when someone in the media doesn't understand the context from which their subject speaks. Again, I point to Gibson's Palin interview. There was much made of his question to her about what she meant when speaking in her church about our servicemen in Iraq and if she was saying we were fighting a war from God. He then ran a clip of Palin speaking in her church that most certainly gave me the impression she did indeed believe that. Palin said that's not what she meant and explained her context. I wasn't buying it.
About two hours later, a network ran the same clip of Palin in church, but then added what she had said next in the church. It totally put Palin's explanation to Gibson in agreement. This time, the editing of the church clip turns into a case of media bias. In this case, I'd like to think this was unintentional bias- that someone (either an editor or Gibson himself) with a more limited understanding of religion didn't even realize how much the context of the church remarks changed when cutting the last section off. Intentional or not, now you have two cases of bias in the same interview and the perception becomes that once again the media is biased against conservatives and even Christians.
While I have not spent as much time looking at the opposition party, I'm sure there are examples that Obama supporters can bring up about the same thing. Hillary Clinton, I'm sure, feels there was a lot of media bias towards Obama in the primaries. The fact is, it does exist, sometimes on purpose, sometimes not. And until some members of the mainstream media get off their own high horses and really try to examine the subject, it will continue to exist.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Who's Doing The Giving Back?
I'm an American Idol fan. I'm in front of the tube every Tuesday and Wednesday night once the competition gets underway (I am tired of the full month of auditions and watch very little until Hollywood week).
Last night was the 2nd annual Idol Gives Back, a fund-raising effort for a variety of worthy causes. I applaud fund-raisers in general and know there is no shortage of worthy causes. I do, however, have a bone to pick over this: who exactly is doing the giving?
The answer is apparently everybody but the people behind American Idol. If you read the mission statement of the Idol Gives Back Foundation, you'll read in their "How We Do It" section that "Idol Gives Back Foundation harnesses American Idol's ability to capture America's hearts and the power of entertainment to benefit some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world." In other words, they put on a show and get other people to give. They don't do most of the actual giving.
Even when they talk about proceeds from downloading the performances on the show, Ryan Secrest was sure to say "net proceeds." Translation: Everybody gets paid first: the recording artists who performed, iTunes, the TV network, etc.
Again, I know the producers are giving the profits from these downloads (if any). But I'm willing to lay odds that the extra money they make from the increased advertising revenue on the show more than makes up for the amount they give up. Meanwhile, it's we, the viewers, who are giving altruistically.
Maybe I'm quibbling, but I have a problem with the way media entities quantify the value of their entertainment charity. Clear Channel Entertainment, the largest radio conglomerate in the country, brags about how much they've given in charity. On closer inspection, though, one part of that "giving" is the amount of time they make available for public service announcements on their airwaves- no money changes hands. The other big part of their "giving" is the fundraisers their stations organized. Admirable? Certainly. But again, those are direct donations from you and me. But did they give any actual money themselves? They don't make that very clear.
If a corporation is giving back, let them tell us how much they're kicking in themselves. If it's the user of their product that's doing the bulk of the donating to the corporation's cause, the corporation shouldn't take all the credit for it.
For clarity's sake, let's call last night's show "Idol Viewers Give Back."
Last night was the 2nd annual Idol Gives Back, a fund-raising effort for a variety of worthy causes. I applaud fund-raisers in general and know there is no shortage of worthy causes. I do, however, have a bone to pick over this: who exactly is doing the giving?
The answer is apparently everybody but the people behind American Idol. If you read the mission statement of the Idol Gives Back Foundation, you'll read in their "How We Do It" section that "Idol Gives Back Foundation harnesses American Idol's ability to capture America's hearts and the power of entertainment to benefit some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world." In other words, they put on a show and get other people to give. They don't do most of the actual giving.
Even when they talk about proceeds from downloading the performances on the show, Ryan Secrest was sure to say "net proceeds." Translation: Everybody gets paid first: the recording artists who performed, iTunes, the TV network, etc.
Again, I know the producers are giving the profits from these downloads (if any). But I'm willing to lay odds that the extra money they make from the increased advertising revenue on the show more than makes up for the amount they give up. Meanwhile, it's we, the viewers, who are giving altruistically.
Maybe I'm quibbling, but I have a problem with the way media entities quantify the value of their entertainment charity. Clear Channel Entertainment, the largest radio conglomerate in the country, brags about how much they've given in charity. On closer inspection, though, one part of that "giving" is the amount of time they make available for public service announcements on their airwaves- no money changes hands. The other big part of their "giving" is the fundraisers their stations organized. Admirable? Certainly. But again, those are direct donations from you and me. But did they give any actual money themselves? They don't make that very clear.
If a corporation is giving back, let them tell us how much they're kicking in themselves. If it's the user of their product that's doing the bulk of the donating to the corporation's cause, the corporation shouldn't take all the credit for it.
For clarity's sake, let's call last night's show "Idol Viewers Give Back."
Monday, April 7, 2008
The Boys of Summer Return
I've been a diehard Texas Rangers fan since they were the Washington Senators. That gives me a level of baseball frustration almost as intense as that of Cubs fans. I told one of my sons and my son-in-law, both certified Rangers head-against-the-wall beaters like myself, that for some strange reason, I felt cautiously optimistic about the 2008 season.
On paper, the best the Rangers can hope for is a third place finish in the AL West, yet I remain optimistic. With the finish of the season's first week, I see signs my optimism is justified, as well as signs that I am doomed to another summer of "Wait 'til next year!"
On the plus side, the Rangers were 3-3, pretty good considering all six games were on the road at Seattle and Anaheim, the top dogs of the West. Better yet, the Rangers got 5 quality starts from their pitchers in the first 6 games, after being dead last in the AL in 2007.
Kevin Millwood, who was forgettable last year, tossed a complete game in his second start. The Rangers had ZERO complete games last year. Vicente Padilla, another starter with a terrible '07 campaign, also had two quality starts.
Best of all, newcomers Ben Broussard, Milton Bradley and Josh Hamilton paid immediate dividends at the plate, along with David Murphy, who came over from the Red Sox late in the '07 season, taking the pressure off mainstays Michael Young, Ian Kinsler and Hank Blalock. Holdover catcher Gerald Laird also had a 2 HR 6 RBI game against the Angels, increasing hopes his 2006 season was more indicative of his talent than 2007.
One can't be a Rangers fan, however, without also noticing the glass half-empty, so here's why my early season optimism must be taken with a grain of salt. The Mariners and Angels hit a combined .294 against Texas pitching, easily the highest average against a pitching staff in the league after one week. That means Rangers pitchers wiggled out of a lot of jams, but they need to improve or it'll be a long season. The fielding still sucks. Last year, Texas allowed more unearned runs than any team and they're already next to last after only one week. And while it's nice seeing Ben Broussard hit three HR's in the first week, he's never hit more than 19 in a season, and that was his rookie year in 2005.
The Rangers have a killer April: 20 of their first 28 games are against teams with winning records last season, 13 of those against Seattle, Anaheim, Detroit and Boston. Another three are against the Twins, just under .500 a year ago. The remaining five are against Baltimore and Kansas City.
With that in mind, I now quantify my optimism for 2008. If Texas finishes April at 13-15 or better, a winning record for the season is a real possibility. If they finish 12-16 or worse, you'll see my head raising a lot of bumps this summer, while my wall gets more and more dents.
On paper, the best the Rangers can hope for is a third place finish in the AL West, yet I remain optimistic. With the finish of the season's first week, I see signs my optimism is justified, as well as signs that I am doomed to another summer of "Wait 'til next year!"
On the plus side, the Rangers were 3-3, pretty good considering all six games were on the road at Seattle and Anaheim, the top dogs of the West. Better yet, the Rangers got 5 quality starts from their pitchers in the first 6 games, after being dead last in the AL in 2007.
Kevin Millwood, who was forgettable last year, tossed a complete game in his second start. The Rangers had ZERO complete games last year. Vicente Padilla, another starter with a terrible '07 campaign, also had two quality starts.
Best of all, newcomers Ben Broussard, Milton Bradley and Josh Hamilton paid immediate dividends at the plate, along with David Murphy, who came over from the Red Sox late in the '07 season, taking the pressure off mainstays Michael Young, Ian Kinsler and Hank Blalock. Holdover catcher Gerald Laird also had a 2 HR 6 RBI game against the Angels, increasing hopes his 2006 season was more indicative of his talent than 2007.
One can't be a Rangers fan, however, without also noticing the glass half-empty, so here's why my early season optimism must be taken with a grain of salt. The Mariners and Angels hit a combined .294 against Texas pitching, easily the highest average against a pitching staff in the league after one week. That means Rangers pitchers wiggled out of a lot of jams, but they need to improve or it'll be a long season. The fielding still sucks. Last year, Texas allowed more unearned runs than any team and they're already next to last after only one week. And while it's nice seeing Ben Broussard hit three HR's in the first week, he's never hit more than 19 in a season, and that was his rookie year in 2005.
The Rangers have a killer April: 20 of their first 28 games are against teams with winning records last season, 13 of those against Seattle, Anaheim, Detroit and Boston. Another three are against the Twins, just under .500 a year ago. The remaining five are against Baltimore and Kansas City.
With that in mind, I now quantify my optimism for 2008. If Texas finishes April at 13-15 or better, a winning record for the season is a real possibility. If they finish 12-16 or worse, you'll see my head raising a lot of bumps this summer, while my wall gets more and more dents.
Monday, January 7, 2008
How To Save Western Civilization Without Writing A Word
Having watched my beloved Redskins have their improbable playoff run ended by Seattle on Saturday, I decided to bypass the Jacksonville-Pittsburgh AFC game and switched to the live Presidential debates on ABC.
I had seen snippets of debates from both parties over the past couple of months, but this was the first time to observe most of the remaining candidates over a long period of time, with both parties allotted two hours.
Quite a few things occurred to me.
I realized how long it had been since I'd spent this much real time watching candidates make a case for themselves without a talking head or scribe telling me what happened.
I wished ABC had allowed all the candidates in. It would have been nice to hear from Duncan Hunter for the Republicans along with Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich for the Democrats (Fox even excluded Ron Paul from their Sunday debate, but I didn't watch that one).
I was impressed with Bill Richardson, whom I hadn't given any thought to prior to the debates. He thumped his hand on the table a few too many times, but he gave many thoughtful, intelligent responses.
And I thought about the writer's strike.
The fact is, I wouldn't have seen this debate at all if it hadn't been for the strike. I would have watched another show or stayed with football if it hadn't been offered. And I'm willing to bet the debate never would have been offered on network TV had it not been for the strike.
We are now at the point where the networks are running out of new episodes of their scripted shows. Thus, they need to find alternative programming. Usually it's reality shows, many of which are forgotten as soon as they're over. Someone at ABC, though, got a brilliant idea- it doesn't get any more real than the presidential elections. Thanks to that one thought, many of us got a real education about the people who want to be our next leader of the free world. In the process, ABC managed to fill four hours of prime time programming without having to unnecessarily burn up a new episode of "Men In Trees", "Women's Murder Club" or "According to Jim."
I've mentioned before that I support the writers in their work stoppage. They deserve their piece of the revenue pie from online programming sales. The powers that be should be quick to realize it and give them as close to what they want as possible (hey, I'm willing to let them save a little face). Yet, for the second time, I find myself hoping the strike lasts a month or two longer.
The longer it lasts, the better the chance the big four networks might devote some of their prime-time programming void to the presidential primaries. In turn, we will become a better-informed electorate.
If that happens, part of the settlement with the writers should be a piece of the revenue pie from election coverage, because their strike helped make that revenue happen.
I had seen snippets of debates from both parties over the past couple of months, but this was the first time to observe most of the remaining candidates over a long period of time, with both parties allotted two hours.
Quite a few things occurred to me.
I realized how long it had been since I'd spent this much real time watching candidates make a case for themselves without a talking head or scribe telling me what happened.
I wished ABC had allowed all the candidates in. It would have been nice to hear from Duncan Hunter for the Republicans along with Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich for the Democrats (Fox even excluded Ron Paul from their Sunday debate, but I didn't watch that one).
I was impressed with Bill Richardson, whom I hadn't given any thought to prior to the debates. He thumped his hand on the table a few too many times, but he gave many thoughtful, intelligent responses.
And I thought about the writer's strike.
The fact is, I wouldn't have seen this debate at all if it hadn't been for the strike. I would have watched another show or stayed with football if it hadn't been offered. And I'm willing to bet the debate never would have been offered on network TV had it not been for the strike.
We are now at the point where the networks are running out of new episodes of their scripted shows. Thus, they need to find alternative programming. Usually it's reality shows, many of which are forgotten as soon as they're over. Someone at ABC, though, got a brilliant idea- it doesn't get any more real than the presidential elections. Thanks to that one thought, many of us got a real education about the people who want to be our next leader of the free world. In the process, ABC managed to fill four hours of prime time programming without having to unnecessarily burn up a new episode of "Men In Trees", "Women's Murder Club" or "According to Jim."
I've mentioned before that I support the writers in their work stoppage. They deserve their piece of the revenue pie from online programming sales. The powers that be should be quick to realize it and give them as close to what they want as possible (hey, I'm willing to let them save a little face). Yet, for the second time, I find myself hoping the strike lasts a month or two longer.
The longer it lasts, the better the chance the big four networks might devote some of their prime-time programming void to the presidential primaries. In turn, we will become a better-informed electorate.
If that happens, part of the settlement with the writers should be a piece of the revenue pie from election coverage, because their strike helped make that revenue happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)