Tag Archives: television

Failure After Failure

Posted in Uncategorized by

I guess I’m only remotely an expert. When I see a TV show I don’t like, I don’t watch it. Nowadays, I don’t watch so many new shows. As near as I can tell, there aren’t so many successful new shows. Moreover, some of the former successful shows are losing their audience as they too, lower their standards.

The timeless adage, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink,” resonates far beyond the stables. Though I lack firsthand equestrian experience, the wisdom of this proverb rings true through countless conversations with those who understand horses intimately. My knowledge may be secondhand, but the insight remains profound—some truths cannot be forced, whether in horsemanship or in life.

Nonetheless, the country is full of TV show experts, millions of them. If they do not like the show, they will not watch it. You see the correlation? If the horse isn’t thirsty, it won’t drink. If they try to force-feed us garbage, all they will get is failure after failure.

As discerning viewers, we must raise our standards for entertainment. The latest series, promising an intriguing premise of a hemophobic physician, sparked initial curiosity with its unconventional narrative hook.

Unexpectedly, the narrative failed to disclose the sexual orientation of two characters, which could have provided valuable context and saved me time during the brief viewing.

The producers seemed aware that their content would likely be dismissed if viewers perceived it as another attempt to push the unwelcome material upon them. They certainly didn’t include it in their advertising.

Will the show succeed? I don’t know. As I said, I’m not an expert. I guess it depends on how well they can sell their product and how many people are willing to tolerate it.

Television has undergone remarkable technological advancements, with displays and audio systems reaching unprecedented levels of clarity and sophistication. However, the creative content and programming have seemingly deteriorated, offering increasingly shallow and uninspired entertainment. Until the industry prioritizes meaningful storytelling and quality production, I’ll continue to find satisfaction in classic shows that demonstrate genuine artistic merit.

TV & Reality

Posted in Abuse of Power, Cancel Culture, Cheating, Christian values, Climate Change, Crazy Nuts, Gambling, Liberals, Truth by

As my wife’s illness progresses, she has more difficulty with TV. I keep telling her the shows aren’t real. It angers her, accusing me of not knowing.

Reality television has increasingly blurred the lines between authenticity and scripted entertainment. Take, for instance, the popular storage auction shows that once seemed genuine. Initially, I believed in their raw, unscripted nature, much like how professional wrestling was once perceived as a legitimate sport. However, as I continued watching, the interactions became noticeably more choreographed. The verbal exchanges began to feel less spontaneous and more like carefully crafted dialogue, revealing the manufactured drama behind the scenes. This realization prompted me to question the credibility of reality programming and the extent to which these shows are actually “real.”

In contemporary television, scripted dialogue has evolved from polished, rehearsed exchanges to more spontaneous narratives that draw inspiration from current events, challenging viewers to engage more critically with the storytelling.

In our increasingly complex media landscape, discerning truth from fabrication has become a challenging endeavor. News programs, despite their polished studios and professional veneer, often present conflicting narratives that shift with alarming frequency. While these broadcasts remain our primary source of information, critical viewers must carefully navigate the terrain of reporting, constantly evaluating the credibility of each statement. The more inconsistencies and retractions emerge, the more skeptical audiences become, eroding trust in traditional media platforms and challenging our understanding of objective reality.

As I confide in my wife, professional football stands as our sole bastion of authenticity in a world of manufactured narratives. The raw intensity of athletes competing for championship glory seems unparalleled, a genuine spectacle of human determination. Yet, with recent gambling controversies casting long shadows across the sport, I find myself questioning its integrity. Perhaps the gridiron is slowly transforming into just another scripted performance, trading genuine athletic passion for manufactured drama.

Three Hours a Day

Posted in Uncategorized by

During a brief moment of leisure, I idly flipped through television channels when a compelling speaker caught my attention. His articulate commentary was not only insightful but also delivered with an engaging style. Though I cannot recall the specific C-Span channel, the presenter’s words resonated with clarity and a certain captivating charm.

I lingered, captivated by the broadcaster’s passionate monologue, and soon discovered I wasn’t alone in my fascination. His radio presence grew exponentially, ultimately reaching over six hundred stations and broadcasting three hours daily. Rush Limbaugh’s profound impact on national discourse remains undeniable, a legacy so significant that his name resonates instantly, even after his passing. The immediate recognition in listeners’ minds speaks volumes about his enduring influence on American media and political conversation.

Now, the networks are full of programs similar, but still unlike the one and only Rush. I’m not going to name all the programs. It would take so long. Besides you already know them. Even if you’re an advocacy of Bush’s point of view, you can’t deny his affect on today’s society and the many broadcasters who follow his leadership. Oddly, one of his followers even successfully competes with Sunday Night Football.

Still, there are a few who have also left their mark with much shorter programs. Consider Paul Harvey. Years after he has left us, people will instantly recognize the two words he made famous: “Good day.”

The idea has sparked my imagination. Imagine hosting a concise, three-minute daily show that could potentially catapult me to unexpected fame, even at this stage of life. Despite not considering myself particularly articulate or possessing a naturally smooth radio voice. I figure all I need is just a three minute spot on TV each day.

Modern news broadcasts have devolved into a spectacle of fragmented attention, where substantive reporting is marginalized. Within a typical thirty-minute program, commercial interruptions consume a third of the airtime, while meteorological updates and sports coverage claim another third. The remaining sliver—a mere five minutes—is allocated to actual news content, leaving viewers with a superficial understanding of current events.

In just three minutes, my innovative news program would distill the day’s most critical information, delivering a concise, comprehensive update that keeps viewers perfectly informed without wasting their time. I mean, do we really need ten minutes to find out if we will need a coat or umbrella?

In the cacophony of modern media, I confront a stark reality: entertainment trumps information. While listening to the radio, I heard a news segment devoted to Cher’s appearance on Saturday Night Live—a trivial detail that seemingly captivates the masses. My aspiration for concise, meaningful news appears doomed. The public’s appetite craves celebrity gossip, rendering substantive reporting nearly irrelevant. The hunger for superficial entertainment overshadows my idea for three minutes of real news.

Rush understood that a successful news program requires more than just reporting facts. By infusing entertainment into his broadcasts, he transformed traditional news delivery and captivated audiences. This innovative approach likely contributed significantly to his remarkable professional achievements.

News must be entertaining. If not, it will fail.

I’m Not Going to Try to Figure It Out

Posted in Uncategorized by

I guess about a year now, I noticed that I got most of the local channels except five, (NBC) on the antenna. A few days ago, I lost all channels, every one. After trying many other things, I tried doing a TV reset. (It makes the TV as if new.) As an aside, I had already tried to do a channel search and all that happened was the TV just looked at me as if I am dumb. Maybe I am for looking at the thing anyway.

At any rate, just for grins, I decided to do another channel search after I reset the TV. This time the search actually started, which was my first good sign. I mean I had already tried the usual stuff. You know, turn it off and on, unplug it, wait ten minutes and plug it in again and of course stand on my head, stand on one leg and rub my belly and the top of my head at the same time.

Thankfully, to my surprise, the reset seemed to work. Don’t ask me why. Before I retired, I used to work on electronics. Mind you, I worked on it. The more I worked on it the less I understood about it.

Wait. I’m not done. As I was going through the channels, I realized I had channel 5. If I had never reset the TV, I’d have never figured that out. The TV does not allow me to add channels. The only way I can do that, I have to do a full channel search. (I’m still trying to figure out why the engineers did it that way. It does create problems that I won’t confuse you with right now.)

At any rate, I picked up the NBC affiliate, channel 5, WMC-TV as well as seven more sub channels, including a news channel. Mostly, I don’t much care about anything but the news.

So, just for grins, I decided to watch the Chiefs football game. I ask you, can any one football team win more close calls? I mean, the kicker almost missed a chip shot. At first glance, I thought he did.

I am sure to the one team, it will be a night of celebration. On the other hand, I mean the other team was ahead and they almost won.

And to think, if the TV hadn’t messed up and made me rescan the channels, I’d have missed a pretty good game. And by the way, I do have the news channel now too.

Then, today, on the news, I heard a notification that WMC-TV did some work on their transmitter, making the signal stronger and added 7 substations. The suggested that we, all of us antenna users, rescan the channels. I don’t think any of the other stations would have made the suggestion. So I would not have heard the prompt to rescan the station.

So, I guess, when my TV went out on me the other day, maybe that was a good thing, though it did cause me a lot of confusion and anger. Who knows, if they keep adding channels to the antenna TV stations, I might have a better selection than when I had cable. The hitch is, I won’t know until I rescan the channels.

Odd as it is, strange as it seems, I think the picture clarity is better on the antenna than on the cable. If it is, I don’t think the cable companies will be nice enough to tell us.