"If You Pay For Cable, You're A Hostage Of Sports."

"Pay up for sports, or you don't get anything else you might want to watch on cable, un-live."

Aren't people who watch sports the main customers for cable TV, what with Netflix and the internet and so forth? The linked NPR article is trying to generate outrage about cable TV, but it seems to me that cable TV is obsolescent. And I say that as someone who pays $200 a month for cable TV.

Understand: ESPN is an entirely different programming animal than, say, CBS, which dominates prime time –– or A&E, or HBO, or Showtime — on cable. Those networks must create programming.

ESPN and the other sports networks are essentially just brokers. They take your subscription money, buy games and then "bring them" to you, pocketing a nice broker's fee. And because games are live, advertisers love it, because you can't fast-forward their commercials. And, hey, you only need to go to the bathroom so many times.

It's a great business model, taxing American households.

Well, our cable works with a box that lets us record while watching the show live. And we, in fact, do fast-forward through the commercials! If you don't understand how to watch live and still fast-forward commercials, you don't have the remote-control skills we do. It's not that hard. Let the live recording get a little ahead of where you're watching, so you'll be able to skip ahead. If you "catch up to live," do some more pausing/replays. That's what I do. I only watch commercials if I think they look amusing, which they are from time to time.

"If you woke up this morning thinking, 'What I need is a clip of Snoop Dogg hanging out on The Price Is Right helping a lady win at Plinko'..."

"...  then you are in luck."

Time Warner's cable guys "assigned to the highest-end 'Signature Home' jobs will be getting a more 'fashion-forward look' soon."

And Verizon's recent ads "highlighted its technicians’ dress shirts"  and "characterize the install as a white glove experience."

That's from a NYT article — promoted top and center on its front webpage — called "Today’s Cable Guy, Upgraded and Better-Dressed." The photo at the link shows a clean-shaven, crewcut cable guy — with white paper booties over his shoes to protect the gleaming hardwood floor — demonstrating how to use the TV to a woman standing by her side. There's a second photo of another cable guy — also in booties. He's the bearded type. This better class of men will come to your house and help you set up the company's elaborate "suite of products."

"My genius husband had the router in the basement," joked the homeowner, Kathleen Hassinger, a 39-year-old mother of three daughters...

Now — it's been obvious to me for quite a while — the New York Times is written for women. But at what point does it actually become... ridiculous...

[Selene Tovar, 35, a stay-at-home mother of three] needed the Internet service at her three-story home in New York’s Chelsea neighborhood to be fast enough to power the family’s six televisions, five Xboxes, several PlayStations and multiple iPads and laptops. Even a new scale — a Hanukkah present from her husband — required a fast connection so it could send daily weigh-ins to an iPhone app.

Note the clueless husband: thinks a scale is a nice gift. Coming to Ms. Tovar's aid was Quirino Madia who "wore a white button-down shirt and gray slacks."

But watch out, affluent ladies of New York, "many cable technicians still wear the standard work clothes and tool belts."

***

And I'm sure it's got nothing to do with anything the New York Times would ever have intended to allude to, but reading that article made me want to Google "cable guy pornography," just to see how prevalent that genre was. I don't know. That's just the direction my mind went. Not that I clicked on any of the links. I didn't. And my Google search only retrieved about 4 million hits, so maybe it's not such a big porn sub-genre. I don't know if the new "fashion-forward look" will heat up the sub-genre or not. Actually, I think not. But I'm no porn connoisseur. I'm more of a Google-search connoisseur. For example, I moved on to the search: "fashion-forward cable guy porn" — 192,000 results — and found "James Franco Porn Documentary: Disappointing Sex Tape Inspires Film," an article in HuffPo (the San Francisco edition). Speaking of disappointing! James Franco does not appear as a fashion-forward cable guy in any porn film. Apparently, one time Franco made a home video with his girlfriend a realized: "Those people in pornos, they are great performers. They're not just doing it, they're selling it to an audience." The guy's a genius!

***

Rereading this post, I suddenly see what the real porn is for the ladies who read the New York Times: "three-story home in New York’s Chelsea neighborhood."

Free speech and references to killing... on posters at the University of Wisconsin—Stout.

Via Instapundit.

Didn't you get what you wanted?

May I recommend Amazon?

You know, I would consider buying a big new TV— but it just seems so complicated these days. I don't even know the difference between an LED and an LCD screen. Which is supposed to be better? Any advice? Built-in WiFi... is that the future or is the future about to overtake that technology? 3D... does that make the thing worse if you don't want 3D? If I wait 6 months, will everything be better and cheaper?

Deadline Hollywood summarizes the movie and TV history of men dressed as women...

On the occasion of the new TV show "Work It" (which we talked about yesterday):

While it may have deeper implications today than it did decades ago, men dressing like women is one of the oldest forms of comedy. It is at the heart of one of the best feature comedies ever made, Some Like It Hot, as well as several other classic comedy films, Tootsie, Mrs. Doubtfire and The Birdcage, and it has had a presence on TV, most notably with the 1980 series Bosom Buddies starring Tom Hanks, and Saturday Night Live where male cast members regularly impersonate female celebrities. And then there is the British school of comedy with Monty Python and Benny Hill. ABC’s president Paul Lee brought up his heritage when explaining his decision to pick up Work It to critics at the summer TCA press tour. “I’m a Brit, it is in my contract that I have to do one cross-dressing show a year,” he said. “I was brought up on Monty Python. What can I do?” As a fellow European who also grew up with Monty Python and Benny Hill, I can actually relate to that...."

I can see the Brit excuse, but it's really awful, if you're going to indulge in argument by listmaking like that, to leave out the most prominent — in more ways than one — cross-dresser in the history of television, the man who was called Mr. Television, Milton Berle.

Here's a great clip of Berle in drag — in a guest spot on Lucille Ball's show.  (If you've only got 2 seconds to spare, click here.)



By the way, what a concentration of comic acting in that 5-minute clip, from everybody involved, including Desi Arnaz, who, if he showed up on TV today, would probably elicit criticism from some dignity-protecting group that doesn't care whether or not comedy has room to breathe.

"'Work It,' an upcoming ABC sitcom about men forced to dress as women to get a job, has angered equality activists..."

"... who see the premise as trivializing the obstacles transgender people face daily in the workplace," writes Jeremy Kinser at Advocate.com:

Although there are no transgender characters on the series, Drian Juarez, project manager for the Transgender Economic Empowerment Program at Los Angeles's Gay and Lesbian Center, finds the promo exploitive [sic]. In a statement released to the press, Juarez says, "What is clearly intended to be a humorous promotional ad for the show depicts the two lead characters, dressed as women, standing at a urinal. Sadly, it’s very common for people to promote fear of sharing the bathroom with transgender people as a means to further their prejudice. We’re frequently portrayed as sexual predators using the bathroom to make sexual advances."

Here's the ad:



Kinser also quotes Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign:

"We've seen a lot of offensive things on TV over the years, but this really takes the cake... The so-called 'comedy' of Work It is based on the premise that male-bodied people who unsuccessfully attempt to present themselves as women are worthy of ridicule. The problem is that most transgender women find themselves in this situation, at least temporarily, during their transition process. And due to the prohibitively high costs of transition-related medical care and widespread insurance inequities, many may be visibly transgender for their entire lives."

Speaking of what takes the cake, the best comedy movie ever made uses the same premise of 2 heterosexual men who dress as women. Is this premise to be avoided because it has something to do with an actual problem actual experienced by some people who may be sympathetic?

If the answer is yes, how many other subjects for comedy would you place off limits to protect the feelings of real people with real problems? Bad marriages, diseases, death, accidents, ugliness, mental illness, farting... ugh! Practically everything funny will be off limits! Or... I don't know... maybe you could still make a comedy about "human rights" activists who starchily insist that nobody laugh anymore. It could be about a group of TV writers — like the old "Dick Van Dyke Show" — except the network has added a "human rights" activist to their team, and she/he shoots down every comic idea they have.

"'[S]arcastic' media-savvy comedies and morally murky antiheroes tend to draw Dems."

"[S]erious work-centered shows (both reality shows and stylized scripted procedurals), along with reality competitions, tend to draw conservatives."

At the link: lists of liberals most and least favorite shows and conservatives most and least favorite shows. "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" appear on the liberals' favorite and the conservatives' least favorite lists. That's understandable, because both shows are written with a strongly liberal perspective. What show appears on both the liberals' least favorite and the conservatives' favorite lists? "Swamp Loggers"! "Swamp Loggers"... what's going on there? Check it out. It's about really hard work. Okay? Enough said?

Goodbye to Harry Morgan.

He died today, at the age of 96. Maybe you think of him in "M*A*S*H" or "Dragnet," but I liked him in "Pete and Gladys":

Alan Sues "tended to perform with over-the-top flamboyance on the show, displaying stereotypically gay mannerisms."

"It wasn’t because he was ashamed of being gay; it was because he was surviving as a performer... Many gay men came up to him and said how important he was when they were young because he was the only gay man they could see on television...."

We loved him on "Laugh-In." Alan Sues, dead at the age of 85.

Football is better on TV... watched alone.

Asserts Luke O'Neil, whose friends "don't enjoy my company."

Now that a personalized, crystal-clear picture is at everyone's fingertips, it is pure torture to let someone else man the controls. Watching my friends operate a DVR makes me feel like a nervous backseat driver. When I'm at my in-laws’ house, for instance, I have to watch the Patriots game in a separate room because my father-in-law will inevitably flip over to golf during commercials. Personally, I like to pause the action every time there's a stoppage in play or when, say, the damn Patriots defense allows yet another third down conversion. (That happens a lot.) After I hit pause, I'll walk around the house a few times grinding my teeth. If I did that with company around, it would inevitably lead to someone complaining about being behind real time and somebody else whining that he can’t check his fantasy numbers without spoiling the game that’s now on pause. And they would be right to complain, if those hypothetical people still came over to watch football. Thankfully, I’ve scared them all away.

C-SPAN chairman Brian Lamb asks Chief Justice John Roberts to televise the Obamacare oral arguments.

Though the Court releases audio recordings of oral recording, it has never gone on TV. Should Court accept cameras for this momentous case?

"We believe the public interest is best served by live television coverage of this particular oral argument," Lamb wrote. "It is a case which will affect every American's life, our economy, and will certainly be an issue in the upcoming presidential campaign."

Lamb added that "a five-and-a-half hour argument begs for camera coverage." He said that "interested citizens would be understandably challeged to adequately follow audio-only coverage of an event of this length with all the justices and various counsel participating."

Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the idea of televised Supreme Court proceedings during a recent appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. "For every ten people who sat through our proceedings, gavel to gavel, there would be ten thousand who would see nothing but a 30 second takeout from one of the proceedings" he said, "which I guarantee you would not be representative of what we do." Scalia added that such soundbites would leave viewers with "a misimpression" of Supreme Court operations.

We already have the soundbites! And audio clips are played on radio and TV all the time. And we have text transcripts, from which we select quotes. So what is Scalia talking about? Perhaps it's that more people will pay attention if there is video, but how dare he hold his position of power and argue that his work should be monitored by fewer people? I think the real reason is that the Justices don't want us to see how they look as the sit for hours listening to arguments. They'd look grumpy and drowsy and puffy and wrinkly. They'd have to wear makeup. But even with makeup, they'd be far less camera-ready than the talking heads we're used to seeing on camera.

I've blogged a few times about the Supreme Court going on TV:

In "Where is the 9,000-foot cow?"/"What do you think about Satan?"/"What did James Madison think about video games?," I disagreed with Justice Ginsburg who noted some weird questions that Justices have asked at oral arguments and used them as a reason to exclude TV. Yeah, we'd be able to make hilarious YouTube videos splicing together things that sound ridiculous ripped out of context. But it's important in America to make fun of people who wield power. If you can't take it, you don't deserve the power. Judges may like us to think that they merely humbly channel the power that inheres in the law, so there's no point in looking at them as if they have a will of their own. We'll be the judge of that.

In "If everybody could see this, it would make people feel so good about this branch of government and how it’s operating," I quote Justice Elena Kagan, who is quoted by Kenneth Starr in a NYT op-ed arguing for Supreme Court TV. I said I thought that despite the complaints about how people would use video in a superficial way that "we would become involved in the substance of the law and attempt to work through the actual legal problems at a higher level than we do now."

In "Why Congress should impose TV cameras on the Supreme Court," I said I thought TV cameras would put healthy pressure on the Justices who cling to their positions — which they hold for life under the Constitution — as they advance into old age.

So, I've been in favor of Supreme Court TV for a long time. Is it a good idea for the first televised argument to be the most momentous one? I'd say no, which is why I would recommend that the Court bring the cameras in now and make video the norm, before the big 5-and-a-half-hour Obamacare extravaganza.

(Link to the C-SPAN request via Instapundit.)

What are Americans watching on TV?

In a word: football.

The "Slumdog Millionaire" scenario...

... plays out in real life.

PBS effort to expand arts coverage yields "the usual safety-first pledge-week fare."

Says Terry Teachout (in a very amusing WSJ column). Excerpt:

This week the network launches its new arts initiative with a "festival" of nine arts-related programs... 

Except for [one dance show], all nine programs are carefully designed to please those members of the gray-ponytail set who prefer politically correct popular culture to high art. Straight plays? Who needs 'em? Jazz? Bor-ing. As for the visual arts, they don't even exist in the unserious, unchallenging world of the PBS Arts Fall Festival. Instead we get recycled Puccini, goosed-up Gilbert and Sullivan and yesterday's grunge rock....

[I]n theory, PBS isn't commercial—except, of course, that it really is. It's an audience-driven business that dons the discreet fig leaf of public service in order to justify the government subsidies, corporate contributions, foundation grants and individual donations that keep it afloat. And what do we get for all that money? "Antiques Roadshow" and "Masterpiece Mystery!"

Ha. I'm on the same page as Teachout, including being kinda interested in "Give Me the Banjo."

It's "easy" to answer the question what would John Lennon be like if he were alive today.

"He would love today’s TV with all the channels that are available."

Says May Pang, laughing (and reminiscing about how Yoko assigned her the task of being John Lennon's girlfriend).

ADDED: Oh, yeah, Paul McCartney got married again. That didn't interest me as something to blog about, but having jumped at that Pang bit — portraying John as a guy who would mainly like to watch a lot of television — I find it amusing that Paul's wedding didn't register on my bloggable-o-meter.

IN THE COMMENTS: ndspenelli says:

John Lennon channel surfing...Imagine.

Imagine there's 2,000 channels/It isn't hard to do/Most of them are HD/Video on Demand too...

"If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts."

"And since Windows just copied the Mac, it's likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backwards ten years later."

Link.

ADDED: Speaking of college drop-ins, do you remember the 60s sitcom "Hank"?



"Why Daddy's the toughest registrar this school's ever had!"

"If everybody could see this, it would make people feel so good about this branch of government and how it’s operating."

Kenneth W. Starr —  former federal judge, Solicitor General and independent counsel — quotes Justice Elena Kagan in a NYT op-ed arguing — as so many have argued before — that the public deserves video access to the oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The main argument against it, as stated by the resistant Justices, is that some Justices would showboat for the cameras and try to get the sound bite of the day. I think an unspoken reason why they resist cameras — when they release audio to the world — is that they don't want us all checking our how they look, particularly if they look tired and old. As I said back in 2005:

The Justices have life tenure, and they know how to use it. We just saw 11 years pass without a retirement. Presidents go through through entire terms without a single opportunity to choose a fresh voice for the Court. It has become the norm for Justices to hold their seats as they pass into old age and severe illness. With the support of four gloriously able and energetic law clerks and the silence of the other Justices, no slip in a Justice's ability ever shows in his writing. But the Justices do need to take their seats on the bench for oral argument, and it is here that the public has the chance to judge them.

This judgment may be unfair. Some Justices, as noted, are better looking than others. Some will subject themselves to hair and makeup specialists, and others won't tolerate it. And getting older damages even the prettiest face. Some Justices love the verbal jousting with the lawyers in the courtroom, while others think that all they need is the written argument and opt out of the live show. With cameras, Justice Scalia would win new fans, and "The Daily Show" would wring laughs from Justice Thomas's silent face. The read is inaccurate.

But the cameras would expose the Justices who cling to their seats despite declining ability. It is true that the journalists in the courtroom might tell us if a Justice no longer manages to sit upright and look alert. But the regular gaze of the television cameras would create a permanent but subtle pressure on the Justices to think realistically about whether they still belong on the Court. Self-interest would motivate them to step down gracefully and not cling too long to the position of power the Constitution entitles them to. I think this new pressure would serve the public interest. It would institute a valuable check on the life tenure provision, which has, in modern times, poured too much power into the individuals who occupy the Court.

A new counterargument occurs to me as I reread that. A President with the power to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice will think about how well the nominee will represent the administration's political agenda on TV. He'd want someone who looks and speaks persuasively to the public through the new medium.

Justice Kagan talked about making people feel so good about the judiciary, and, obviously, she intended to convey the notion that the Justices stick to legal arguments and apply themselves to puzzling through the various texts. But if one Justice — say, Elena Kagan — has the skill and charisma to project into the camera and make her approach to interpretation lodge in the minds of the people, those who support the other "side" would want an equivalently powerful voice. That good feeling could be comfort with the abuses of power by the other branches of government or a complacency that whatever we need and want can be provided by a benevolent Court.

And yet, I suspect, that if people had more access to the arguments, we would become involved in the substance of the law and attempt to work through the actual legal problems at a higher level than we do now. I know I would love the ability to make clips from the video to incorporate into blog posts that discuss and explain the issues. Of course, I would jump at the opportunity to extract funny little things for all sorts of diverse bloggerly purposes. But the Court, like the other branches of government, deserves to be laughed at too.

"A lawyer who donated sperm to pay his way through college has learned that he has fathered an astonishing 70 children."

"More than 15 of those have already attempted to contact 33-year-old Ben Seisler. The donor confessed to his fiancée as part of a new reality show, Sperm Donor...."

"If one day passes without me writing any more vagina jokes, my career is blown... Vagina jokes paid for my house."

Laughs one network TV writer.

"Each season the competition is so stiff over who you can get to watch," a professor says analytically and probably without intending double entendre. "That’s why you’re getting more explicit, or more explicitly inferential, use of language."

Via Adam at Throwing Things, who says:

YES, THEY DON'T LIKE HEARING IT AND FIND IT DIFFICULT TO SAY, WHEREAS WITHOUT BATTING AN EYE A MAN WILL REFER TO HIS DICK OR HIS ROD OR HIS JOHNSON: Apparently not any more, Maude: the new fall tv season chock full of people saying the word "vagina."

Pop culture reference help. "Maude" is not the old TV character played by Bea Arthur, who may have talked about her vagina. It's Maude Lebowski, of the old movie — yeah, it's old too! — "The Big Lebowski."



(Sorry, YouTube only yielded up the Italian version.)