Mar
7
Journals, a Future
Filed Under Television | Leave a Comment
Just a few days following my anxious post pondering the futility and utility of keeping a journal, I started catching up on some Tivo’d episodes of Torchwood (warning: gratuitous flash). Lo and behold, the first episode I watch is one where the agency is infiltrated by an Alien who can alter memories. The guy sneaks in and makes everyone remember he was always there.
Pretty clever. I’d like to try that at my next job interview.
The interloper is ultimately caught because one of the team checks his diary and can find no mention of the new guy. So, perhaps I should view a journal not as remedy for instant amnesia or an egotistical artifact for my progeny, but as a defense against alien infiltration.
Scary to think my daily musings about cubicle life and poor drivers could one day save humanity.
Jan
23
Televised Persuasion
Filed Under Television | Leave a Comment
Alert the media. Rather, do not alert the media. For the first time in recorded history, I am the party in the house who is tired of television. I’m full up with news and political punditry. Uncle. I can’t take it any longer.
The combination of the ongoing WGA strike and highly competitive candidate showdowns for both parties swirl around like high and low pressure systems, giving us thunderheads of political commentary. With occasional breaks for Britney Spears gossip. It’s good for our country to have a dialogue about our next leaders. I like to see an involved society, citizens who finally understand that everyone plays a part in the country’s future. But I can’t help but think we are being tricked. Are networks filling the airwaves with political news just because there is nothing else on television? Is the average American truly gripped by the political primaries, or is this hype fabricated?
A person should keep tabs on what our leaders are up to. This is our collective responsibility. I’ve enjoyed watching the political debates. It’s fun to see how these folks react under pressure, to see when they are addressing an issue or just blowing a line a bull in hopes everyone will be fooled. One could devise an intricate drinking game around these debates. But after each debate, we get five days of non-stop commentary. And not just the Sunday morning political shows. People argue on The View. Anchors on the Today show attack candidates via satellite. And then rush off discuss hot new kitchen gadgets.
Little Known Fact: Tim Russert has slept 14 in hours in the past two months. You can see the fatigue in his hair.
I want to believe that the increased news attention to the primaries this year is truly due to citizen concern. But would the attention be the same if there were alternatives on TV? What if the WGA were not on strike? The increased attention isn’t just bugging me, it’s making room for more commentary by the talking heads.
What creeps me out in all of this is that the news outlets are not simply reporting, they are influencing. Each offhand remark, stammer in a debate, becomes newsworthy if the media can create a story out of it. We are not able to simply listen to the candidates and form our own opinions. We have to be lead through the decision-making process by an ever-present news ticker.
You can create drama out of anything by removing the context. How do you think they make The Real World?
If the news machine were benevolent, we should be able to cite the journalistic code of ethics and feel safe that the audience is not being manipulated. But news outlets are run by networks who exist to make money. Through advertising. And how better to keep viewers glued to their sets than to build drama, construct storylines? Maybe we aren’t being lied to directly, but there is clearly a priority in news coverage to get the viewers to return. Even if the media does not intend to lead the populace, each decision to analyze Quote A instead of Quote B has its impacts.
For the conspiracy theorists, I’ll go one better: These networks are all owned by giant corporations who are concerned with political leadership. And advertising sales.
The answer? Pay attention. And pay attention to whom you are paying attention.
I guess I could watch something else. Did you know Scott Baio is 46 and pregnant?
Jan
11
Scratching the Surface
Filed Under Television | Leave a Comment
What’s in a name? A lot, if you ask Andy Rooney. During his 60 Minutes commentary following the Iowa Caucus, he made the following enlightened observation:
Do you think the name “Barack Obama” compares to “Abraham Lincoln” or “Mike Huckabee” to “George Washington”? Maybe “Obama” is the new Washington, the new Lincoln.
Never mind for the first time in history we have a woman and an African American as serious contenders for the Presidency. Never mind we have unprecedented numbers of people–many of them young–participating in our political process. Never mind people are concerned about issues other than highlighted in media soundbites. An analysis of names is the best we can come up with? I was under the impression that names were something given to us, something most of us have very little control. I’m sure the names Washington and Lincoln may have sounded odd at some point, too.
Andy Rooney makes me mad. As a rule, I don’t watch him. It’s not that I avoid him. It’s more that it just never occurs to me to watch 60 Minutes. Why would it? I’m not seventy.
My disdain for Mr. Rooney doesn’t really have anything to do with his opinions. Sure, he’s got a dated worldview, but lots of people have even more whacked out ideas. Who am I to judge someone because they believe something different from what I do? It’s better than having no opinion at all. That’s the unforgivable crime.
No, it’s just that Mr. Rooney sits in his smug little office at the end of 60 Minutes and offers up a bit of what I’m sure he considers a voice of reason. He opens with an observation of modern life, removes the context, and shows how this is one more symptom of how the world has just gone silly.
It’s kind of a clever trick, if you ask me. A cushy gig.
But he completely misses the point. This is what infuriates me. He touches on something that is potentially a profound observation about our changing culture. But instead of following the lead into some sort of journalistic conclusion, he gives up, lets the story peter out until it is no more than the dry witticism of a rheumy-eyed old man.
This all started a couple of weeks ago when I caught Rooney’s segment on 60 Minutes. The thing about disregarding the existence of a television show is that you are not only unaware of when it is on, you are also unaware of when it is not on, and somehow therefore more likely to catch it while surfing through the channels. Life is like that.
So Mr. Rooney was discussing how people seem to be carrying more stuff than they used to. I perked up. You see, up until 7:49 pm that evening, not only had I forgotten all about 60 Minutes, but I’d also forgotten all about Andy Rooney. I mistakenly thought this might be going somewhere.
So Andy Rooney goes on to interview people on the streets of New York (a perfectly representative sample of the entire United States, of course) about what they have in their bags. He finds some commonalities. Everyone seems to be carrying planners, books, and water.
George Carlin already harped on water bottles a couple of years ago, so Mr. Rooney leaves this alone. Instead, he goes for the planners and books:
I hadn’t realized women were so well organized but one of the items most women are carrying is what they call a “planner”. They carry “planners” and a bottle of water.
When they left the house that morning, they planned to drink water I guess.
And later:
It was my inescapable conclusion that there’s a lot of book-reading going on at the office, on company time.
He closes with something glib about how silly we all are and I remember exactly what infuriates me about Mr. Rooney and the rest of the media: No one can take a leap into something more complex than a two-sided issue or anecdote about the good old days.
People are carrying more stuff around with them these days. This is a fact. My own pockets bulge with artifacts that I believe I must have with me at all times. But you can’t leave the observation at that. There is a cause and effect here.
Why do we carry so much stuff? Do we really need these things? Or have we been convinced we need these things by an army of outside marketing forces? Health groups preach on the benefits of hydration. Productivity gurus sell us on increased efficiency and higher paying careers. Cell phone companies unleash low cost data plans. Computer manufacturers convince corporations that employees with laptops improve the bottom line. It all piles up, and we are left shouldering the burden.
It’s not so much that individuals choose to keep so much with them at all times, it’s that our culture has turned us into a bunch of consumer gypsies. Isn’t this a more compelling (and disturbing) story than people planning to drink water?
It’s not Andy’s fault. He’s part of a larger media trend. A hot story this holiday season concerned elevated lead levels in toys made in China. This was a gold mine for local news. They could do plenty of man on the street interviews. They could test lead content in their own labs. The outcome? People said they are willing to spend a little more this holiday season on domestic toys. Kids are safe–see you at eleven.
But like Mr. Rooney’s army of pack rats, this story goes deeper doesn’t it? Take a look around you. Most of our stuff is manufactured in countries with questionable labor laws and low material standards. This is why everything is so cheap. We have developed a culture of conceived wealth based on possessions, most of which are acquired at ridiculously low prices at the cost of workers’ rights in third world countries and our own increasing trade deficit.
So the issue is not so much am I willing to pay a few dollars more for a lead-free blocks made in the U S of A. The real question is how have we allowed our material culture to trick us into endangering our children without anyone even batting an eye?
I want to think that Andy Rooney records an hour of footage each week for 60 Minutes. He takes an issue and tears into it. He draws enlightened conclusions about our culture, questions our actions, calls for civil disobedience. Then the editors cut him down to three and half minutes that won’t offend any sponsors or investors, cut him down into just the musings of a rheumy-eyed old white man.
He probably doesn’t even notice. I doubt Andy Rooney watches 60 Minutes. I mean, who does?
-
Categories
-
Archives
-
My Photos
-
-
