Category: Television

Flavor Flav teaches economics

By last count Danielle had received more than 800 hits today, thanks to last night’s season premiere of Flavor of Love 2. My highest traffic for one day barely exceeded 100 hits, and that was because a blog with a wide audience linked one of my posts. Most days I slog through issues that matter (subjectively) on a grander scale than a simple reality television show, yet I don’t generate the traffic in a month that one post on Flavor Flav generates. There are various reasons for the disparity, which aren’t necessary for this analysis, but the one constant that remains is a lack of any kind of marketing. Danielle doesn’t link everywhere just to generate fake traffic, a policy to which I adhere, as well. I can only conclude that Google tells the story of the masses. Write what people are interested in and the readership will follow. It’s simple supply and demand.

Post Script: I’ll be watching Flavor of Love 2 from my DVR now, so I won’t piously claim that I’m appalled by the bottom of the entertainment ladder claiming more attention than the top. I just wonder where else those readers are going when they’re done with giant clocks and pretend drama, because it’s not here.

Brain rot leaves me ill-equipped

From its assumptions I shouldn’t be able to respond to this with proper analysis, mostly due to the copious amounts of blow I snort off the backsides of my prostitutes (when I don’t get distracted by the room full of monkeys I keep to torment mentally-challenged children for my own amusement), but I’ll give it the old (state) college try:

MTV’s own reticence aside, we can think of another reason not to celebrate the past 25 years. Almost every behavior and image the station’s name conjures up is a reminder of cultural decline.

Think about it. The phrase “MTV generation” is routinely used to connote young people with the attention span of fleas and an insatiable appetite for the next thrill.

Stereotypes and directing blame at the purveyor of “pornography” instead of at the parents of the small minority actually impacted (impacted, not impaired) by the current incarnation of MTV who don’t bother to parent is so much easier. These editors should stop writing, sit on their front porch, and scream “Get off the lawn!” at the neighborhood toughs. Then we’ll finally realize our full cultural decline, leaving every one of us incapable of anything beyond anti-social attacks on the integrity of our upstanding past.

Baseball has no shot clock

So what?

Federal regulators said yesterday that Comcast Corp. may have discriminated against a regional sports television network by refusing to carry the network’s broadcasts of Nationals games.
…

In a 10-page opinion, the FCC said it found that MASN had made a “prima facie showing” that Comcast had discriminated against the network and had “indirectly and improperly demanded a financial interest” in the network in exchange for carrying it. The FCC also said, however, that there were factual disputes on both points that would have to be decided by a judge.

Media lawyers said the FCC’s finding shifted the burden to Comcast to prove that it has not broken any of the agency’s rules. The lawyers said it was possible that the judge could find Comcast had played by the rules and was justified in declining to carry the network.

I don’t know the specifics of the rules, but shouldn’t we first be asking whether or not the FCC should have rules governing this? Is this regulatory burden in the interest of customers, or is it in the interest of regulators? Let’s all ponder that for a long nanosecond.

Cover the First Amendment in Whipped-Cream and Pasties

Now that it’s been called on its bullshit, the FCC wants a do-over.

“Today the Commission, supported by the ABC, NBC and CBS affiliates, filed a motion for voluntary remand and stay of briefing schedule in Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission,” the commission said in a statement. “It did so at the request of broadcasters who complained they did not have the opportunity to be heard by the Commission before it issued its decision in its “Omnibus” order in March. Additionally, the remand would allow the Commission to hear all of the licensees’ arguments which is necessary for the broadcasters to make these same arguments before the Court.”

I’ll ask the obvious: does no one understand that “Congress shall make no law” is an absolute? And is it any surprise that an arm of the government granted unconstitutional power by that Congress will somehow abuse that power beyond its own rules? The key lost in this story is that Fox is not one of the networks asking for this “voluntary” remand in Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission. Good. If it sticks this out through to trial, I promise to watch every So You Think You Can [Insert Unwatchable Activity Here]? show its producers can imagine. Just include lots of T&A and swearing when if the court realizes that the bulk of the FCC’s Congressionally-sanctioned nanny-mongering is unconstitutional.

Hat tip: Jeff Jarvis

How to win friends alienate fans and influence people

If there ever existed proof that government-imposed monopolies harm customers, the current cage match between Comcast, Peter Angelos, the Washington Nationals, and MASN is the shining example. (It also touches on a stupid business practice by Major League Baseball.) Comcast refuses to carry MASN, which has television broadcast rights to the Washington Nationals. I have no problem with the business decision by Comcast, though I despise it as a customer. Not because I want to watch the Nationals. I don’t, except when they’re playing the Phillies. The Nationals are currently in Philadelphia for a three-game series, of which all three games will be blacked out for all non-MASN outlets.

Last night, for example, Major League Baseball would not allow INHD to broadcast the game to my cable system, nor did it allow MLB Extra Innings to broadcast the game to me. It’s important to note that I’ve paid MLB for the games, yet they funnel me to MASN. This is where the problem culminates. Without MASN, I missed the game.

This could be easily resolved by Comcast or Major League Baseball putting customers first, but I’ve come to expect little from either. I tolerate Major League Baseball’s policy with my business only because I love the Phillies and watching the majority of their games not blacked out. I do write a letter every year, however. With Comcast, I only have the option to switch to satellite. That’s a fine form of competition, but it’s not feasible for my house and needs. The solution is simple, of course, but government won’t get out of the regulation business. Instead, I’m presented with idiotic symbolism:

Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) [last week] signed into law a bill requiring Comcast, which is the District’s main cable provider, to begin broadcasting Washington Nationals games or face the possibility of losing its license to operate in the city.

The bill, which was passed unanimously by the D.C. Council earlier this month, says that unless the games are on the air beginning [last week], the District and Comcast must enter into negotiations to discuss the franchise agreement and explore ways of getting the games on the air.

So, rather than open the city to competition and allow the invisible hand to do the work of providing MASN, the City Council and mayor would prefer city residents (theoretically) be without cable television service completely. This is reasonable how, other than to prove that politicians want to be central planners masquerading as heroes? Remove legal barriers to entry and let the market decide; instead of just voicing an opinion, customers could then vote with their most powerful weapon possible. If the City Council and Mayor Williams did that, MASN would be on Comcast tonight.

And I’d get to watch the Phillies.

Yet another reason to hate Yahoo

As I’ve written in the past, I hate Yahoo. They’ve stolen money from me, and generally treated me poorly. I’ve mostly managed to avoid dealing with their awful product since abandoning my e-mail account with them. However, today I returned to check a tv listing for tonight after my primary source failed. I could report a success, because I found what I was looking for, but Yahoo is involved. They had to screw it up somehow. I should’ve expected it.

I’ve read headlines hinting at recent television news suggesting a plot spoiler for Lost. I hate spoilers and I love Lost, so I chose to avoid clicking through to the stories every time I encountered them today. Every news source complied with the logic that viewers might want to avoid knowing, so they left all the juicy details inside the story. Perfectly reasonable. Except in Yahoo logic.

On its main page, Yahoo felt compelled to give away the spoiler in its sub-headline for the story, because the headline wasn’t enough, I guess. Since they gave it away, I clicked through to see how they presented the information.

Try as the Lost writers might to keep a lid on series-shifting spoilers, when [ed. note: possible spoiler deleted].

(SPOILER ALERT: If you aren’t interested in hearing about a [possible spoiler deleted], read no further. And avoid the Internet for the next four weeks.)

A little late now, you think? The only solution now is to avoid Yahoo for the next four forevers. Idiots.

I’m stealing the term “definitional elasticity”

As long as it increases tax-receipts revenue, any logic is acceptable. Increasingly, states apply irrational justifications to tax iTunes and other music download services.

In Kentucky and Washington, state law does allow the taxation of computer software. Washington law defines software as “a set of coded instructions designed to cause a computer…to perform a task,” which tax officials have interpreted to include music, movies and e-books.

“We use that same rationale on other types of files, such as music files or video files,” said Gary Davis, the state’s tax information and education manager. “We view them as similar because they cause some action by a piece of hardware to play them.”

Davis recited aloud the definition of computer software from Washington’s tax law and said he believed that data files, like an executable program, cause a computer to “perform a task.” He said, “I think it’s our policy that that’s exactly what a music file does in order to hear it.”

That definitional elasticity has alarmed online retailers, which say states are interpreting tax laws in ways never envisioned by elected officials or the general public. They would rather see the issue decided openly in state legislatures than behind closed doors by tax agencies.

On what basis could any rational human being interpret an mp3 file to be software that causes a computer to perform a task? The only software that causes a computer to perform a task has an .exe extension. That stands for “executable”. It’s a bizarre notion, I understand, but it’s universal. An mp3 file has an .mp3 extension. Click that without an mp3 player on a computer and the computer will do nothing. Absolutely nothing. An mp3 is data used by a program as a set of instructions to create sound waves through computer speakers. Next, I suppose Mr. Davis will determine that a ball rolling down a hill is being propelled by perpetual motion instead of gravity.

Perhaps the music download tax question is valid. I’m all for as little taxation as possible, but I understand that politicians aren’t reasonable people. At least understand that updating legislation is the way to deal with new situations. Loose reinventing of the same language only cheapens the constitutional basis. Instead, understand that the words mean what the words say.

Networks finally understand the Constitution

Even though lawsuits like this shouldn’t be necessary, it’s about time the broadcast networks grew a set:

Four TV broadcast networks and their affiliates have filed court challenges to a March 15 Federal Communications Commission ruling that found several programs “indecent” because of language.

ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox, along with their network affiliate associations and the Hearst-Argyle Television group of stations, filed notices of appeal in various federal courts, including in Washington D.C. and New York. Some were filed late Thursday and the rest Friday morning.

The move represents a protest against the aggressive enforcement of federal indecency rules that broadcasters have complained are vague and inconsistently applied. Millions of dollars in fines have been levied based on those rules.

The networks need to fight the censorship coming from the FCC more often every time. That won’t happen, but this gives hope that maybe they’re growing a spine. It’s an infant spine, sure, but it’s a start.

Personally, I like this:

The networks and affiliate groups, representing more than 800 individual stations, issued a rare joint statement Friday calling the FCC ruling “unconstitutional and inconsistent with two decades of previous FCC decisions.

“In filing these court appeals we are seeking to overturn the FCC decisions that the broadcast of fleeting, isolated _ and in some cases unintentional _ words rendered these programs indecent.”

“Unconstitutional and inconsistent with two decades…” Blah, blah, blah. They should’ve just stopped with unconstitutional. Using the less severe, but equally offensive, censorship practiced by the FCC for the last two decades as a defense only invites the court to rely on tradition rather than the Constitution. Given how frequently that seems to be happening lately, I want the courts to use clearly absurd logic to insert tradition into “Congress shall make no law…” Instead, we’ll maybe get the status quo from last year. Big deal.

FCC spokeswoman Tamara Lipper said Friday that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled more than 20 years ago that comedian George Carlin’s monologue on the “7 dirty words you can’t say on television and radio” was indecent.

“Today, Disney, Fox and CBS challenged that precedent and argued that they should be able to air two of those same words,” Lipper said. “We are reviewing their filings.”

What’s to review? That ruling was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. The Constitution should still prevail over the scared, puritan hacks reading, “interpreting”, and “enforcing” it. At some point, the national mommies and daddies in the Federal government need to stop being nanny-statists.

I want to exercise my “Phillies win every World Series” rights.

I understand that this quote is a simplification of copyright “fair use” for clarity, but I found it amusing anyway.

“Consumers have well-established rights to ‘time-shift’ television programming by making copies for personal, in-home viewing,” [Cablevision] says. “This new technology merely enables consumers to exercise their time-shifting rights in the same manner as with traditional DVRs, but at less cost.”

Let’s see them find that in the Constitution. Activist judges cable television providers!

Deep thoughts need not apply

People surfing the Internets arrive at Rolling Doughnut through various methods. Some show up intentionally, others follow results from a search engine. Those search queries elicit a range of responses from me. Usually it’s something basic like “Mmmm”, but occasionally something comes along that’s disgusting (write about circumcision and you’ll get disgusting searches). T hose make me wonder about the fate of humanity. But not as much as searches like this. This concerns me more:

who were VJs for MTV in the 70’s

Can our society really be that dumb? I doubt it, but judging by the number of people who still visit here looking for images of Nick Lachey’s penis, I wonder.

As an experiment, I’m going to change tactics of writing for just this post. Normally I get a couple dozen hits per day writing about politics, economics, and my other serious topics. Danielle expanded her repertoire a few weeks ago and started writing about a few of the reality shows we watch, specifically American Idol, Flavor of Love, and There and Back. Sure, they’re mindless shows, but they provide entertainment and we have low standards sometimes. They also increased her daily hits by a factor of 10.

There’s no contestant to root for in There and Back, but we’re amused by Ashley Parker Angel. Mostly we’re laughing with him, but sometimes it ventures into laughing at him. Those are the fun moments, if only because we get to act like the thirty-somethings we are. “Kids!” we shout. Stop whining. But mostly it’s just a fun way to pass 30 minutes.

American Idol and Flavor of Love, by comparison, have us quite invested in who wins. With American Idol, Danielle wants Chris Daughtry to win, while I’m pulling for Taylor Hicks. We both (not so) secretly want Kevin Covais to really win. He’s not the best singer in the competition, but he’s definitely the most entertaining and likable of the group. And he comes across as genuine and unashamed to be on American Idol. Taylor Hicks is the same, although logic would suggest that he, like Chris, should be most embarrassed. I love that he’s not ashamed, either.

As for the rest, Kellie Pickler needs to stop with the “aw, shucks” crap, even if it’s real. We don’t think it is. Lisa Tucker comes off as too polished by years of talent contests and Star Search appearances. A 16-year-old shouldn’t appear quite so devoid of a soul. Paris Bennett should just go away. Her voice drives me nuts. It’s not her fault, although the rest of her act bothers me, too, and that’s definitely her fault. Mandisa has potential because she can sing. I just think her performances are all over the place. Each part of the song gets a little bit different treatment just to show what she can do. Reign it in and demonstrate some control. Melissa McGhee has talent. I want her to finish strong because I enjoy the tone of her voice. But she has to work to connect with the audience more. Katharine McPhee is easily the most talented of the women. I want her to go very far.

I’ve already stated that I want Chris, Taylor, and Kevin to be the top 3. I know that won’t happen, but I can dream. The guys receive a much better review as a group than the girls. Bucky Covington’s “Aw, shucks” routine is a little annoying, but his seems authentic. And I think he’s got potential if he starts choosing songs better suited to his voice. Elliott Yamin has amazing control over his voice, singing his way through any demands of a song. Mandisa could learn something from Elliott about using a brilliant voice. Elliott’s from Richmond, too, which makes me happy. The less I say about Ace Young, the better. He needs to go away.

As rigged as we suspect American Idol is, we know Flavor of Love is rigged. From the beginning it was obvious that New York had to be in the finale because she’s so annoying. She’s the character designed to drive viewers crazy. Contrary to that intention, Danielle and i quote her. There are few situations in life not improved by a quote from New York. After all, she’s an “inspiring” actress. What’s not to enjoy.

New York’s confrontation with Pumkin was clearly staged. It worked out too well, and the loogie she spit at New York seemed digitally inserted into the film. Although she claims it hit her chin, New York never wipes her chin. That defies logic given the mass of spittle shown. She wouldn’t complain about just her hair. But it provided much entertainment, despite being clearly fake.

As for who should “win” in tonight’s finale, since it can’t be Goldie, Danielle and I are pulling for Hoopz. Hoopz is the only contestant who could be described as attractive. She’s also presented as reasonable and genuine, which I enjoy. Justice demands that the script call for her to win. That won’t happen, of course, because the possibilities for Season 2 are endless if New York wins. But I can hope. Go Hoopz.

I suspect very few people reached the end of this post, but if it seems like I went through the exercise of inserting everyone’s name just to see what Google searches I receive, you’re correct.