Slashdot Mirror
Lauren Weinstein: If MTV Calls, Hang Up
Lauren Weinstein writes "Usually when one gets a call to participate in a news-oriented television program, subterfuge isn't a worry. But in the brave new world of 'newsertainment' -- a blurring of news and entertainment -- you really need to watch your back. Herein is the sordid tale (posted last night to Dave Farber's "IP" list) of what recently happened to me -- and my narrow escape -- when Viacom/MTV Networks came calling, asking for my help to educate the world's youth about important topics (in this case, the scourge of spam). Be warned. It could happen to you!"
For people that didn't read the article, it's actually a new show on Comedy Central called Crossballs. It's not MTV itself, or even a show on MTV.
Comedy Central also produces the great The Daily Show, which I'm sure a few guests are upset they appeared on after it airs. (Host Jon Stewart recently jokingly asked on the show why anyone is still willing to appear). It's more widely known, though, and they seem to be open about who they are.
from the if-only-it-had-been-live-instead dept.
No shit, that would've been fun. She (I assume it's a she) could've gotten on there and gone on and on about how the "penis enlargement pills" she bought "worked great for her" and how she "wishes she had a boyfriend so she could let him try them too". He heh heh. But then one day "it fell off" and so now she's turned to the side of the spam-fighters. And she has it in a box offstage, should she go get it?
Seriously, I consider *MSNBC* to be "newsertainment", so you can imagine my opinion of Mtv talk shows. *shiver*. I gave up on Mtv sometime in high school, a long time ago, once they stopped showing actual music.
Mtv is like a giant parabolic reflector, collecting idiocy from far and wide and focusing it into a small rectangular screen. (Yeah I know, RTFA, it was actually Comedy Central but it's all a big heaping serving from the same vegetard stew).
After Punk'd, I would never speak with anyone remotely appearing to give me a hard time over anything whatsoever. I'd just walk away. Who would speak to MTV anyway? Aren't they just a bunch of asshats with lots of money but no direction whatsoever? I mean, I'd love to party with those guys because it'd be a blast... but to work seriously (or try to) with MTV would be like a game of career-Russian-roulette.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Dave,
The L.A. Times article (avoid folding the long URL!):
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-adfi-fr eston20j un20,1,5581013.story?
coll=la-home-headlines online for now (registration required) tells the story of
Tom Freston, chairman of Viacom's MTV Networks. The article suggests that Tom's
style for MTV et al. might be the saving grace for Paramount and perhaps the
rest of the entertainment industry.
If MTV's model is the solution, we're in for big trouble. Hear my saga and avoid
the fate that almost befell yours truly -- experts and spokespeople in the IP
readership, you could be next!
A few weeks ago, I got a call from a producer who identified herself as being
with MTV Networks' "The Debate Project" - -- who wanted to book me onto a new
debate format show in production, to be taped a few days hence. She described
the show (which she never actually specifically named) as oriented toward young
people about important topics, with guests who were experts in their respective
fields. They wanted me to debate a known spammer (who they wouldn't identify at
the time) regarding the scourge of spam. It would be fun she implied, since the
audience would of course be on my side.
While MTV Net producing a show like this seemed a bit odd, it's not unheard of
for them to do topical programming. She assured me the program would definitely
air on an MTV Network but wasn't sure which one yet. Odd, but I've gotten
stranger calls from more ordinary news-oriented programs.
They sealed the deal by promising to send a car so I wouldn't have to hassle
with driving in to Hollywood from The Valley through late Friday afternoon
traffic, and even said they'd throw in $200 (egads -- payment for a "news"
appearance -- unheard of in my experience!)
OK, I'll bite -- sounds more interesting than typical interviews anyway. Then
followed more phone calls from other staffers questioning me at length on the
topic of spam, an e-mailed message with similar questions, and finally all was
set to go. They were really excited about my joining them the next day they kept
saying, and would call me in the morning before sending the car.
That same Thursday night, with the show scheduled for Friday, I was increasingly
uncomfortable. There was a bad feeling I just couldn't shake, an almost animal
instinct of something amiss that I couldn't put my finger on.
When the show had originally called, I had done some cursory googling but
couldn't fine anything relevant. This didn't seem too unusual for a show in
production but not yet on air. Now I started googling in depth.
At first I found nothing again. But then I started working backwards from the
contact phone numbers I had for the show's production staff. This time I hit pay
dirt, and while the pages unscrolled on my screen a cold chill ran down my
spine.
As the recent, angry testimonials I had found recounted, with a matching of
modus operandi that left no chance for error, the show on which I was about to
appear was a fraud.
Not really a debate at all, the show is actually a program for Comedy Central
(yes, an MTV/Viacom network) called "Crossballs" -- and its sole purpose is the
embarrassment and humiliation of the expert guests who are brought on expecting
a legitimate discussion program.
Crossballs is a rigged "reality" show, where real guests, who have been kept in
the dark about the show's real format, are paired off against actors (playing
the debate opponents) for the amusement of the live audience. The stories I read
from persons recently on the show included descriptions of crude,
sexually-oriented verbal attacks (and worse, like being handed various sexual
"apparatus") and concerns that their reputations would be ruined once the shows
aired.
As the alien commander said in "Plan 9 From Outer Space": "That was TOO close!"
In a few hours I was scheduled t
Appears so. Anyone have a mirror?
It's interesting that this one person was able to figure out that the debate was just a reality show. Honestly I could see how many people could fall for a seemingly legitimate request.
I managed to grab a mirror before the server was reduced to a smouldering pile of copper and silicon.
Enjoy.
If I were an expert I would revel going on this show, but then again I like to argue with people...
INNIT!?
Even if the whole thing was a fraud, it should have been an experience to participate. Having known it was a setup, this would have been a great opportunity to spin things back on the hosts and have some fun.
I would have loved an opportunity like this. I would have actually showed up and pretended once they started taping, that I was actually an anti-SPAM (the food from Hormel) advocate, or something equally goofy. At least you could have stood up in front of the studio audience and made a nice speech denouncing the quality of tv programming and how out of touch Viacom is with honest and decent programming.
Instead you just bowed out... hell you didn't even let them send the car. Think of the potential. You could have called up an enemy and sent him on the show, or found a homeless guy and told him he could get a free meal and a ride for participating. The possibilities were endless.
In the world of Daily Shows, Ali G., etc.-- as well as smartass miniDV documentaries I can't see why anyone, celebrity or not, talks to a camera crew anymore. You're just asking to have your quotes taken out of context and to be laughed at by the world.
and it seems like a candid camera blurb... ..it probably is.
well, actually, for two hundred bucks I could spare 'em a hour, just to fuck them up by getting up and leaving when it was obvious that it wasn't a real debate.
or rolling on the floor laughing my ass off for the absurdity of it all.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
It's hardly the only show on the air which does this - "Ali G" from the UK (and HBO) is a great example, he's interviewed the likes of Newt Gingrich, C Everett Koop, Ralph Nader, Buzz Aldrin and many others, most of whom never caught on. I'm sure the basic concept goes back as far as audiovisual reproduction technology.
The good satirical shows (like the Daily Show) merely allow genuine whackos and phonies to make fools of themselves; I'm sure there are also lowbrow shows which try to ambush and victimize unsuspecting guests as well. I dunno which sort this "Crossballs" will be (though there's one or two in the cast whom I know don't need to be doing crap to pay rent, so there's hope) but regardless, her reaction seems to be a bit over the top...
Perfectly Normal Industries
Serously, I will cheer that Assston tries to punk a real badass like Ray Lewis or Allen Iverson and it ends in a quadruple homicide, high speed car chase, dead innocent civilians and a billion dollar lawsuit against MTV.
I believe the accepted term is infotainment, and in some cases - docutainment.
What's disturbing is that, in the story, a Pew survey was cited stating that: Even worse, they asked a local sociology professor from UC Davis about the trend, and she said:
makes -1 flamebait look +5 insightful
According to President Bush, President Bush has never made a mistake. Also, should a mistake be made, President Bush will be unable to recall the mistake or any events that happened before and after said mistake. President Bush also would like you to know that any fact brought forth must meet with President Bush's approval. Failure of the fact to be approved makes the fact false. Only President Bush approved facts will be considered truthful.
Of course...I don't know if I want to be killed as an "enemy combatant"
Sounds similar to Ali G ? Like when being shown around the United Nations and presented with the seat for Jordan he asked if it was right that a single basketball player should be represented.
I guess $200 is the market value for a person's dignity according to Viacom.
That must be a nice company to work for.
The answer, of course, is obvious: most people aren't experts. Most people aren't geniuses. Most people are within one standard deviation of the mean and are pretty satisfied with their abilities. Hobbes was right when he wrote that the surest proof that humans are approximately equal in intelligence is that most people are satisfied with their level of ability, and their is no better indicator of a fair distribution than when each person is satisfied with their share.
Now, I could see supporting a show that took bogus experts as the target - i.e., those people who pretend to be able to talk to their dog, or to share karma with plants, use crystals to heal, etc. (but note that, under the abovementioned definition of knowledge that these people aren't really experts since they lack knowledge). That might be fun to watch. At the very least, it would serve the greater good of society by providing an intellectual function.
But humilating smart people just so that some moron with barely enough intelligence to operate the remote can get his kicks? Bah. Give me the philosopher-kings of Plato anyday.
I don't know if any of you live in LA, but on KFI 640 AM from 7-10 pm, there is a host who fakes the voices of guests in order to get outraged callers to call in so he can make fun of them. I called when he was doing a show about child molesters not getting the sympathy they deserve. It really hurts me that any responsible broadcaster would make light of child molestation. Listeners will come away thinking that child molestors have a valid perspective or something. It's just not right.
Space Ghost.
And possibly Zorak.
Mainly Zorak.
It's not just these "reality" or "newtainment" shows. I have had unfortunate experiences twice with local newsmedia stations. The most egregious was on a weekly topical debate program that took an issue and supposedly explored all sides. I even watched this show semi-regularly. I was asked on the show and had several "producers" talk about how they appreciated me being there to help people understand.
I was waiting in a room off-stage for my appearance a little bit into the show, when the host instructed the staff to cut the feed to the room as the show started (Should've realized then). When it came time for me to come on, the host had prepped the scene for me to be immediately attacked by all involved. He supervised this extremely well, making sure to interrupt me, discount me or flat-out cut me off whenever I had a reasonable and logical statement or tried to defend myself (since his show was about expousing his view and not exploring anything). Watching the show at home later I see that he set this up from the beginning (when my view was cut).
After seeing the tactics first hand, I could see how this show was a sham all along. Every episode had the same strategy, that now was transparent to me.
Be very suspicious of the media when they come looking for you, they quite simply will lie to get what they want out of you - and make no mistake they will set you up, sell you out or edit the whole thing into something unrecognizable without any qualms or remorse.
BTW- It was "Town Meeting" on KOMO4, Seattle, WA
and wish to subscribe to your newsletter
I can speak for all the Daytime talk/interview shows but I know of at least 3 local/ny/nj market shows and one national (intials JJ) which were recruiting guests who implicitly knew what they were expected to deliver and had it made perfectly clear that reality didn't matter.
On a deeper level these shows are much like kingsnakes, in that they seek people that are looking for attention/notoriety/selfpromotion and they give it to them in spades. This one is however is apparently going over the line by a wide margin. Aside from the damage that could be done to the guests careers, divorces and murders have occured due to the ill considered actions of these shows (Jenny Jones outing a Homosexual unrequited love by example).
If there is any part of our society that needs to have its feat held to the fire its the news media. Wheather it be the financial press that serves as a megaphone for pump and dumpers (Forbes the capitolists tool) the political newsmedia ( you pick) or any other form of "reporting". Lack of malice isn't enough there has to be due dilligence when the results can and do prove devastating.
My general position is that I'll always talk to the working press, but I blow off "lifestyle" reporters. Running a DARPA Grand Challenge team, I get a fair amount of press interest. Some of it is wierd. Playboy and Men's Life contacted me for interviews. There were documentary producers, including one guy with an Alcatraz fixation. (He'd done five TV documentaries on Alcatraz.)
One can't help but feel sorry for the legit news folks over at CBS' "60 Minutes" and other excellent news programs....
r int.html] The same news program that lines up it's guests to co-incide with their book releases (See Bill Clinton)? The same network (CBS) that uses pyrotechnics (20/20) to "demonstrate" what happens when a full sized pickup was hit - because it wouldn't catch on fire otherwise? [http://www.car-forums.com/s10/t2240.html]
You are kidding right? The news program that almost drove Audi out of business with it's false inaccurate reporting?[ http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/1115/6412145a_p
I thought the author was a bright guy, up until that comment. 60 minutes may have at one time been a respectable news magazine. That has not been the case for almost 2 decades IMHO. If 60 minutes knocks on your door and they have decided your "guilty", you have a better chance at getting your side of the story heard on cross balls.
In the end - isn't that whats the most sad?
cluge
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
It looks like it is gonna suck. Ass.
Most likely it'll flop after 3 episodes. And good, it looks rediculusly annoying.
It'll go in the pile of CC shows I hate, along with Colin Quinn's Tough Crowd. Which I'm amazed hasn't been canceled yet. Futurama would be so much nicer there!
Am I the only one who cringes at a Spam expert letting his/her e-mail address be posted unprotected on a site?
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/12.html
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
...when I was spokesperson for NAMBLA. I should have known something was wrong when they said the show would be both fair and balanced. And Gill O'Bryly definitely sounded like a fake name. You live you learn.
Sorry the GM truck pyrotechnics was NBC NOT CBS. CBS/ 60 minutes was the Nissan debacle. I had the right link - but got description was wrong.
cluge
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
I'm glad you know so much about "her" to warn us all. Whatever would we do without you?
I've often wondered how they would react if you asked for the same rights that they ask of you -
.sig
to tape, edit, and broadcast the performance.
-- not a
I find your question pointless. A more appropriate one is: Why do we need newsertainment / infotainment? It's fraudulent crap under any name.
20/20 is a show on ABC, not CBS. Didn't Dateline (NBC) rig a car segment as well?
Fish do not make good desert travel companions.
"the assumption that this is the old place they're getting their news"
:(
should read:
"the assumption that this is the only place they're getting their news"
stupid inability to edit.
...but are a fucking retard? Do you have no fucking clue? Seriously, are you that stupid?
So? Kevin Mitnick was on last week too does that mean he's not an expert in his field?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here at Viacom we pride ourselves on paying a premium over the current market rate of $175 for a person's dignity. At Viacom, we put people over profit. If our uplifting programming like Pimp My Ride, and Tail Daters can't convince you of that, I fear your cynicism has hardened your heart.
Looks like the Vortex webserver is circling the drain!
Ahh, I knew this type of stuff sounded very familiar.
I was going to be doing something on the Daily Show apparently being pitted against the one and only Snotty Scotty Richter, the spammer now being hunted by the NY AG's office.
Within 6 hours of saying yes, I'd go on the show that monday, I spoke with my other admins and several of my advisors who warned me against it, and promptly e-mailed the producer back and said I'm sorry, but something has come up.
I avoided a rather bad sitation, from what I can see. Needless to say, I've been very careful since then on who I allow to interview me for spam fighting stuff and similar.
Brielle
It means he has low criteria for choosing his appearances. Guilt by association, he's lumped himself in my mind with the other Art Bell guests, some who are way out there somewhere. I would wonder about someone who appeared on what I consider a joke show.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
This shit looks like the Running man movie starring our governator. In this movie, law like patriot act are enacted and anyone that the governement or the entertainment industry does not like are sent to the running man show. The department of justice looks like a public corporation and has an entertainment division.
The united states of the future definitely looks like what we see in that movie but i guess we won't be saved by our governator.
We deny that we ever denied making a denial of any mistakes. That is categorically false. For any further comment, I refer you to my third answer to your second question about my first.
Talking to "legitimate" media can be perilous to your reputation as well. In many cases when you see the resulting story, the interviewees have been cast as unbalanced poles on opposing sides of a question, with one pole cast as a clown, buffoon or villain and the other as "the reasonable one" or at worst the lesser of the evils. The bias and the intent of the reporter or editor comes through clearly and if you have been chosen as the 'heavy" your comments will be edited to meet those story-telling needs. A primary tactic is the use of "button-pushing" to induce some kind of strong or intemperate reaction.
If you must take the bait... that is, the ego-enhancement of being a spokesperson in print or on camera... make your comments as bland and positive as possible and your attitude supremely unreactive.
The perils of conducting yourself otherwise are significant. Witnesss the case of the British arms inspector who allowed himself to nod his head "yes" to the reporter's leading question "would you say that the Iraq intelligence was "sexed up."
For the sake of this reporter getting the word "sex" into a headline and boosting sales of his publication, this man lost his life. So depending on what else is as stake it can be quite risky to place your career and your words in the hands of the press.
The old ideal of the press as liberal guardians of truth and paragons of 'journalistic integrity" have gone somewhat by the wayside as the price of keeping one of a diminishing number of jobs, and the corporate masters' obtaining the desired number of "eyeballs" or impressions.
These pranks reminded me of who probably inspired them, the Canadian show "This Hour has 22 minutes" in their feature "Talking to Americans".
In 2000, Rick Mercer posed as a reporter and asked Bush for comments on Canadian Prime Minister "Jean Poutine's" endorsement of his candidacy for President. Canadians start a trend again.
It might seem to be silly for me to connec tthis to a silly comic strip. But the more I read Dilbert, the more I realize how much it is a sign of the corruption of our culture.
The problem with Dilbert is every week, the company does something incredibly stupid or unethical, and the next week thaey are back in the same position.
People in the "newsmedia" seem to think that they are immune from the world, floating in some protected space where they can mock people without retribution. They ask their misleading questions, make loaded statements, and then run away on you.
So what is the answer to this?
It's quite easily. You have to curbstomp these people. A person that won't accept reality by their good graces needs it shoved into their face.
Now, I am a compassionate person, and I don't want to go to jail, so a literal curb stomping would probably be a bad idea. But the idea is these people need a rude reintroduction to the fact they are part of reality.
I think the best thing that will come out of the Iraq war is that a certain group of people will be totally and irreversibly humiliated for their mistakes. So far, it hasn't happpened, but after twenty years of people mocking certain people for the incredibly stupid mistakes, people will start getting the idea that when you fuck up, you pay the price.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Since (to the viewers) it declares itself to be a parody show, it'll be hard to make any libel or slander charge pay, no matter what they do to you.
Quite simply, avoid talking to the media whenever possible. You can definitely expect them to put some kind of spin on whatever you say -- whether it's meant to add excitement, satisfy their existing bias, or for whatever other reason (lack of skill / stupidity). A close friend of mine was severely embarassed in our community due an idiot reporter who entirely misrepresented/misquoted what my friend said. The lesson for me was, reporters are not smart people and even if they mean well they can screw up big time, hurting you in the process, and nobody cares to read retractions. When the media comes knocking, keep your mouth shut.
Now now. You must be the jealous little troll's twin brother.
I feel sorry for those folks who work in the phone center making these calls who are only there because they need a job in order to support their families. I feel expecially sorry for those people who know exactly what they're getting people like Lauren into when they make the phone call or send the e-mail.
Some of my friends thrive on such programs. Punk'd is one of their favorites. I can't stand it. For those of you who have never heard of it, it airs on MTV. The premise of this show is the same as the debate show, except they take more extreme measures. Instead of arguing with you, they'll have your house repossessed and make you think you just lost your home, until the end of the show when they inform you it was only a joke. I've seen people start to cry on this show. Somehow, I'm not finding this funny!
Some people think of this as genius, I see it as a striving reach for attention. These people need help, I can't provide it, but someone has to.
mod this UP
This post pretty much invalidates all arguments concerning whether this type of thing is funny or not.
As highlighted by slashdot.org, according to a mailing list posting (mirror):
The nature of Crossballs is confirmed by a couple of other sources. According to a gopusa.com commentary:
And according to a June 15, 2004 story from digitalspy.co.uk, an entertainment newsblog:
In similar display of mockery, according to a Jun 5, 2004 dc.indymedia.org story:
BFD.
Go on the show, embarass yourself, have a laugh. Don't be such a fucking pussy about it.
Thanks for the warning. The only way I'd get such a call from Hollywood is if it were a wrong number.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
The first rule of /. club is do not post a link to anything hosted on your own server. /. is club is... do not talk about /. club!
The second rule is
That said, does anyone have a mirror?
Am I the only one that remembers watching MTV for the videoclips and the great (video-artsy-)idents?
That channel cost me so much sleep when I was young (and they were still young too I guess).
From one troll to another, don't you think murder is a bit too far to go for a troll?
The point of the both Crossballs and the mock-interviews on The Daily Show is (usually) to be funny. One very effective way to be funny is to ridicule people who take themselves too seriously.
I mean, the guy wrote this to introduce us to his story:
asking for my help to educate the world's youth about important topics (in this case, the scourge of spam).
Unsolicited advertising is an important topic for the world's youth? A scourge?
The AIDS epidemic is a scourge. Genocide is a scourge. A brash president that disregards diplomacy might be a scourge.
But getting some extra emails? That's not a scourge, and if you believe it is, you deserve to be ridiculed. Mr. Weinstein was so eager to spread his anti-spam gospel to the tortured masses that he only needed $200 and a cab for compensation. You know what? That's funny!
Comedy lets us point out the things that are out of place. People who think spam is a scourge are out of place. People who want 14 year old to have a 1/4 are out of place. Administrations that are accumulating scandals faster than people can grasp them are out of place. And so we laugh at them.
You bash the forum without understanding it "The coast 2 Coast AM" Radio Show is an open forum that has guests ranging from the abnormal to the Technical It also has one of the largest radio audiences on the world. And has had many respected "experts" as guests. Kevin Mitnick Leonard Cole Col. John Alexander Dr.Michio Kaku Jim Haynie All of whom have been on the show in the past couple months and also been on (what you would most likely consider) main stream Valid news networks (CNN, ABC, etc) Howard Stern was a joke show Coast 2 Coast is an open forum
Along the same lines I'm noticing is that it seems like more companies are recording their conversations, especially in one-party states. Unfortunately gaurding what you say is becoming a full time practice.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
is: "Try reading previous comments! " ;o)
I saw the segment with Scott Richter, it was funny, and the only person made out to be a fool was Richter himself. The person who replaced you was teased a little ("What about the people who want spam? Aren't you hurting them?"), but has absolutely no reason to be sorry about the final result.
I might worry if the Daily Show wanted to interview me about a controversial subject, but for something as clearly one-sided as spam, I wouldn't hestitate to talk to them.
You do get the feeling that Quinnis quite ignorant as you watch his show. And he's not funny. Hell, most of the time when he's giving his monologue, the audience doesn't even laugh! Yet his show keeps getting good ratings, and I'll agree with the parent that it's because of the guests that make the show funny.
Oh, and we're not the only two that think Quinn sucks.
Back when the public Internet was young I let a local paper inteview me about "porn on the Internet", and by the time my comments were printed they came across completely the opposite of what I intended, most of what I said (and all the intent) ignored, and a couple of lines taken out of context.
It's all infotainment, these people just push the envelope a lot further than the "real" press.
This guy is a respected Internet pioneer and probably did not want to have some retard juvenile show humiliate him in front of thousands. Even if he did something funny they could edit it to make him look bad.
:)
The solution was maybe to send someone to play is part, for who looking goofy on TV can bee a most for is career.
Phase 1: Find an actor looking for publicity who will do some crazy shit and explained some fake new weird antispam technology working by hocking an USB cable in the ass of a rat or something as nobody understand what's happening.
Phase 2: Write the plan of action, take pictures of the preparation, record an interview with the artist who will play the prank and even plant someone in the audience with a hidden camera or audio tape that could recorde the event.
Phase 3: Publish everything on the internet and send a post to Slashdot and many other media before they air the show.
(and then who knows, maybe profit!!!)
Anyway it would have been fun that he turn the table on them.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
After the introduction jump out of your seat, shout "The only good spammer is a dead one!" and then shoot several times at the "spammer" with a gun loaded with blanks. With any luck you will literally scare the shit out of the "spammer" the host, and half the studio-audience.
With a little more luck they will be too scared to want to mess with you further.
(It is probably easier to think of stuff like this when it isn't actually you, and it isn't in less than 24 hours.)
Howdy Doodly Doo!
Anybody want some Toast?
http://www.equalccw.com/thedebateshowfiasco.html.
Not pretty.
I love seeing Quinn get ragged on by his guests. That's the whole damn show! And futurama got picked up by Cartoon Network. Why do you have to bump a good show for one that's already on a different channel?
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
You couldn't cut and paste the side of a barn!
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Both you and the parent poster must not have to many women around. Too bad for you.
I was looking foreward to the episode where they punked Warren Sapp, former of the Bucs, now of the Raiders, since, as anyone who lives in the Tampa Bay area knows, he's a jerk in real life, so I expected him to go postal or something when he got punked. Unfortunately, he only got mildly annoyed, and as soon as he saw the cameras, he turned into his charming TV self.
Now, Mike Tyson is somebody I'd love to see get punked.
Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
He says it was Crossballs, but he still has _no_ proof of that. Just a phone number and a person, but that person could work for multiple shows on a network lining up talent/guests... who knows. Maybe it was just some intern. It's not like he provides us with any facts that could be cross-checked by a 3rd party. Like a name or actual phone number. Hey, if it's on google, it's not private. Give up your information.
/. user came across his blog and submitted the article. He had to do it. Plus like one of the comments above mentions -- he was on Art Bell recently.
I really doubt it was even close to as exciting as the email makes it out to be. Seriously, the guy is an "expert", but he's tooting his own horn. No regular
This guy is in bad need of an unbreakable diamond tether to keep connected to reality.
------------------------------
Ray Raspberry
raspberry@b3l33t.org
Give it a rest. It is not billed as a legitimate news show, and I would be shocked if a "legitimate" smart person like Ms. Weinstein wouldn't actually demand to know what she was getting herself into before signing anything.
Get upset at CNN for showing pictures of tortured Iraqis constantly for ratings. Get upset at FOX News for lying about everything for ratings. Get upset at every reporter that agrees to pull punches to get that "exclusive interview."
Oooh! The scourage of spam! Is there any more important news topic? Yes, almost every single story you can think of. The Weather Channel airs more important news 24 hours a day. How damaged could your reputation be? Unless you said something like, 'All that spam is the fault of those dirty (insert ethnicity, gender, or race here)!' you're fine.
I would love for the chance to have fun with a couple of comedians. One of them used to be a member of the Upright Citizens Brigade. I would have turned off the serious, turned on the charm, and tried my best to add to the funny. I'd do it for nothing, and you were going to get $200?
It sounds to me like she passed up a chance on a good time.
Up here in Canada, we have a show called This Hour Has 22 Minutes.
This is a saterical news show. And every politician who shows up on it knows it. I'm a big fan of satire myself, and if you ask me, this is the way to do it. If you're willing to make fun of yourself, all the better. If not, I won't miss you.
Personally, I don't know how you can take someone seriously if they can't make fun of themselves. But I also think that they should be given the opportunity to poke fun at themselves, not be humiliated without notice, like this guy was.
Like the subject line says.
If you were asked to speak with a reporter on camera, which one would you trust to present the issue fairly?
And the answer "None of them", while probably correct, doesn't count.
Chip H.
While we are allowed to talk about such things (and indeed are doing so now), I do think the OP has a point. 'Support our troops' is a non sequitir in a debate about whether we should be at war at all. Of course everyone wishes to support the troops who are risking their lives. The question is whether our leaders are justified those lives at risk.
Below is an example of the 'suppor our troops' meme as propaganda, from the Nuremburg trials. Apologies for the slight bending of Godwin's law.
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
I see two sides to this story basically:
One, you have a show which endeavors to entertain people on a most shallow level, at the expense of those who have spent years becoming an expert in their respective fields. Let's characterize people who have a passion as being single-minded to the point of being easily misled by those less intelligent, and therefore discredit the entire concept of having passion over an issue or discipline.
The other side being, this is the world we live in, where people are so reactive and ADD in their behavior that they need sensationalism and anti-social-oriented entertainment in order to maintain their attention span. If there wasn't a market for this garbage, it wouldn't be worth noting, but there obviously is, and this segment of the populace seems to be growing (de-evolving) at an alarming rate. You can either choose to ignore this evermore-influential group, or you can seek to understand the dynamics at play and try to find a way to pander to the (admittedly sophmoric) means by which people seem to pay attention.
So you're an expert in your field. You've spent years becoming a leader and are passionate about your work. It's demoralizing to even contemplate playing a part in the ridiculous circuses that the major media invites you to. Your work and your passion should not be the butt of pedantic ridicule.
At the same time, you can't get funding for your projects. Nobody seems to care. You can't find good people in your field anymore who are as passionate and dedicated. It seems the populace doesn't think "computer security technology" is "exciting". What do you do?
And we wonder why the most prominent political, idological and scientific icons in the mainstream media are rarely the most respected in the hardcore communities they claim to represent? I believe it's because if you lose the ability to adapt and communicate with your audience, which includes those beyond your scientific circle, you alienate yourself from those who could feed you and your efforts in one way or another.
I'd like to see more of our truly-respected leaders in various fields making more of an effort to reach the masses. If someone could actually appear on a show like this, and survive the childish attempt to make fun of them and come out still making a point, it would be a huge strive ahead for everyone. If not, then they'll find some ignorant bonehead "expert" to fill the bill. If you can rebuild a kernel, or understand general relativity, it shouldn't be that much of a stretch to appear on a stupid talk show, even one out to get you, and make even a minute positive contribution.
Here is the result of someone who DID go on the show about gun-control. http://www.equalccw.com/mancusthreatletter.gif
instead of presenting information or information with quality analysis, tv news organizations and their online versions (most notably foxnews and to a lesser extent cnn, which i do read online in addition to bbc, and nytimes) present information sensationally, either by picking and displaying emotional topics in as emotionally impactful a manner as possibly (sad stories, funerals, Us or Them partisanship). The emotional roller coaster, FUD (usually associated with fox/war on terror), and one-sided expert testimony (i.e. Cato institute) serves to entertain and/or mirror assumptions of the views---not to inform/broaden their knowledge.
An excellent example was with CNN a year ago, when the twins joined at the head were going to be separated. Everyone knew there was a 50%+ chance of failure, and with plenty of other things going on it didnt make for great news, but CNN played it up. Front page online for several days, and didnt release in detail the doubts about the operation until after the operation failed. 2 random people undergoing surgery that is expected to fail, played up as a drama, is quality infotainment.
All your preview button are belong to hello kitty.
TROLL
My only experiences with reporters have been with them trying to put words into my mouth.
Back in the early '90s, I was involved in the pro-life movement (don't want to get into a debate about that now, what matters is the way reporters handled the story), and one of the things I did, being a good First Amendment type, was to test an injunction that said that certain name people or organizations, or anyone acting in concert with those individuals or groups, could not come within 30 feet of a particular abortion clinic. Anyway, I wasn't named on the injunction, so some other teenagers and I, none of whom were named, decided to test the injunction, and since it happened to be a very hot day (it being Florida and all), it became apparent that the media wanted to paint the story as "bad parents forcing their children to protest." I had a reporter interview me and try every which way to say how hot it was and how hot I was and to try to get me to say that it was my parents' idea that I be there, because that was the story they wanted to tell.
In another story of reporters trying to get the quote they wanted, a few weeks ago I went up to Tampa for the Stanley Cup Finals, and was sitting outside the building looking bored because I had gone up early to get standing room tickets and there was nothing to do, when a reporter came along and wanted to interview me for the human interest fan story. It was pretty obvious that the quote he wanted was that the reason I spent $200 a pop on tickets to game 1 was because it was a "once in a lifetime experience." I didn't want to say it was a once in a lifetime thing because I certainly hope the Lightning will be back to the finals before I die, and since I didn't say what he wanted, I didn't get quoted but he found someone else to say it was a once-in-a-lifetime thing.
So yeah, I don't trust reporters, because whether it was a serious issue or not, they've tried to put words in my mouth.
Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
I just found this article about the show (which gets off topic at the end but the first bit is related). (I KNOW I KNOW IT'S FROM gopusa.com BUT JUST CLICK IT AND READ)
They must have had a bad brainstorming session or something... shouldn't they have been "interrogating" a government official about, oh, I don't know, all of the same stupid shit that CROSSFIRE and HARDBALL are getting their panties in a bunch about?
That sounds like a fantastic concept for a show, in fact, it's unfortunate they had to blotch it with this shit.
I love to laugh at uptight conservative jackasses getting made a fool of. I hope the mentioned MTV show airs. LOL
It's called PBS.
There are quite a variety of PBS shows out there that are pretty authoratative.
Yes, at times their vaguely socialist emotional bias pops up pretty heavily, but they actually do indepth exploration of issues and interview many people ignored by the mainstream press.
And, even though the P stands for "Public" the government funding they get is miniscule to non-existent. Their customers are not advertisors, not some mega-conglomerate owner, but their audience. If people don't value their coverage, they don't pay for it, and thus their quality is relatively high.
Having worked in small town print news, and having seen numerous misquotes and twisted facts close to home, I cringe at any thought of being the subject of a 'real news' story. No matter how innocuous the topic, there's a good chance the result would be unsatisfactory. Watching major news on the tube is unbearable for the built-in bias and sloppiness. Just say 'No' when ANY 'news' person comes knocking... then you won't have to worry about whether they're fake or not.
http://technomom.com/writing/press.html
Tag lost or not installed.
And you're the flaming homosexual boyfriend who snowballs his dad and passes it over to your faggoty boyfriend that happens to be a karma whore.
so you're the asshat who bought their slashdot id on ebay
Its really an extension of his show "Talking to Americans". He'd go around asking regular americans questions about Canada that were clearly ludicrous.
I remember one soundbite of the Govenor of Arkansas (no, not Bill Clinton) congratulating Canadians at getting 7/24 electriciy. In another bit, a mayor of some American city congratulated us on completing our "National Igloo".
I was *really* surprised to see an economics professor from Harvard agree that Canadians got better fuel mileage because we used the metric system.
All of these bits were funny, but I don't one one second assume that Canadians are any better under the circumstances than Americans in this regard -- you put the glare of the camera on somebody, you ask for an opinion and you get thoughts about being on TV, and the brain freezes. A micro-burst ego trip. Plus they control the edits.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
I'd have gone to the show. Told them I'd been ripped off by such shows before and ask for the check up front. If it isn't the person who called you that greets you, make sure to mention that you normally don't do professional appearences for only $2000 but you think the topic is important. Make sure the other guests hear the amount. Then I'd tell all the other guests in the green room the nature of the show. Then stage a walk-out (they may or may not have cut your check at that point). All head back to your respective cars and tell the driver your appearance was cancelled. Then as they try to figure out were all their guests are, real Comedy ensues ...
Just a thought.
Bring some one to play your agent/lawyer for more fun. Have him grumble that it is a lot of work for just a $200 fee for his time.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
UNIX? They're probably not even circumcised! Savages!
/. Most of them are not circumcised. Therefore, you just called most of the Europeans that read /. a bunch of savages. Your sig, while it is really probably trying to be funny and cute by punning UNIX and EUNUCHS, is actually just betraying a lot of ignorance about the rest of the world outside the USA. And, while I think it's cute to see Americans being ignorant about anything outside of America.. it really is getting kind of played out, doncha think?
You have to realize that a lot of Europeans read
I admit to not knowing who this guy is. For dodging the mock debate I say kudos to him, but announcing this to everyone will deprive the world of some much needed laughs.
Image if someone had forwarned Scott Richter. Or the lady who stuffs dead pets for their owners. Or the guy who was upset because his "Sim-Kitten" had died.......... All of these memories will disappear like tears in rain!
So yes, you DO have to be careful about these things, and always make sure you know what you're getting into!
After a brief look at the Crossballs website, it sounds very much like it's a version of the UK's The Day Today (Chris Morris), and Brass Eye (again Chris Morris). These programmes take the concept of "current affairs", and then parody this.
The difference, however, (as far as I can see) is that Brass Eye etc tend to have a good stance as their founding, i.e. to target the media's mass-hysteria around particular subjects (especially drug use, paedophiles etc), and mock not only their shock-tactic approach to manipulating the public, but also mock the approach that "celebrity" take when trying to advocate their own standpoints (to the point where they'll make any given "scientific" statement to make them out to be a positive public influence on the matter).
This show, however, seems to make its comedy focus as simply a vehicle for the public humiliation of known experts in a given field. How they do this, I don't know (having never seen the show), so I cannot comment on its extremity, but it does seem somewhat cruel without a differing message to counteract it.
could you expect any less from viacom? :071:
that's an important rule... and it goes for people in all kinds of professions.
Reporters often have an idea of where they want to go with a story, and creative editing can turn you from expert to idiot in a matter of minutes. Besides, your time is valuable... why would you give it up for a reporter? You have NO IDEA who he's out to hang... and in case it's you, you'd be a fool to give him a whole spool of rope.
Plenty of police officers, EMS workers, military, public figures, crime suspects, litigants, etc have learned this lesson the hard way. And even if you've checked with your organization's public affairs people, it's still risky. Back in my military days, a friend of mine talked to a reporter with public affairs' blessing... and got into some pretty hot water. The reporter (who clearly ignorant of OPSEC) published some very sensitive info in his article, and my buddy was dinged simply because his name was mentioned (he had nothing to do with the sensitive material). Another friend was raked over the coals for an informational email he sent to a major national newspaper (subsequently forwarded to all kinds of people and eventually into the hands of his boss)
This isn't Star Search; you gain nothing by talking to the press... that's what the PR/media affairs people get paid to do. It can be easy to become seduced by the camera, but don't fall into the trap of thinking the reporter is interested in you when they're more interested in what they can get from you.
Clam up and graciously excuse yourself. If you do, don't worry... you're not missing your fifteen minutes of fame, you're probably dodging a bullet.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
I think the best defense for that is the ol' "Sanford & Son" - "Oh, my heart!" Followed by collapse from the chair, with miraculous recovery when paramedics show up.
If the host tries to do mouth to mouth in an effort to revive you, slip him the tongue.
The REAL story here is not that humiliating guests is fair, or naughty or nice, or anything. The REAL story is, and all /.'rs should know this, that television is dying, and in it's last days will try to do anything to get anyones attention, be it so called reality television, crass humor or out and out lies. Television is and always has been in denial of the fact that the Internet, and all that goes with it, is it's replacement. Asta La Vista Baby!
Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
bow at the feet of the *true* master of spam!
Oh yes I did, and I think it qualifies as a best thing ever. Click here, and then the bottom left-hand corner link ("Prince Charles Scandal"). You'll need a RealPlayer plugin, but it's worth it.
They never met her except over the phone? As soon as she found it it was all rigged, she should have gone on Craig's List (or asked a friend or something), and found an actor who could fake a bit of knowledge about being a Spam expert. Let the actor go on, pretend to be her, have a bit of fun, and NEVER let up that she wasn't her... until after the program aired. MTV would be confident that the made a fool of an expert, never suspecting that they were the ones who had been made the fool.
How many people that submitted this story are being paid by Viacomm?
This viral marketing campaign crap is starting to bug me.
I really hate Dan Patrick.
Specifically, the Apology of Socrates...
Wherein Socrates says that he could not speak the truth about those who slander him unless he wrote it into a comedy (as Aristophanes did). Plus ce change...
They tried this on a spokesman for the National Rifle Association. It backfired. "I came *this* close to pulling a knife on his dumbass. Had my hand all the way in my pocket. Paused there, thought better of it."
Maybe The Day Today or Brass Eye should do a special report on this.
That entire thread is hilarious. "Oh MAN have they screwed with the wrong dude here." OH NOS!!!!!! Shame he doesn't have a clue about contract law. The lawsuit (which he is going to lose, BTW, at least based on the info he's presented so far) is going to cost this guy a lot more than it'll end up costing a megacorporation like Viacom. Doesn't sound like it "backfired" at all, in fact I'd say this guy was one of the best possible "marks" they could've gone for.
Doubt it'll be as funny as the Ali G NRA interview, though.
Talking to Americans is just a piece he does on "This hour has 22 minutes", though there was a 1 hour special.
My favorite was when he told this mother (with 2 children) that 85% of Canadians couldn't point to their home _state_ on a map. She begins to go on how poor education is up here when her oldest (about 5) in true 5 year old directness says "thats wrong, Canada has provinces".
I tell you though, things _have_ been much easier since we went to a 24 hour clock.
"I had, I think (it's been awhile), a 2.8 GPA and a 1440 SAT in high school. So I don't exactly consider myself a moron. I majored in Modern Literature..."
If I were majoring in "Modern Literature" and only had a 2.8 GPA, I certainly wouldn't brag about it!
The same network (CBS) that uses pyrotechnics (20/20) to "demonstrate" what happens when a full sized pickup was hit - because it wouldn't catch on fire otherwise?
The "demonstration" in question happened on Dateline which is an NBC show; not 20/20 which was on ABC and not CBS.
It's a very dark ride.
Godwin's law strikes again.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
Amazing how many losers around this site trying to appreciate 'smart' people (the smart people in the US culture don't seem to have any real life experience and have quired low social skills as well).
Relax geeks! It was just a trap. The life is full of those. So, the author finally managed to get out of that trap which was set nicely based on vanity. Wow! "The Specialist! I must be on TV! Look ma, I educate people".
As sick as I am of the glorification of "joe beerbut" I am also sick of most things people learn to glorify. And, face it, the US media is the worse. The geeks - people who just hide in a hole and lacking a better time-waster start learning things - are mentioned everywhere. Get real! A loser is still a loser. Being smart doesn't mean you have to be the last to get invited to a party. Or looking at the "human" side of some murderor. He/she killed for pleasure. There is no "let's forgive him/her as he/she used to plant nice flowers".
Bottom line I see nothing wrong to abuse people based on their sins. The same thing do the good salesmen - exploiting greed. This type of show exploits vanity. Vanity of smart people? Who's smart? Somebody who can't even control his/her life?
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
There was a massive fuss in the UK three years ago over a spoof documentary called Brass Eye, which was a one-off special on the media's treatment of paedophilia. There were numerous celebrities and government ministers who were duped into appearing, and the tabloids branded it the "sickest TV show ever".
The strange thing about the reaction to the show was that it appeared to justify the screening of the programme, including the minister who launched an attack despite not having actually seeing it.
Lots of info from the BBC, and a transcript here.
Your written correspondence is currently broadcasting a postal address. With this, someone can begin attacking your house!
Since these people so appreciate practical jokes, why don't you play one on them?
:)
Publish all the names and phone numbers of the people you had dealings with, together with any email and snailmail addresses.
It would be such a laugh watching how they react. It will be even funnier when they start to complain about being spammed and having to change all their phone numers.
What a jape
"grammar", not "linguistics". linguistics is the scientific study of language. a linguist wants to know the mechanism by which speakers substitute "of" for "have", and what we can deduce from that about the speaker's internal representation of the language. a grammarian, on the other hand, just chews them out for making the mistake and mutters something about young people ruining the language.
Yes, I do support the troops.
SUPPORTING THE TROOPS MEANS NOT PUTTING THEM IN HARM'S WAY WITHOUT A DAMN GOOD REASON.
Reasons?
So what's left? Getting rid of an evil man? America supports lots of evil men in power all over the world, sometimes for good reasons. So why aren't we invading them instead of supporting them?
Why did we invade Iraq instead of the nation that indirectly employs Bush's father via the Carlyle Group? Ask the President. (note: Salon - ad viewing or subscription required)
Bush has cut various kind of pay and military allowances to our troops. You don't care, do you?
You're probably too young to remember the old joke about "Wouldn't it be great if our schools got funded and they had to hold bake sales to build an aircraft carrier?"
The joke isn't funny anymore. A middle school held a bake sale to help pay for BULLETPROOF VESTS FOR AMERICAN TROOPS Where's all that money we're spending on the military going? Ask Bush, or maybe Cheney's buddies over at Halliburton might have something to say about this.
I'm sure you aren't surprised by the fact that Halliburton served rotting meats and vegetables to our troops in Iraq. Of course, you really don't care, do you?
A reasonable person would think that a person who supported our troops would NOT want to see them put into unnecessary danger, would be equipped adequately, and would want to see them get decent food to eat.
YOU ARE NOT THAT PERSON.
You can support our troops or You can support Bush.
You can NOT do both at the same time.
You've picked a side, and we KNOW who's side you're on. Why don't you go play with your buddies at a well known Bush campaign contributor, Microsoft instead of spreading your tired old propaganda bullshit here?
Tech Public Policy stuff
That's nothing unusual even in "serious" reporting. You may get a journalist claiming to do a story about how great X is but actually writing a story about how much better Y is than X. This is usually followed by out-of-context quotes. Even if there is no initial misrepresentation or intent, you may often not like what your name gets attached to.
Thats a good joke.
$>man woman
$>Segmentation fault (core dumped)
What also is very funny is to dress up some 1.90m guys as gangmembers and have them appear on the middle of the day, right at the moment you're about to do whatever. At that moment they start shooting (blanks, but you don't know that). they're all around you and you have nowhere to hide.
Now picture yourselve. How scared wil you be and, knowing in advance they use blanks, how much will the audience laugh!
And the irony of it all is your friends thought it would be funny and signed you up for the show!!! And in the contract is a part that states that for whatever reason YOU don't agree to have the show aired, THEY have to pay the expenses.
It's just how television works. And actually it's f*ck*ng not funny at all people are watching those kind of shows. (Jerry, Jerry!!!)
Privacy is terrorism.
To the fuckwad who called parent a troll... "Bobbi Dooley" is a regular character on Phil's show. That shoulda been modded way up.
Maybe The Day Today or Brass Eye should do a special report on this.
;)
They could have Sacher Baron Cohen on to put up the side for Prank shows
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
Well I would have posted the WHOIS for both of those domains but Slashdot's fucking 'junk' character filter is all pissy about it. I really hate those fucking filters.
COMEDY CENTRAL'S NEW SERIES "CROSSBALLS" PITS REAL PEOPLE AGAINST FAKE EXPERTS AND SKEWERS DEBATE SHOWS, BEGINNING TUESDAY, JULY 6 AT 7:30 P.M.
"Crossballs" Sitelet On comedycentral.com To Launch On July 6
LOS ANGELES, June 15, 2004 -- COMEDY CENTRAL introduces a new take on the traditional debate show format, where comedians pose as experts and debate real people who don't know the show is fake. Out of the Crossfire, beyond Hardball, this is Crossballs: The Debate Show, premiering Tuesday, July 6 at 7:30 p.m. Each half-hour episode will debut on Tuesday through Thursdays for eight consecutive weeks.
"Crossballs," hosted by Chris Tallman, puts unsuspecting real people, experts in their field, against characters played by comedians in a heated debate on current issues. The show includes other bogus elements, including fake TV magazine stories, commercials, and additional "experts" who appear via phony satellite feeds. Shot in front of a live audience, "Crossballs" is a smart, comedic spoof of programs such as "Crossfire," "Hardball with Chris Matthews," and the entire Fox News Network.
Characters breathe life into stodgy old debates, with opinions like: "Sports stars should be kept in cages." "People should be allowed to hunt animals with their cars." "We should all have the right to marry food." "Immigrants would be happier on the moon." "Fixing bad neighborhoods starts with dressing the homeless as clowns." "Fashion is a gay conspiracy."
The "Crossballs" cast includes: Chris Tallman, the host, comedians Matt Besser, Jerry Minor, Andrew Daly and Mary Birdsong. These comedians portray different characters in each episode. They pose as "experts" and bewilder real people -- true experts who aren't in on the joke.
In the debut episode, the heated debate is on Reality TV. Besser plays a Reality TV star who believes that true actors are "liars" and says it takes more talent to eat bugs than act. Also, Andrew Daly plays a mentally challenged, wannabe reality star who doesn't understand why he can't volunteer to be pranked on a hidden camera show. They debate against real experts, a professional actor of stage and screen and a casting director for Reality TV shows, who are outraged and baffled but never realize the whole show is a joke.
In the second episode, Besser portrays a driving instructor who teaches "offensive driving", and believes women should not be allowed to drive SUV's. Jerry Minor plays a taxi driver who claims he's mastered the art of drunk driving. When the discussion turns to the topic of elderly driving, Mary Birdsong argues that the elderly "unlearn" how to drive as they get older, and at age 55 should be forced to paint their cars bright orange to identify themselves.
Chris Tallman, host of "Crossballs," has appeared on "Reno 911" and "The Jamie Kennedy Experiment." Matt Besser, improv actor and one of Crossballs' executive producers, was a creator and performer in "Upright Citizens Brigade." Another improv actor, Andrew Daly, was a cast member on "Mad TV." Jerry Minor is a former cast member of "Saturday Night Live" and HBO's "Mr. Show with Bob and David." Mary Birdsong was a cast member on CBS's "Welcome to New York."
"Crossballs" repeats Wednesday through Fridays at 1:00 p.m.
Credits for "Crossballs" include Charlie Siskel and Matt Besser as executive producers with Zoe Friedman serving as the executive in charge of production for COMEDY CENTRAL.
COMEDY CENTRAL, the only all-comedy network, currently is seen in more than 85 million homes nationwide. COMEDY CENTRAL is owned by Comedy Partners, a wholly-owned division of MTV Networks. COMEDY CENTRAL is a registered trademark of Comedy Partners. COMEDY CENTRAL's Internet address is http://www.comedycentral.com.
Look up - notice I posted a correction, yesterday, long before the wanna bes and cowards posted. So who's stupid?
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
But look at the response it got :-)
Point to a SINGLE KNOWINGLY FALSE STATEMENT made by the Administration. Point to a SINGLE LIE.
"Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."
"Iraq poses an immediate military threat to America."
"Iraq has been, and is on a continuing basis, providing support to al Quaeda."
"Iraq played a role in the September 11 attacks."
These are all lies.
Shall I continue?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Not really. She calmly detailed the workings of the scam so that other experts won't waste their time. The description was calm, clear and without inflammatory language. What more could you want? What less should she have done? The sucks running the show deserve to be called what they are.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Today: Huntington Beach Independent (subscription required) - A debate in the wrong environment - Local environmentalist Joey Racano was a pawn in a Comedy Central TV show debate show spoof. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/indynews/news/la -hbi-racano24jun24,1,2272213.story?coll=la-tcn-ind ynews-news
By Andrew Edwards, Independent
Surf City environmentalist and one-time City Council candidate Joey Racano thought he was going to take his message to the airwaves on a serious debate show. But he and other community activists were tricked by an elaborate prank.
On June 2, Racano, who often pedals his way across town on a black bicycle, was taken to Hollywood and back in a limousine under the pretenses he would appear on MTV network's "The Debate Show."
He thought that meant he would appear on MTV, bringing political discourse to the rock 'n' roll network.
The show Racano and others will actually appear on is "Crossballs: The Debate Show," said Tony Fox, a spokesman for Comedy Central. The show is a spoof of political shows like CNN's "Crossfire" and MSNBC's "Hardball" and is set to debut on Comedy Central on July 6.
Both MTV and Comedy Central are part of the Viacom-owned MTV networks.
A press release from the comedy group the Upright Citizens Brigade promoted the show, of which group member Matt Besser, is the executive producer.
The episode Racano taped will not be the first one aired.
Planned shows listed on the press release include discussions on earth-shattering issues such as "we should all have the right to marry food," "sports stars should be kept in cages," and "fixing bad neighborhoods starts with dressing the homeless as clowns."
SPOILERS FOR EPISODES BELOW
Racano, however, did not get the joke during his time on the set. When he initially discussed his Hollywood experience, he described the show as an entertainment-driven forum for topical debate.
"It was set up like a game show, and the prize was the Earth," he said. "There were very serious undertones."
But Racano said he didn't care if the show was a joke as long as he had a chance to speak his mind, regardless of the format.
"You gotta remember one thing about TV, it's geared to like, second-graders," he said. "Even though it was done in the context of a comedy, they let me speak my piece."
And the show definitely had some weird moments, Racano said. At one point in the show, Racano said, a woman said environmental groups used their funds to buy fancy hats for park rangers.
But not all of the guests tricked into being on the show are taking it in stride as Racano is. Second Amendment activist Jim March of Sacramento said he realized the show was a parody and was angry with the producers for trying to fool him. March's attorney sent a cease and desist order to Viacom demanding a taped show where he argued the case for firearms ownership not be aired since he was tricked when asked to be on the show.
March said he became disgusted with the show after a guest suggested his pro-gun stance was a manifestation of sexual anxieties, and he was handed a male-enhancement pump as a substitute for a firearm.
"I'm sitting here holding it, saying, 'What the [heck] is this?'" March said.
Moments that outrage the guests and create "the shock and surprise of disbelief" are what the show is all about, Fox said.
"The real fun on the show is having experts debate people who think they are experts, but are really improv actors," he said.
Fox said most guests would not agree to be on the show if they knew it was all for laughs, but Racano doesn't mind the gag at all.
"Maybe the only way to get a radical environmentalist like me on TV is under the pretense that it's a joke," he said.