Slashdot Mirror
Our Ratings, Ourselves
Ant writes "This long New York Times article (10 pages; no registration required) reports on the mismeasure of television (TV)." From the article: "One of the great contradictions of modern American life is that almost everyone watches TV while almost no one agrees anymore about what it really means to watch television....when it comes to figuring out how many of us are watching these shows, and whether we're paying attention while we're watching and even whether we're actually noticing the advertisements among the shows we may or may not be watching -- well, this is where things get tricky..."
Just last night we watched a movie on free to air and there was a 2-3 minute commercial break every 8 minutes. It was absurd (but a reminder why we pay $85 a month for Foxtel - which still gives you adverts, but not quite so often]).
We had plenty of time to go to the toilet, get drinks, fix snacks, let the cat in, feed the cat, let the cat out - cripes, and check emails.By the end of the movie we were so sick and tired of these products that we actively resolved to not ever by the damn things again.
Advertising works, but if you try and force feed and literally brainwash your potential customers we will eventually say - up yours!
RFID first, apparently - they're determined to mainstream it, either mixed under the audio (as detailed in the article) or Ad-ID...
<grrr>
Phoney human drama that is cheap to produce. No screenwriters or plotlines needed. Just find various "personalities" that will grate on each other, stick them together, and film it. Reality TV is so prevalent because it's so cheap and easy to make. Compare to, say, Law & Order, where you actually have to hire actors, write stories, and go film at various locations.
Even friggin' TLC has reality shows now. It's insane. And sad (anyone remember when TLC was shown in schools because it always ran educational content?).
Well, I'll give you a little friendly advice. Whatever you do, please do NOT have your ad "pop up"! Pop-ups suck.
Why do they suck? Because it's forcing its message on me instead of me seeking it out. The only times I've ever interested in ads are when they are off to the side as a normal part of the site, often a text ad. "Here are some Thinkgeek shirts." I automatically tune out "FREE t-shirts! Click here!"
I tune out exclamation points, capital letters, and anything else that is actually done to get attention.
I like text ads. I will tolerate small banner ads, or benign ones that don't try to look like Windows dialogs and shake with a "YOU HAVE 1 NEW MESSAGE" message.
Without actually being able to see your ad specifically, it's harder to give you suggestions. But take it from a consumer you are targetting--don't make it look like an ad. Make it look like a bit of handy information. "Here's a good web development page" or whatever it is you're advertising. Don't do "WEB DEV--starting at $12.99 per month! Click here." I like to be told in a friendly way about stuff that is out there. I don't like it thrown at my head.
Whether or not you're doing it consciously is debatable, but I know that when it's on in the background I zone back in to it and all of a sudden have a craving for Whataburger... mmm, Whataburger...
Mens et Manus
Reality TV is so prevalent because it's so cheap and easy to make.
While this is certainly true, it doesn't really matter how cheap a show is to produce if no one will watch it. Somewhere out there, somebody is watching this crap. And they're fucking it up for the rest of us.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
One of the reasons for the failure path of advertising is that free, advertising-supported TV is a terrible deal for the viewer.
Common CPM for TV ads is $10, meaning one cent per viewer. The network gets a penny to show you a 30 second ad. If you watch 5 hours of TV, you will see an hour of those ads, and they get $1.20.
In other words, you get $1.20 worth of programming for watching an hour of advertising. $1.20 per hour is an illegal wage by a long margin in most places these days, and a terrible deal. It's no wonder we want to reject it.
The other big mistake the TV industry has made was in thinking the grail was full video on demand. Tivo and Netflix have shown that delayed-gratification video is more than satisfactory, and a lot cheaper to produce.
Some of these ideas are explored in my essay on the future of TV advertising and Poor Man's Video on Demand, which you may want to read.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
So many aspects of marketing are so squishy that it is easy for everyone to fool themselves into thinking that the ads are effective. All of the participants have a vested interest in spinning the impact of ads -- TV stations, ad agencies have obvious conflicts of interest in promoting TV ads. But even the marketing execs at companies do to as they judge their personal "size" by how many millions they spend on big ad campaigns.
I have no idea if TV ads are really seen or not or if they really work or not - they may well create some subliminal warm fuzzy about some heavily promoted product or brand.
I do know that ads can backfire. When a major (potato) chip maker launched a multi-million dollar "taste-test" TV ad campaign against its biggest competitor, the competitor's sales went up because the campaign got people thinking about the chips and they bought more of the competitor's brand. This anecdote suggests that ads are seen, but may not have the intended effect.
I suspect that the real problem is that companies are so desperate to reach and influence buyers that they will try anything.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Americans love watching punishment. So many of these reality shows have as their basis a climax which determines who amongst the contestants will be punished, either by banishment, being fired, or being told to eat disgusting things.
The only reason television exists is because of advertising, for companies to sell you stuff you don't need. They don't care about you, and in many instances insult you. You don't need a doctor to diagnose you, instead we'll tell you what you need and you shop to find a doctor to write you a prescription.
I wish I had back all the hours I had watching TV. It has harmed me. It lowered my attention span. It made me blow my money on crap I don't need, and really did not want, but was so taken in by models who look so hot convincing me I really do need it.
How many people come home from a long day at work, pop open a beer while tossing a frozen pizza in the oven, and then spend the rest of the night laughing at 3rd grade jokes?
And even for the good things that TV can do, it has failed us miserably. Did anyone catch Dean's comments to Democrats? Dean said democrats need to get better at the 10 second soundbyte, more catchy phrases, and to mainstream their message. The TV could be so much more. Chances are you can get more from the editorial section of the newspaper than in a half hour news program. And where is the science and history on TV? Maybe we will get a science channel once cable hits channel 700. *sigh*
How do I get all those hours back? How do I go on living knowing my formative years were spent watching the Dukes of Hazzard?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I'm sure many others will say this.
;-)
I've been living without a TV for almost 2 years now, and honestly I missed it badly only during the first few months. After that, I discovered that I'm actually getting much more rest while at home, feel generally less-stressed, and most importantly - can concentrate on strenous coding tasks for longer stretches at a time.
And following the tv show "you can't live without" is just as easy thanks to bittorrent..
Don't go silently into that peaceful night
Even friggin' TLC has reality shows now. It's insane. And sad (anyone remember when TLC was shown in schools because it always ran educational content?).
What exactly am I supposed to be learning from TLC now? All I ever see on TLC is decorating shows and cameras following pregnent women around. Do they even show documentaries anymore?
Even Discovery Channel has turned away from what used to be its core programming. Motorcycles, Monster Garage, and Mythbusters. Early episodes of Mythbusters concentrated more on the myths and testing them. New episodes seem to like to show build competitions between the two hosts with lots of "conflict" between them. What does any of this have to do with science, technology, and history?
I really wish there were a way to just have my ad pop up for people who actually are interested in what I have to offer. Then I can leave everyone else the hell alone.
Those who are really interested in what you want to offer, are seeking for you.
Those who are not seeking for you, but instead are reading some website, or watching tv, or listening to the radio, are right now not interested in you.
If you honestly only want to target people that are interested in you, you could for example try placing an add on google for the keyword "hosting". Or you could just make sure your site is found on google when someone searches for it. lots of options, none is perfect, but placing ads on random websites/stumbleupon/radio will not help you there.
Some of the people you target there might get interested, but all of them are at that time obviously more interested in someting else.
I saw something at Best Buy the other day that really stopped me in my tracks: A refridgerator with a television built in. I thought to myself, "Who the fuck watches television to the point that they need one on their fridge?" And yet there it was, manufactured by LG(Koreans taking us down!). Now, I'm not saying that TV is totally worthless, I personally enjoy the Daily Show and South Park, but I think Americans are way too addicted to the television....it's time to back away before it's too late....
Monstar L
A real good way to draw attention is actually to DO provide some valuable free content. Give them some of that SQL, PHP or CSS, enough to draw links, enough to go up in pagerank, enough to prove your competence. From 5000-10000 people a day who will roll through your help files, 50-100 will actually need a place to host their content as well, and 5-10 will think "Oh, the guy who made these great instructions provides some decent webhosting space! How convenient".
I'm "banner-blind". I just don't notice most of banners on pages I quickly click through. But if for some reason I'm "forced" to stay on one website for a few days, I start noticing banners they display. The place gets familiar, I start noticing less visible elements, features, extras. I may throw a glimpse at the credits in the footer. I may check some other pages of the site, than the ones I just needed. And I start to see banners - usually sites display a small family of banners and I start recognizing them. Sometimes I will click them too, if I find them interesting (but not "smartass" - be sure I won't click on a banner that reads "don't click this banner"). I got a free shell account once. I was using it frequently and I liked it so much, that when the server went commercial, I started paying for it...
So - draw persistent attention to your website - make people stay there, provide quality free service. There's enough incompetent jerks who just look to rip people off, to trust my money to someone who has just empty words to support his claims. Penis enlargement pills are risk free too. And the price is quite low as well.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I'll admit that you make several valid points, but overall your post reaks of intellectualistic superiority. First of all, it's dangerous to condemn the 'masses' for enjoying television after a long day at work. I'm sure you waste your time on something as well, although slashdot.org may seem like a more stimulating pursuit, for example, it is still really not accomplishing anything.
The TV could be so much more. Chances are you can get more from the editorial section of the newspaper than in a half hour news program. And where is the science and history on TV? Maybe we will get a science channel once cable hits channel 700. *sigh*
Perhaps it's because I'm up here in Canada, but it seems as if we have plenty of quality programing. Documentaries on CBC constantly interest; a recent one documented a National Guard battallion deploying to your ongoing War in Iraq. Television as a media can convey things that you can't read about to the same degree, and television allows lower-quality productions.
As for history, our History channel here does occasionally present valuable historical documentaries, although I'll conceed that their presentation of 'JAG' three times a day does diminish their esteem. But heck, sometimes it's fun to kick back and watch 'JAG', ridicule the rediculous plotlines and turn off the brain.
So while I do understand your argument, and conceed its validity in some parts, I find it hard to pass blanket condemnation of television.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
This is a wholly uninformed guess, but -- I'd imagine that is a result of technological improvement in TV studio equipment, not a policy change.
I didn't used to feel this way. There used to be a time I'd sit through commercials and didn't mind them. They've gotten steadily stupider and repetitive, even ripping each other off.
Yeah, and remember how music used to be cool and now it all sucks? Sorry -- you're just getting old.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Somewhere out there, somebody is watching this crap. And they're fucking it up for the rest of us.
Just like spam.... and democracy.
Commercials used to be more informative, that's for sure. Now commercials are designed to elicit emotions more than the brain. I'm not too old (early 30's)... but I had to do a small research project where I was looking at old 50's television. The commercials were plain bad from a cinemographic point of view, but I actually got facts about the product, not "you need this to look cool, and if you don't you are a loser that will be made fun of by all of your coworkers and neighbors".
:)
But, that is just my two cents
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I did, in 1989, and haven't looked back since.
I've seen some shows at friend's houses. Sienfield, 90120, etc. It's crap, tripe, purile and pointless.
In place of a TV, I have a library of over 2000 books. History, sciences, arts (H.R. Giger rules!), fiction, biographies, the list goes on.
I've taken up writing (short stories written already, novel due soon) playing the guitar, building models, doing SCCA Solo II, and find the time not wasted by watching the boob tube to be so much more.....valuable, productive, enjoyable, you name it.
There was a video link on ebaumsworld recently which was a compliation of the crap that's currently on TV. I was appalled and it only reinforced my view that killing my TV in 1989 was a good thing.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Well, here's some free advice. As with all free advice, consider what you paid for it. :)
First off, what kinds of keywords are you looking at? The web hosting market is one of the most saturated markets out there. If your keywords are all generic, then you're not likely to differentiate your service from any other service. So, try and find something that you're insanely great at. Maybe it's hands-on Perl/PHP scripting advice, maybe something else.
Once you've found that, target those keywords but don't just send them to your home page. Create separate pages for each of your keyword combinations. Whatever paragraph you supplied in Google Adwords, for example, should entice the person to click through for some specific benefit to them. So they get to this custom page which catches their interest with a great title and opening sentence or two. You have to make it look like it's something they want to keep reading. Then, for the rest of the page, go into detail about whatever benefit you outlined in your ad. At various points throughout, you should offer a reason for them to want to keep receiving information from you. Maybe you have a weekly article on making the most out of PHP/MySQL, available only through your newsletter. Maybe you have a draw for a free iPod shuffle. Find something that inspires your viewers to provide you with their email address.
Then, if they sign up for more information with their email address, you've achieved your goal. It'd be great to sell them on the first visit, but you're likely going to have to build a relationship. I've heard the statistic (lies or damned lies?) that it takes someone viewing your product/service an average of six times before they make a purchase decision. So that's why getting their permission for continued information is critical. If your content really is valuable and they see that you know your stuff, maybe they'll trust you enough to give hosting a try especially if there's a compelling reason to go with your hosting -- again, you should have something which differentiates your service.
In the end, sadly, it's a numbers game. But that doesn't mean that you can't still be ethical and above board in playing the game.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
You (and most internet advertisers) are missing one important part of advertising: name recognition. McDonald's is well aware that nobody suddenly says "I'm hungry, lets go to McDonald's" when their ads come on. They just need me to remember them when I am hungry latter.
If they thought the ad was a factor in the decision they wouldn't waste their money advertising outside of meal hours. There is no reason to think I will go to McDonald's at 3pm when their ad comes on. They just want to be sure when I'm hungry their name is considered. (And because it is fast food, when I'm hungry I get satisfied then)
You need to target your ads in the same way. It isn't about click thorough, it is about name recognition. So long as you are targeting the right people, and they see/hear your name, you have succeeded even if they don't click your ad.
Well, there is one other reason to advertise: You like and want to support a program. Not a good one, but if you are choosing between two otherwise equal (band for buck) forums, it is a good one.
McDonald's is a good example. I haven't been to one in a long time, but they are the first thing that comes to mind when I want an example.
Welcome to the bush administration anti-science agenda. Enjoy your stay.
What really pissed me off (thus no more cable) is that I'm paying for cable channels and after prime time almost all of them are infomercials!
Why should I pay for content that I'm not getting while these TV spammers pay to show their commercials all night?
I think we deserve 50% off for those 12 hours of infomercials.
Don't even get me started on 8 minutes of content between commercials. You barely get interested again before the next break. Then they run another lower third animated graphic over the top of the current show telling what comes on later.
Greedy bastards.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
> Dropping reality tv will not make good shows appear.
Well, it does, because the good expensive shows that dont have high enough ratings are canceled to make way for the shovelware.
When I used to watch TV regularly, it was during the work week, to relax a bit before sleeping. Ads did not help that at all. I would get interested in a program, until the advertisements came on, at which point I would start flipping channels. Inevitably I would stop on something else that I found entertaining, until it got to ads, where I would start flipping again, and often return to the original program I was watching. Of course, this habit led me to watch three or four different programs simultaneously, and not really understanding any of them. To address this, I started staying on one channel, but would mute the ads as soon as they came on. I kept a novel at hand to read while the ads were on, and would periodically glance up to see if my programming was back on. More often than not, I got absorbed in the book I was reading and ended up ignoring the TV. Now, my television sits on a shelf collecting dust. I read more, I get my news from the BBC and CBC websites, and I seem to be much better insulated from the juvenile and nonsensical drivel that is popular culture. The television medium needs to improve, or die.
That describes television in most countries.
What keeps me going is my inertia.
How many time has family guy been canceled?
I'm thinking of moving my campaign off the internet, and into print / radio. But even then, how many people are just going to glaze through the ad when it's being played on the radio? For how many people I *might* appeal to, how many people will I *not* appeal to?
Well, ya hit the nail right on the head missed by the NYT article (of course they have their own bias).
With almost any form of Internet advertising you know EXACTLY how many people paid attention to the ad. Nobody clicks on an ad for something they are totally disinterested in.
But for TV and print advertising even with the futuristic gadgets they are talking about deploying it is still a lot of guesswork.
The irony is that print and TV medias LIKES it that way. They entice advertisers with how many MILLIONS of viewers/readers they have and leave it to the advertisers imaginations as to how effective an ad with them will be.
Why do you think national print media is so timid about putting their entire content on the web? Wouldn't it make sense for them to say "Hey, in addition to our MILLIONS of subscribers your ad will be seen by tens of MILLIONS of people who view our content on the Internet!"
The only problem is they would be asked to offer some proof of that, and the results would cast doubt on how many people even read each article much less pay attention to the ads.
They don't get it, because they don't want to get it. After some of the current media conglomerates collapse, or their top execs die of old age there will be some change. While the predictions of that Flash presentation titled "EPIC" are a bit far fetched, the gist of it is true, these newspapers are going to end up being newsletters and all broadcast media will be the domain of short-wave hobbyists as Internet based on-demand media displace them.
Reality TV is so prevalent because it's so cheap and easy to make.
/. Isn't all really the same thing? I think it's fairly contempous to pass judgement on someone for doing something they enjoy.
I think another reason reality TV is so popluar is because it's still somewhat anew genre. I mean has the sitcom really changed much in the last 40 years? Is there much of a difference between I Love Lucy/The Brady Bunch/Friends?
I think people want to watch good TV (there isn't much of it) and they think since reality TV is new it must necessarily be good.
Though is there anything wrong with watching TV? I think we all have a choice to make. Some people chose to watch reality shows (I recall an interview with Steven Spielberg who said he enjoyed Cops because it displayed human nature), some people choose to read those mangasines displayed in the checkout line of the grocery store, some people choose to read
With the expection of Jeopardy! and the Daily Show, I haven't watch TV for the last two years. Am I better than someon who treats Surviour as a religion? Hardly. I just have different hobbies.
> Dropping reality tv will not make good shows appear.
Well, it does, because the good expensive shows that dont have high enough ratings are canceled to make way for the shovelware.
This is presuming that in order for a show to be good it also must cost a lot of money. There is no reason why a show cannot be low-budget but be a good show due to it's great writing.
You can throw all the money you want at a bad show, but it doesn't mean it'll become great.
They're measuring the wrong test point. There's no real understanding of the causal relationship between watching an ad and buying the product, let alone watching a show containing an ad and purchase, or hearing a show and making a purchase. It's all statistical correlation, which implicitly takes many causal paths into account, like word of mouth. They should stop pretending they have the mechanics understood, and just need some data about the human/receiver interface. They should instead study the mass psychology, sociology of ad messages, and other statistical dynamics that actually help predict the group behavior they're trying to control. But of course they won't: Arbitron and Neilsen are in the "measurement" business, and don't know how to sell anything else. However, as measurable webcasts become more of the media market, they'll get their data easily at the servers, and their model stil won't be complete. So they'll eventually have to turn to the statistical analysis anyway. Bottom line: TV will continue to suck indefinitely, and misinformed TV execs will continue to think they're geniuses.
--
make install -not war
If you're an advertiser, what pays off in the long run? Building brand loyalty for life with a 12 year old, or a 42 year old?
Ford vs Chevy, Coke vs Pepsi, these meaningless ways the average person uses advertising campaigns to define themselves, these loyalties are formed in the teen years. That's why cigarette and alcohol companies can't help but keep advertising to kids, even though it's now illegal. It's the only advertising that pays for itself for decades.
TLC used to stand for 'The Learning Channel'; not too much profit in that. Then they discovered bored housewives. Now when I flip through the guide I see them playing, in order, 'The Makeover Show', 'The Wedding Show', and 'The Baby Show'. That pretty much encapsulates everything that too many women aspire too; attract a man, get him to marry you, and have his baby (though not necessarily in that order.)
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Television is not for education. Or entertainment. It's for idling your mind after a stressful day of work or for forgetting that there are thousands of people somewhere in the world that want to kill you. After 9/11 (in a post 9/11 world...), I watched so much news, I got addicted. Now, I try not to watch or listen to the news due to the depression I got afterwards. I still am addicted to checking the news on the web, but reading about it doesn't burn out the mind as much as seeing and hearing images of death and misery.
I'm 47, so I spent my high school & college Saturday nights watching Saturday Night Live. It was good then. Thirty years later the show sucks, and has sucked immensely for at least the last 15 years. Why is it still on? Because it still gets high enough ratings in relation to it's production costs, and bacause there's nothing else on in that time slot that really competes with it. If Jay Leno ever decided to do a show on Saturday nights, the 30 year reign of Saturday Night Live would quickly grind to a halt.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
American television is in the business of farming, farming willing consumers, farming willing corporate citizens, farming conformance. THey are in the business of breeding, of evolving a particular brand of American, one who works a lot and consumes a lot. One who is patriotic (translation: is easily manipulated by trigger cues appealing to sentimentality). One who is for the most part apathetic about voting and who accepts authority. One who accepts people of different cultures/races in the workplace (the better to flood the labor supply, my dear). One who is easily scared by TV propaganda so that military power can be used to invade and open new markets for the corporations that own the TV stations and networks.
Just as prehistoric hunters, pastoral peoples and farmers domesticated cattle and sheep and dogs, etc., so too has the economic elite (through TV, primarily) domesticated a certain breed of homo sapiens. Just as those humans of long ago bred their domesticated animals generation after generation for certain desirable characteristics, so too has the economic elite produced us Americans by altering our culture. THey didn't evolve us physically, but culturally. And TV is the primary tool.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I was around when the original BG came out and I don't know why anyone considers it as anything but embarrassing. It was so bad I almost didn't give the new show a chance but decided to watch because of the actors. I'm pleased that I did and have been quite pleased with their efforts. I suppose it might be a little like the relationship between the original Star Trek and TNG. I still have a fondness for the original series and for most of its run TNG is better and many ways, especially the quality of the acting and writing.
Maybe its a formative thing and you were the right age when the original was shown. I was probably too old by the time the original BG appeared. In any case I would stongly recommend that others who were uninterested in the original BG take a look at the current series, especially since it is now going to be available in HD.
No? Well, then, YOU explain reality TV shows!
Phoney human drama that is cheap to produce.
I think that, combined with the fact that many people crave social interaction in an increasingly isolated society, is why reality TV is popular. Only televison is a one-way communication, therefore not really an "interaction." But it IS easy to sit there and think to yourself, "I sure know who I would have voted off the island!" and maybe even talk to co-workers about it around the water cooler the next day.
American Idol isn't saturated everywhere? It's on three nights a week! It's advertised everywhere! All I want to do is watch an episode of 24, or House, and I have to deal with American Idol. I have to hear about it at work. American Idol winners have made movies. Radio stations have parodied the American Idol formula, as have porn movies. American Idol is everywhere, and I can't recall Survivor being spread around this much.
Exactly!
Quite a few foreign shows ended up excellent, despite the budget of what seems to be what the producers pulled out of their couch. Red dwarf (uk), corner gas (ca), etc.
Quite a few foreign shows ended up excellent, despite the budget of what seems to be what the producers pulled out of their couch. Red dwarf (uk)
And notably, Red Dwarf went significantly down hill as soon as the beeb started shovelling money at them. The tackyness was part of the comedy and they just completely lost that part of it (also didn't help that the writers split up causing the script to turn to crap).
Having said all this, I haven't seen a good piece of comedy come out of the Beeb since Red Dwarf VI, which is really sad... especially since I fund them through my licence fee.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger mushroom mushroom.
Flash animations, they really replace low-quality television with something better...
How the hell did that post get modded +4 Funny?
Put it this way, does anyone really think that something like this wont happen? Of course it will. Whether with free cable or all you can eat or whatever other prizes the marketing execs will invariably dream up, coupled with the fact that 95% of the population would give an arm and a leg to be famous like Britney.. why the hell wouldnt this be an inevitable shift in programming?
It will happen.
-Copyright law #69:Whenever Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain,copyrights get extended by 25 years.
Then the american version appeared. Louder, noisier, with inane hosts and manufactured "conflict" between the teams where there used to be good natured competition. Less and less science, more and more "garage cam". Builds where clever engineering was forgotten in favorite of getting the best planted junk.
This trend disturbs me so much. I don't watch that much TV, but I caught a commercial for "Impossible Heist" on court TV. Looked interesting, teams would compete do all kinds of "Oceans 11" types of staged break-ins and robberies. Well, I had to turn it off it after 10 minutes. It started out with the team members bitching about the people on the other teams, and even people on their own team.
From what glimpses I've seen of reality TV is they're all like this. What really gets me is that people will probably accept this as normal behavior, and do this in real life -- badmouth co-workers, spouses, children, parents, etc, all for attention. I know people do this anyway, but I'm afraid it will increase this behavior.
_______
2B1ASK1
Of course its cheap. Compare that to a sitcom. The stars of "Friends" were paid $1,000,000 an episode for the last few seasons. That's $6,000,000 an episode, just for 6 actors. Find me a reality show that costs them that much. Even "Extreme Makeover" where they tear down and rebuild an entire house every episode doesn't cost that much. A bunch of plane tickets for crew doesn't cost even close to what actors cost.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Yes because the Bush administration forces these companies to air bullshit. You are all a bunch of morons. Spouting random anti-Bushisms does not constitute enlightenment.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.