Dear CNN,
I greatly appreciate your efforts to recognize and engage your viewers. Your iReports allow everyday people to contribute and tell stories that would otherwise not get coverage (though usually for good reasons). The new CNN website is rather streamlined and easy on the eyes (though not very different from the old one except for moving things around). And your balanced coverage of everything from politics to perverse commercials certainly appeals to a wide audience (both intelligent and otherwise).
However, I would like to let you know that while I am an avid fan and viewer of your programming, I have been bothered of late by your anchors' use of social media, such as twitter and Facebook. Sure, some people may have particularly interesting responses or commentary on the latest news. Perhaps I get to hear a different perspective on the subject (in 140 characters or less) or else hear my voice expressed through another's opinions. And yes, from a strategic communications standpoint, giving people an opportunity to respond and partake in your reports builds a stronger base of support, which is no doubt important, particularly when there are several competing news networks and the ever-threatening Internet nipping at your televised heels.
But let's be serious. Seriously. You guys are supposed to be our reliable and professional source of information. "America's Most Trusted News Source." "The Best Political News Team on Television." I turn to you for expert opinion, for accuracy and precision, for facts and details I can't get elsewhere, and for thoughtful and informed analysis of important issues. If I want to know what my friends and neighbors think, I'll ask. If I want to see the latest Facebook feed, I'll go online (which is what you want me to do anyway, right? visit your Facebook page?). And if I want meaningless, nonsensical and unfounded commentary, I can flip over to the Fox News Channel.
The point is that I turn to you for credible and detailed information about critical issues affecting me, our country, and our world. (Canadian breast cancer ads called "Save the Boobs" are interesting and fun to watch, but not quite as "critical" as terrorism, nuclear disarmament, health care, education, climate change, energy policy, and what kind of dog the presidential family plans to adopt.) Surely your time is better spent providing reliable information on a story rather than the feedback of someone who is at home during the day responding to your social media feeds. (No doubt those people are upstanding, hard-working individuals with respectable careers that happen to have enough time, effort and interest to post on Facebook at three-thirty in the afternoon in response to a Rick Sanchez piece on whether or not Hollywood is sending viewers subliminal messages.) I like to believe that your staff have the talent, expertise and resources to produce enough interesting and high-quality news to fill your airtime without deferring to the thoughts and opinions of average Americans with little to no expertise in the topics at hand.
If you want to present expert commentary and analysis (and why shouldn't you?), defer to your own team of expert commentators and analysts. I'm a big fan of Gloria Borger, David Gergen, and Candy Crowley, all of whom provide excellent, informed, informative, and unbiased perspectives. (What happened to Bill Schneider, a great political reporter whose character and delivery seemed to capture the spirit of the everyman but whose questions and insights demonstrated his expertise and intelligence?) While I appreciate your efforts to be unbiased by featuring "both sides of the aisle" in all discussions, these partisan PR people only spew the party line, and don't offer anything new or interesting to the discussion. I appreciate Paul Begala and James Carville for their entertainment value, but they are hard-nosed Democrats to the end (which is why I love them). And can someone please please please force these "on message" partisans to answer a question when asked, rather than deflecting a question about how Bush may have had a hand in the current economic situation by talking about how Obama's approval ratings are dropping? Such dithering from partisans doesn't inform and engage the viewer. It does the opposite: forces us to change the channel.
Speaking of non-partisan opinions, I would like to clarify that the word "unbiased" is not necessarily the same as "independent" if "independent" means "grumpy, old, white men who complain about both sides" - as it seems to be for the independents in your programming. "Mr. Independent" himself is the worst of this kind: rather than serving as an independent in the sense of not aligning with either party platform, instead Lou Dobbs serves as independent in the sense of hating everyone and complaining about everything. And I'm sure Jack Cafferty is a nice guy, and I wouldn't mind having a beer with him sometime, but does his segment add anything to the program? He's another grumpy, old, white man - but at least he takes feedback from the viewers. Unfortunately, he shares that feedback with me, as though I yearn to hear average (read: uninformed and opinionated) Americans repeating "the party line" for both parties. Again, letting both sides air their opinions does not make your reporting unbiased, and independent should be more than evenhanded complaining of both sides.
If you want to engage your viewers, and if you want to be more entertaining, take a note from Jon Stewart. Jon manages to be informative, highlighting the important (and ridiculous) news of the day, provide commentary and opinions that enrich our understanding of the situation, and he is independent in his presentation, equally mocking and complimenting both sides. Granted, his show is not a real news show, but imagine what CNN could do if it adopted that idea, applying your panel of unbiased experts to really analyze the facts and the hype, the good and bad, the absurd and realistic. The Daily Show succeeds because it is engaging, and it is engaging because it provides an honest commentary on top news. CNN can adopt this kind of approach, infusing its fact-based information with honest, down-to-earth analysis from unbiased experts, rather than relying on partisan (and whiny) talking heads that spew partisan (and whiny) bullet points.
Want to engage viewers, CNN? Create engaging programming. That doesn't mean trying to appeal to everyone by finding the lowest common denominator. Just the opposite: raise the bar higher, provide more in-depth and expert analysis, call people out, give honest opinions, and cut the shenanigans. If I want to watch grumpy, old, white men debate the issues with partisan slander, I'll turn to CSPAN.
I say all this as a loyal fan of your network, who turns to you and you alone for the best news on television, election-year or no. I not only want you to live up to your own tag lines, but I want you to also live up to "America's Best Unbiased and Informative News Source."
So thanks for your time and consideration, and I wish you the best of luck in the Internet Age.
Yours,
Eric
P.S. I will post all of this on twitter and Facebook so you can include it in your broadcasts.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
10 Reasons I Love "Saved By The Bell"
1. Kelly Kapowski. Yep, numero uno. I'm not ashamed to admit that Kelly Kapowski/Tiffani Thiessen (previously Tiffani-Amber Thiessen) was my very first celebrity crush as a pre-pubescent lad. Cute, sweet, and oh so hot in those '80s clothes
2. The antics. School was never that much fun for me, or anyone, really. That was the point, right? Escapism. Living vicariously. Suspension of disbelief. But it sure was entertaining.
3. The locations. Sure, most of the action took place in the same hallway at the base of the stairs by the classroom where all their classes took place and by Belding's office and by the bathroom. But there was the aforementioned classroom that seemed to have a thousand different arrangements and functions (English class, math class, chemistry, etc.). There were their homes, specifically their bedrooms, which were as large as the entire upper floor of the house I grew up in, and nicer. And, most importantly, there was The Max, the student hangout that was like a '50s soda shop reborn as a pizza place in the '80s: where everyone from school (and town) gathered and spent loads of time without parental supervision. I don't know about you, but our school/town didn't really have one of these places, not until Starbucks moved into town during junior year. There was the back parking lot and the bleachers behind the football field, but those were a little different, in both ambiance and the delinquent activities that took place there... at night.
4. The laugh track. The "oooooooooh"s when people kissed. The "oooooooooh"s when someone get in trouble. And the perfectly placed laugh to let you know that what you just heard was funny. Even when Screech was involved.
5. Speaking of which, Screech Powers/Justin Diamond. In what school was the nerdiest kid around, annoying voice and irritating misunderstandings and all, friends with the good-looking prankster and the buff jock? This show was a weekly "Breakfast Club" where everyone could identify with someone and everyone got along. For some, Screech represented the unattainable reality, a geek who - though not cool - hung out with the cool kids. I'm sure lots of young dorks aspired to be like Screech (though I imagine that if they tried to remain friends with their cool pals from elementary school, they were likely ditched by eighth grade). Screech was an aspiration and an anomaly, and while his whole absurd character was unreal, it was also grounded in the painful realities of high school: shoved in lockers, and couldn't get the girl. Still, score one for Mr. Powers - despite it all, he was one of the gang.
6. The issues. Ridiculous a show as it was, SBTB dealt with serious issues, from friendship and sibling rivalry to divorce and drug use. Not quite as dramatic as 90210 or The OC, but in many ways this show paved the way for those later primetime teen soaps. (Good thing or bad? You decide.)
7. Adaptation. When the show first started, it was about the teacher, Miss Bliss, and featured only three of the main characters from the well-known version. This alternate version, which lasted only one season, featured the leather-jacket-wearing Nikki and the opening sequence which had Zack talking directly to the camera. When NBC picked up the show, the focus switched to the students, Nikki was dropped, and enter Kelly, Jessie, and Slater. And because the show featured real people who would grow up (except Mario Lopez, who was already grown up when he joined the cast), the show progressed through the years. Of course, when Thiessen and Berkley refused to sign a contract for a season, a new cute female character was brought on to fill the void, and magically disappeared when the other actresses returned. Just when you thought the show would end once they graduated high school, SBTB brought back your favorite gang for college, where they all (coincidentally) ended at the same school! New hijinks ensued, but not for long - SBTB: The College Years ended after just one season. (I haven't watched SBTB: The New Class, out of respect for Zack, Kelly, Jessie, Slater, Lisa and Screech.)
8. Breaking the fourth wall. Like Ferris Bueller and Shakespearean characters before him, Zack Morris would address the audience directly, acknowledging the fact that there were viewers. A small thing to some, but a really smart way for the show to bring the viewer in on the action, and to mix things up from the usual sitcom. (This was in the era before the now-ubiquitous "voice over" - used by most single-camera comedies and many dramas today.)
9. Did I mention Kelly Kapowski?
10. The lasting effect. While, honestly, this show didn't dramatically impact me like some other shows (superhero cartoons, Disney Afternoon, and "Friends" linger more prominently in my childhood memories) it nevertheless remains a true point of nostalgia - for me and arguably most people of my generation. Unless you grew up without television, nearly all people around the age of 30 can bond over memories from episodes of SBTB. And somehow we all remember more than we thought we did about the plots.
Saved By The Bell isn't something I think about often (I saw it on TV the other day while flipping through, which inspired this post) but it's still this significant marker of my growing up and a reminder of my still-intact innocence: before I knew what high school was really like, before I could understand the complexity of the storylines, and before I knew that Tiffani-Amber Thiessen was unattainable. Good times. Thanks, SBTB.
2. The antics. School was never that much fun for me, or anyone, really. That was the point, right? Escapism. Living vicariously. Suspension of disbelief. But it sure was entertaining.
3. The locations. Sure, most of the action took place in the same hallway at the base of the stairs by the classroom where all their classes took place and by Belding's office and by the bathroom. But there was the aforementioned classroom that seemed to have a thousand different arrangements and functions (English class, math class, chemistry, etc.). There were their homes, specifically their bedrooms, which were as large as the entire upper floor of the house I grew up in, and nicer. And, most importantly, there was The Max, the student hangout that was like a '50s soda shop reborn as a pizza place in the '80s: where everyone from school (and town) gathered and spent loads of time without parental supervision. I don't know about you, but our school/town didn't really have one of these places, not until Starbucks moved into town during junior year. There was the back parking lot and the bleachers behind the football field, but those were a little different, in both ambiance and the delinquent activities that took place there... at night.
4. The laugh track. The "oooooooooh"s when people kissed. The "oooooooooh"s when someone get in trouble. And the perfectly placed laugh to let you know that what you just heard was funny. Even when Screech was involved.
5. Speaking of which, Screech Powers/Justin Diamond. In what school was the nerdiest kid around, annoying voice and irritating misunderstandings and all, friends with the good-looking prankster and the buff jock? This show was a weekly "Breakfast Club" where everyone could identify with someone and everyone got along. For some, Screech represented the unattainable reality, a geek who - though not cool - hung out with the cool kids. I'm sure lots of young dorks aspired to be like Screech (though I imagine that if they tried to remain friends with their cool pals from elementary school, they were likely ditched by eighth grade). Screech was an aspiration and an anomaly, and while his whole absurd character was unreal, it was also grounded in the painful realities of high school: shoved in lockers, and couldn't get the girl. Still, score one for Mr. Powers - despite it all, he was one of the gang.
6. The issues. Ridiculous a show as it was, SBTB dealt with serious issues, from friendship and sibling rivalry to divorce and drug use. Not quite as dramatic as 90210 or The OC, but in many ways this show paved the way for those later primetime teen soaps. (Good thing or bad? You decide.)
7. Adaptation. When the show first started, it was about the teacher, Miss Bliss, and featured only three of the main characters from the well-known version. This alternate version, which lasted only one season, featured the leather-jacket-wearing Nikki and the opening sequence which had Zack talking directly to the camera. When NBC picked up the show, the focus switched to the students, Nikki was dropped, and enter Kelly, Jessie, and Slater. And because the show featured real people who would grow up (except Mario Lopez, who was already grown up when he joined the cast), the show progressed through the years. Of course, when Thiessen and Berkley refused to sign a contract for a season, a new cute female character was brought on to fill the void, and magically disappeared when the other actresses returned. Just when you thought the show would end once they graduated high school, SBTB brought back your favorite gang for college, where they all (coincidentally) ended at the same school! New hijinks ensued, but not for long - SBTB: The College Years ended after just one season. (I haven't watched SBTB: The New Class, out of respect for Zack, Kelly, Jessie, Slater, Lisa and Screech.)
8. Breaking the fourth wall. Like Ferris Bueller and Shakespearean characters before him, Zack Morris would address the audience directly, acknowledging the fact that there were viewers. A small thing to some, but a really smart way for the show to bring the viewer in on the action, and to mix things up from the usual sitcom. (This was in the era before the now-ubiquitous "voice over" - used by most single-camera comedies and many dramas today.)
9. Did I mention Kelly Kapowski?
10. The lasting effect. While, honestly, this show didn't dramatically impact me like some other shows (superhero cartoons, Disney Afternoon, and "Friends" linger more prominently in my childhood memories) it nevertheless remains a true point of nostalgia - for me and arguably most people of my generation. Unless you grew up without television, nearly all people around the age of 30 can bond over memories from episodes of SBTB. And somehow we all remember more than we thought we did about the plots.
Saved By The Bell isn't something I think about often (I saw it on TV the other day while flipping through, which inspired this post) but it's still this significant marker of my growing up and a reminder of my still-intact innocence: before I knew what high school was really like, before I could understand the complexity of the storylines, and before I knew that Tiffani-Amber Thiessen was unattainable. Good times. Thanks, SBTB.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Pros and Cons of Astronomers
Pro: They find cool stuff and share it with us. Scientists recently confirmed 32 new "exoplanets" (planets outside our solar system - other than poor, demoted Pluto).
Con: Boy, do I feel stupid, thanks to these guys.
Pro: Boy, do I feel way cool compared to these guys. Wicked smart, I'm sure some of them have come up with a formula for seducing women, perhaps by luring them into their observatories and showing them the great expanse of the universe with their manly computer technology. But seriously, what are the odds? I recently went to a wedding full of incredibly smart people - PhDs in astrophysics or bioengineering or something. I can honestly say I was the coolest person in the room. And all I had to do was show up.
Con: What the heck am I doing with my life? These people are discovering the universe, for goodness sake! I'm sitting here at a computer writing a blog about how smart but geeky these guys are, and they're finding new worlds. Them: Christopher Columbus of the heavens; me: Christopher Marlowe, without the talent or the fame.
Pro: Spending all that time with equations and staring through a telescope? What sort of difference are they really making? I may not be saving whales or anything (though I can say that my last job involved attempting to limit the harm to whales from coastal development) but one could argue what these guys are doing is equally unproductive for society.
Conclusion: Despite my complaints, astronomers rock, if only because they expand the limits of our knowledge... and from time to time, make me feel cooler. A little.
Con: Boy, do I feel stupid, thanks to these guys.
The announcement was made by a consortium of international researchers, headed by the Geneva Observatory, who built the High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet Searcher, or HARPS. The device can detect slight wobbles of stars as they respond to tugs from exoplanets' gravity. That tactic, known as the radial velocity method, "has been the most prolific method in the search for exoplanets," according to the European Southern Observatory statement.Detecting slight wobbles of stars millions and millions of miles from here? Using a "radial velocity method"? Think you're smarter than the rest of us, with your fancy equations and giant telescopes? Well, you are. So screw you, geeks.
Pro: Boy, do I feel way cool compared to these guys. Wicked smart, I'm sure some of them have come up with a formula for seducing women, perhaps by luring them into their observatories and showing them the great expanse of the universe with their manly computer technology. But seriously, what are the odds? I recently went to a wedding full of incredibly smart people - PhDs in astrophysics or bioengineering or something. I can honestly say I was the coolest person in the room. And all I had to do was show up.
Con: What the heck am I doing with my life? These people are discovering the universe, for goodness sake! I'm sitting here at a computer writing a blog about how smart but geeky these guys are, and they're finding new worlds. Them: Christopher Columbus of the heavens; me: Christopher Marlowe, without the talent or the fame.
Pro: Spending all that time with equations and staring through a telescope? What sort of difference are they really making? I may not be saving whales or anything (though I can say that my last job involved attempting to limit the harm to whales from coastal development) but one could argue what these guys are doing is equally unproductive for society.
Conclusion: Despite my complaints, astronomers rock, if only because they expand the limits of our knowledge... and from time to time, make me feel cooler. A little.
No time like the present...
It's time. Time to join the masses. Time to get on that bandwagon.
It's Miller time. It's time to start a blog.
I've failed miserably in the past to keep a journal - to capture the fleeting, spontaneous, and random; to inscribe the emotional, memorable, and momentous. Eventually, all of my prematurely-deceased journals ended with the same last few entries: "Too tired. Will write tomorrow."
Well, today is tomorrow (according to yesterday's news). I'm hoping to capture those random thoughts and idle musings on just about anything and everything. Cool article I spotted? I'll share it here. Need to vent? I'll do it here. Questions about the great unknown? I'll probably seek professional advice, but I'll also ask 'em here. The topics will range from politics to celebrities to the environment to that guy last night who seemed to forget that the '90s "strut" is long gone (or is it?). Some posts will be enlightening, some amusing, and some downright terrible. (But you won't know till you read it. Ooooooh, element of mystery and surprise!) Hope you will enjoy my mix of deep thoughts, fascination, sarcasm, humor, and lighthearted observations.
Things are happening all around us. This is an examination and analysis of those things.
This is a study of life.
I've failed miserably in the past to keep a journal - to capture the fleeting, spontaneous, and random; to inscribe the emotional, memorable, and momentous. Eventually, all of my prematurely-deceased journals ended with the same last few entries: "Too tired. Will write tomorrow."
Well, today is tomorrow (according to yesterday's news). I'm hoping to capture those random thoughts and idle musings on just about anything and everything. Cool article I spotted? I'll share it here. Need to vent? I'll do it here. Questions about the great unknown? I'll probably seek professional advice, but I'll also ask 'em here. The topics will range from politics to celebrities to the environment to that guy last night who seemed to forget that the '90s "strut" is long gone (or is it?). Some posts will be enlightening, some amusing, and some downright terrible. (But you won't know till you read it. Ooooooh, element of mystery and surprise!) Hope you will enjoy my mix of deep thoughts, fascination, sarcasm, humor, and lighthearted observations.
Things are happening all around us. This is an examination and analysis of those things.
This is a study of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
