Posted: 2 Mar 2008 2:40 am
I was being a tiny bit facetious, but only a bit!
In my innocence, I always believed that cable TV was instituted so that we the viewers could have a wider choice of programming and, by virtue of that monthly fee we agreed to pay, they'd be unspoiled by the constant barrage of advertisements - the cable companies would derive their income directly from us.
Well - that didn't last long, did it?
'TCM' is the 'last channel standing' with no commercials - it gets a lot of viewing-time in our house.
PBS: It's like an oasis of calm and reason and lays like a jewel in the midst of that welter of banal and cacophonous idiocy that is Network TV; PBS stays!
The History Channel starts with good intentions, I suppose, but it's marred by their choice of presenters (that odious military-looking chap who bellows at us in that 'Male Call', or whatever it is, is one!) and their endless 'recaps' that inevitably follow each and every commercial break. I love to see archive footage of the building of railways or the great bridges of the world, but their hour-long features actually have less than thirty minutes of content. There's much to recommend their efforts, but it can be far too gimmick-laden for my taste. They have work to do...
The news channels need to watch BBC World Service so that they can learn that there is life outside the United States. The way 'news' is presented in this country is, for me, one of the least-tolerable aspects of day-to-day life. Why the obligatory male/female teams who field each other's fatuous and light-hearted 'asides' while they flash their perfect teeth at us and each other? Why must news be turned into a glossy-magazine, and why do they assume that the only way they can hold our attention is by assaulting our senses with sonic effects and intrusive graphics?
They don't need to titillate, entertain or amuse us - they simply need to inform us, and it would be nice if they could try it without the political bias.
===================================================
'American Idol' will, of course, be instantly stricken from the air-waves.
It will be replaced by re-runs of the Major golf-tournaments of the last fifty years, Laurel and Hardy films, and footage from Scotty's ISGC film-library. '....Idol''s old time-slot will be preceded by 'Andy Griffiths Show' episodes so that we can all learn to be nice to each other again.
This will have a two-fold effect; it'll keep me happy, and those who don't want to watch Nicklaus and Palmer battle it out all over again will be forced to learn to read books....
There will be other changes under my new regime, but I thought it best if I just broke everybody in gently......
Vote for RR!!!
In my innocence, I always believed that cable TV was instituted so that we the viewers could have a wider choice of programming and, by virtue of that monthly fee we agreed to pay, they'd be unspoiled by the constant barrage of advertisements - the cable companies would derive their income directly from us.
Well - that didn't last long, did it?
'TCM' is the 'last channel standing' with no commercials - it gets a lot of viewing-time in our house.
PBS: It's like an oasis of calm and reason and lays like a jewel in the midst of that welter of banal and cacophonous idiocy that is Network TV; PBS stays!
The History Channel starts with good intentions, I suppose, but it's marred by their choice of presenters (that odious military-looking chap who bellows at us in that 'Male Call', or whatever it is, is one!) and their endless 'recaps' that inevitably follow each and every commercial break. I love to see archive footage of the building of railways or the great bridges of the world, but their hour-long features actually have less than thirty minutes of content. There's much to recommend their efforts, but it can be far too gimmick-laden for my taste. They have work to do...
The news channels need to watch BBC World Service so that they can learn that there is life outside the United States. The way 'news' is presented in this country is, for me, one of the least-tolerable aspects of day-to-day life. Why the obligatory male/female teams who field each other's fatuous and light-hearted 'asides' while they flash their perfect teeth at us and each other? Why must news be turned into a glossy-magazine, and why do they assume that the only way they can hold our attention is by assaulting our senses with sonic effects and intrusive graphics?
They don't need to titillate, entertain or amuse us - they simply need to inform us, and it would be nice if they could try it without the political bias.
===================================================
'American Idol' will, of course, be instantly stricken from the air-waves.
It will be replaced by re-runs of the Major golf-tournaments of the last fifty years, Laurel and Hardy films, and footage from Scotty's ISGC film-library. '....Idol''s old time-slot will be preceded by 'Andy Griffiths Show' episodes so that we can all learn to be nice to each other again.
This will have a two-fold effect; it'll keep me happy, and those who don't want to watch Nicklaus and Palmer battle it out all over again will be forced to learn to read books....
There will be other changes under my new regime, but I thought it best if I just broke everybody in gently......
Vote for RR!!!
