Monthly Archives: November 2004

I have two creative friends named Paraskevas. Betty Paraskevas writes wonderful books for kids of all ages like The Tangerine Bear and Monster Beach and various volumes featuring Maggie and the Ferocious Beast. (I'd link to my favorite Paraskevas book, Junior Kroll, but it seems to be momentarily out o' print.) All of these were illustrated by the other Paraskevas I know…Betty's son, Mickey. Mickey is a terrific designer and artist and multimedia innovator.

Not content to give us fine books, some of which get turned into hit cartoon shows, Betty and Mickey have taken all their creativity and a budget of almost thirty dollars…and brought forth The Cheap Show. Not since The George Gobel Show has a program been more aptly named. It's a cacaphony of bizarre puppets, each made for about the cost of a Krispy Kreme Caramel Kreme Crunch Doughnut. The Cheap Show is currently seen only on one cable channel and it's in a wealthy part of New York state. You can get a nice preview on your home computer by going to —

Wait. Before I give you the link, I'd better warn you. The page automatically plays the Cheap Show theme song, which is so catchy, you'll be humming it for weeks in your car, in bed, at work or at any funerals you may attend. You'll also want to watch the trailer and see some of the other Paraskevas projects which can be reached via the page.

Okay, you've been warned. Here's the link.

You may think you get a lot of Spam. You'd get more if you had an active website like this one. Several times a week, I receive e-mails like this one that just showed up in my mailbox…

I am contacting you about cross linking. I am interested in povonline.com because it looks like it's relevant to a site for which I am seeking links. This site is about exterminators. This site contains valuable information and a exterminators search engine, which gives visitors the capability to easily find information on different exterminators. I'll keep the web address confidential and will send it to you only if you give me permission to do so. Just let me know if it's OK, and I'll send you the web address for your review. If you approve of the site, then the intention is to exchange links.

Hmm…what is it about this site that makes it relevant to exterminators? Am I posting too many obits?

Thanks to the wise and perceptive Avedon Carol over at The Sideshow (which has a new address, by the way), I found this piece by media reporter Jeff Jarvis. When the FCC levied a $1.2 million fine over a TV show for its contents, Jarvis filed a Freedom of Information request to find out how many complaints the FCC had received over the broadcast. It turned out that though the government agency claimed to have logged 159 complaints, there were really only 90…and since most were form letters, they were really the work of about three people.

Five points…

1. The fine was a pretty big news story, at least in the world of entertainment reporting. What does it say about the folks who cover this beat that Mr. Jarvis was the only one to make this rather simple inquiry? Everyone else just quoted the 159 number, assuming it had to be correct.
2. It took Jarvis very little time to realize that the letters were the work of perhaps three people. Did the FCC folks who acted on these complaints realize this? I mean, if you're going to take a drastic step like assessing a huge fine and justifying it because you received some significant number of requests, shouldn't you be able to count those requests accurately and assess their veracity?
3. If there were only 90 letters, where did the 159 figure come from? Is it possible that someone was afraid that 90 sounded like too trivial a number to warrant action so they made up a higher number to tell the press? The theory here would be that when Jarvis filed his request and they knew they couldn't produce 159 letters, they had to own up to the real number.
4. Given how many people watch even a low-rated network TV show, 90 complaints is not a lot. Neither is 159. Some pretty harmless things have aired on television and sparked a lot more angry mail than that.
5. The fine was presumably based on the concept that the show offended viewers. But doesn't the statistic prove just the opposite? If only three people took the time to sit down and write a letter of protest, how offended could America have been?

I guess I don't have to tell you what I think of the current FCC policies and officers. In fact, it's late so I'll just link one more time to Tom Shales's article about all this. This is gonna get uglier.

I was never a huge fan of the musical, Oklahoma! I've seen it on stage twice (once, a production with Jamie Farr as Ali Hakim) and I've given the movie a fair shot. I thought it was good but not great, and always wondered just what it was audiences saw in the material that allowed the original production to run more than five years on Broadway. Well, I think I know…and all it took was seeing the video of the recent production mounted by the Royal National Theatre of Great Britain. It's currently running on PBS channels as an installment in their Great Performances series, and it's also available as a not-too-expensive DVD that includes a "making of" documentary. I just watched the show on TV and ordered the DVD. You can order the DVD from Amazon by clicking right about here.

The production starred Hugh Jackman, who gets mega-star billing. He's terrific in the show but so is everyone. I was especially impressed with how the show was filmed…and it seems to be filmed, not taped. This means, among other things, that the lighting is more evocative and it doesn't feel like you're watching a TV show. Ordinarily, preserving a musical means either rethinking it as a movie with no audience and a lot of different sets and camera angles…or just photographing what was on stage via cameras situated amidst the audience. This version of Oklahoma! has it both ways: You occasionally see the audience and they occasionally applaud a particularly spectacular number. But for most of the show, the camera is free to roam about the proceedings, move with the players and be wherever a good film director would put it. The result is that it's a stage musical when it needs to be, a movie when that is more effective…and a general success. Richard Rodgers' music has often felt cold and impersonal to me, but context is everything and here, the context is perfect. The "dream ballet" always struck me as an intrusion designed to take us out of the story. Here, it fits right in, in part because they don't substitute the lead actors with trained dancers, which is customary with stage productions. I can't wait to get the DVD and see the featurette on how this production was assembled.

Having seen a lot of my favorite stage productions eviscerated when someone refashioned them for film, I'm probably more enthused about the approach than I am about finally liking Oklahoma! Boy, can I think of a lot of shows that I wish had been committed to film in such a faithful yet creative manner. Some call the Rodgers-Hammerstein show the most American of American musicals, and it's often said that the musical comedy is one of the most significant American art forms. Looks like it took a bunch of Brits to show us how to do both right.

Here's a page with information on this production and some clips. And here, once again, is a link to order the DVD. Consult your listings to see when your local PBS affiliate will be airing the special four-hour-with-tedious-pledge-breaks version.

Here's a link to a semi-silly article by Bill O'Reilly that says Dan Rather was "slimed." I agree with the sentiment that Rather was a good newsman but O'Reilly's piece is a pretty lame defense with some obvious self-interest lurking as subtext. He writes, "There is no way on this Earth that he would have knowingly used fake documents on any story." Uh, yeah. Has anyone aside from a few nut jobs suggested Rather knew the documents were bogus? That would have been a pretty stupid thing to do…risking one's entire reputation to slightly advance a story that a good part of America didn't regard as very important. (Or to put it another way: If Rather had decided it was a good idea to put forged documents on the air, I think they would have been better forgeries and far more damning.)

No, I think the charge against Rather was that he was so eager to bash George W. Bush that he didn't exert sufficient caution over arguable evidence. That may or may not be an unfair charge. For that matter, has Rather even concluded the documents were forged? Last I heard, he said, and I quote…

I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where — if I knew then what I know now — I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

Nothing in there about concluding the documents were forged. There's a big difference between "these documents were phony" and "we cannot vouch for them," though I wouldn't expect a lot of folks to make that distinction. For those who have never liked Rather — or even those who just like to see someone famous be humiliated — it's just too tempting to spin the story as Dan getting caught using obvious forgeries. And of course, they may well be forgeries, though perhaps not as obvious as some say.

I don't think it's unfair that Rather is having to step down, reportedly a year before he'd planned. The anchor and managing editor of the CBS Evening News receives a huge salary for which he really only has two responsibilities. One is to keep the ratings up. The other is to keep the prestige of the organization high. Even before the questionable memos were used on the air, Rather wasn't doing all that good a job on either count. A very good case could be made that going by usual practices in his industry, he should have been replaced years ago.

O'Reilly seems to just not like the idea that someone famous — like, say, Bill O'Reilly when he's sued for sexual harassment — could be presumed guilty without a trial declaring that. And I agree there's unfairness on some levels, though the "presumption of innocence" is really only something that binds a judge or jury. I can certainly say that based on what I've read, Robert Blake is guilty or that O.J. slit two throats or even that any number of public figures who will never be tried for perjury have lied under oath. My right to say any of this is not at the mercy of some prosecutor who may or may not decide to prosecute, or whether fancy lawyering lets a wrongdoer go unconvicted. For that matter, it was highly unlikely that the lawsuit brought against O'Reilly would ever see the inside of a courtroom or any verdict that he was or was not culpable. Should people never venture an opinion in that matter?

Yeah, O'Reilly's right that accusations often get too much publicity in these days and given the competitive nature of the news business, they always will. The problem is that the facts — which have a way of screwing up many of those juicy accusations — never quite catch up with the charges, and very few folks in talk radio or the news media these days can afford to wait for them. Let's see what Bill O'Reilly does to improve the situation at his places of employment. The fact that he starts by defending Dan Rather against an accusation no one even made — and presumes the documents in question were definitely forgeries — doesn't give me a lot of hope.

A couple of folks have written to ask if, given these "bad news for TiVo" articles I keep pointing out, I think our beloved Personal Video Recorders are doomed…and if so, what that means for their owners. Despite the fact that the company has yet to post a profit, I don't think the demise of TiVo is imminent. The main threat to its existence probably comes from competition. It is quite possible that some other company will come along, introduce a superior PVR and take over the niche that TiVo has created. Even now, TiVo is suffering somewhat from the rise of PVRs that come as part of your basic service when you subscribe to digital cable TV in your area. These machines are not better than TiVo, except in the sense that they more easily interface with a person's TV source…but they're gobbling up a lot of potential TiVo customers.

Some of the problems facing TiVo — like the apparent need to allow for copy-protection schemes on pay-per-view programming — will presumably affect competitors, so they won't doom TiVo. What will is competition if they don't improve their product at a better clip. It's pretty easy to imagine all sorts of upscale features that could be in a PVR…and will be, one of these days. Just as Beta foolishly allowed VHS to take the lead in consumer-friendly features, TiVo may be pioneering a marketplace and fighting all obstacles to clear the way for the company that's going to put them out of business.

As I said, I don't see this happening soon, if ever. But every so often, someone writes to inquire what we do with our TiVos if the TiVo company goes under and no longer offers the programming guides. The answer is that someone else will. TiVo technicians have quietly leaked word to the electronics community that if they crash and burn, the company will release the source codes that will make it easy for someone else to offer a TiVo Data Subscription Service. Those of us with lifetime contracts will lose out because we'll have to pay someone else for the info that is now downloaded every day or so to our TiVos…but the machines will still function.

Of course, it may not come to that. TiVo may yet thrive. Before the year is out, they're supposed to implement the "TiVo to Go" feature, which will enable us — with some restrictions — to transfer shows from our TiVos to our computers for burning to DVD. It's a little slow in coming but it's a step towards staying ahead of potential rivals. And of course, if TiVo does cease operations, it may be because they've been elbowed aside by a much better PVR, one we'll all rush to purchase. So we won't mind the loss of TiVo very much.

I hope it doesn't come to that. I've been a TiVo owner almost since the day they introduced them. The ones I now own are, I think, my fifth, sixth and seventh machines, and I've probably been directly or indirectly responsible for at least two dozen friends buying TiVos after they saw mine…to say nothing of the purchasers I've inspired on my website. Still, brand loyalty doesn't mean much in the age of technology. I'd like to see them upgrade their product so I don't have to forsake my beloved TiVo service…but really, I want to see even better Personal Video Recorders. I know they're out there, someplace. It's just a question of what company will make them.

Michael Kinsley [Washington Post, registration usually required] talks to us about "values" and how meaningless that word is becoming. Personally, I think a lot of folks like it because it's so vague, it can mean almost anything and make whatever it is sound noble.

Here's a hot new invention: The TV B-Gone. It's a small device you put on your keychain and when you press a button on it, it turns off every television set in the room.

Almost immediately, someone came up with — and is now selling on eBay — the TV B-Gone Scrambler Device, which prevents the TV B-Gone from working.

And you just know someone is now working on a device to block the scrambler, while some visionary is starting on a device to scramble the blocker that blocks the scrambler. This is known as Progress.

Folks who own 'em aren't happy about recent developments. Go read.

As you probably heard, there was a brawl at the Pistons-Pacers game a week ago — one that started when a cup of water or beer (accounts vary) was hurled from the stands and struck player Ron Artest. A man named John Green has been mentioned as the hurler, though I have not heard of him being formally charged with anything.

Immediately following the incident, a number of sports columnists and actual human beings began declaring Green guilty not only of throwing the cup but of being a very stupid individual. At first, I though they were leaping unfairly to their conclusions but then I saw Green sit, with his lawyer next to him, for a live interview with Larry King. The whole transcript is here and I'll quote the part I found most amazing…

KING: What do you make of the prosecutor who says that you were the fan who threw the cup that led to this thing?

SHAWN PATRICK SMITH, ATTORNEY FOR JOHN GREEN: Larry, I'm going to have to field that question.

KING: All right, Shawn, go ahead.

SMITH: The prosecutor has made a lot of statements about this case. I've talked to the police about it. We're not going to comment on the cup and who threw the cup. The video — it's pretty clear the cup comes from the direction where John is. The problem is not the cup. If you take yourself out of viewing this thing and starting with the cup and really look at it clearly with the way it should be looked at is that these players are out of control and things are happening, then you'll understand where we're coming from.

KING: Yes, but if John says he didn't throw the cup, why can't you answer that he didn't? Because while the players shouldn't go into the stands, a fan shouldn't throw a cup at a player, either.

SMITH: You know, I agree with that. I agree with that on a regular level. But as a lawyer, you know, I need to tell you how I feel. And I'm not going to let John sit here and comment on whether or not he threw the cup or if he knows who threw the cup or anything like that. But I can tell you that after the investigation's done we'll be answering all the charges fully and things will be fleshed out and we'll deal with them.

In other words: Yeah, he threw the cup. If he didn't, he'd say he didn't throw the cup. In fact, if he threw the cup and there was any chance that couldn't be proved, he'd say he didn't throw the cup. No attorney advises an innocent man to not assert his innocence.

Why did Green and his lawyer go on this show? How did they think it would help his situation? I mean, they must have known he'd be asked, "Did you throw the cup?" — a question so obvious, even Larry King couldn't avoid putting it to him. If he didn't toss it or thought he could get away with denying it, then it would make sense for him to go on and declare his innocence. He could try to drum up support…perhaps rally public opinion on his side and thereby protect his good name and put pressure on the prosecutors not to indict.

So exactly how was he accomplishing anything — except maybe making it easier for those prosecutors — by appearing on CNN and refusing to address the charge? At one point, he seemed to be trying to sell the concept that he played peacemaker, trying to break up the fisticuffs. This might be a nice "spin," but it's pretty much negated if the spinner is simultaneously confessing to having started the whole mess. He also seemed to be trying to advance the idea that even if he did throw the cup, everyone's condemnations should be directed at the player who charged into the stands. Yeah, I suppose some might accept that the player was more culpable…but no one's going to buy the idea that the cup-hurler didn't commit a foolish and dangerous act. Elsewhere in the conversation, the lawyer says the people of Chicago are "behind John" and that he's receiving unbelieveable support. Well, if he didn't throw the cup, that would make sense but Green's non-denial pretty much shoots that down. I somehow doubt people are going to rally around the premise that it's okay to throw a cup of liquid at a professional athlete and that the thrower shouldn't be dragged off to the slammer.

For the record, I did not throw that cup and I have no problem with denying it and pointing out that I was thousands of miles away at the time. But if I had been stupid enough to throw a cup of liquid at a basketball player, I would have been smart enough to not go on TV and decline to deny it. The sports writers who are describing John Green as an idiot are being too kind.

And here we have Frank Rich, who I seem to link to every week. This time out, he's talking about the ginned-up controversy about that segment on Monday Night Football. The modus operandi of the protesters is that they spot something on TV they think they can hype into an object of protest. And even though no one objected when the "offending" material was originally broadcast, a few days later it looks like a groundswell of outrage that demands satisfaction. Someone's gotta stop these people.

I rarely link to articles over on Salon since reading them requires either being a subscriber (which I am but you might not be) or watching some commercials. If you don't mind one or the other, this article by Joe Conason is a pretty good summary of some of the economic problems we may be in for due to four more years of George W. Bush. The brief summary is that tax burdens will be shifted from wealthy folks who make most of their money via investments to poor and middle-class people who hold more conventional jobs; that folks in so-called "blue" states will pay more than folks in so-called "red states;" and that the plans to privatize Social Security could amount to an incalculable disaster.

Last year at this time, we were reporting that DirecTV, the system via which some of us receive our satellite television programming, was about to drop Trio. This is the eclectic cable channel that runs old episodes of Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In, Late Night With David Letterman and many intriguing specials and shows, as well as occasional airings of a "lost" TV series like Cop Rock or The Ernie Kovacs Show. At the last minute, a deal was struck to keep Trio on the satellite, which was fortunate for us but also fortunate for Trio. Trio has never been on a lot of local cable line-ups and was getting more than half of its viewers via DirecTV.

Well, it's happening again: DirecTV has announced that they're dropping Trio, effective at the end of this year. A friend in the business thinks there will be no reprieve this time, and doubts that Trio will survive the massive loss of viewers. NBC Uni (as the parent company is now called) has stated that they're nearing a decision to shut the thing down and this looks like the moment. I'll be sad to see it go. It ran some odd things but that's good. I'm still amazed that with so many channels to choose from, there are still hours when there's nothing on I want to watch, and I wish we had more diversity in the programming.

This morning, I watched a documentary on Trio entitled Final Cut: The Making of "Heaven's Gate" and the Unmaking of a Studio. It is, of course, the tale of how in 1980, writer-director Michael Cimino made a movie that just about bankrupted United Artists. Based on the book by Stephen Bach (one of the U.A. execs fired as a result), it presents a fascinating, albeit one-sided view of the situation. Mr. Cimino declined to be interviewed, which is of course his right but also a shame, in a way. We've heard about how he was a megalomaniac who wanted to make his movie his way and didn't care who or what got trampled under to achieve this. It would be nice to hear the other side of story, assuming there is one.

It was a pretty good documentary and I was going to recommend it to you all. Alas, I see that its next Trio airing is on 12/31, and then it's supposed to rerun often during January of 2005. By then, the channel will probably be off the satellite…and possibly off the air, altogether.

Dan Rather has become such a quirky relic that it's easy to forget he was once a pretty good newsman. During the Nixon Administration, he was the guy who asked the blunt, cut-through-the-spin question…the kind that few have put to any president in a long time. I think all chief execs, including the ones I like, should have a few of those interrogators lurking in the Press Corps. It's sad that one of the effects of the recent election is that Bush seems to feel he has a mandate to not only do what he wants but not to have to answer questions from reporters about any of it.

It's also easy to forget why the Nixon White House put Rather on its enemy list and accused him of Liberal Bias. It was largely because Rather was reporting things that they were denying but which turned out to be accurate. Rather was way too serious for his own good and he always seemed to project this snotty attitude that all three branches of government were answerable to CBS News. But he was also a good reporter and a working example that the role of the press is not to just accept dictation from those in power — or even their opponents — but to dig, question, demand proof and to even, at times, decide the facts of an issue. Today, what too often passes for "investigative reporting" is being a conduit for leaks that frequently turn out not to be true. (And by the way, it's amazing how little it has harmed some careers to pass that stuff off as legitimate news.)

Rather was named to his post on the CBS Evening News in part because Conservatives were lobbying against this, and CBS wanted to not be seen as yielding to their pressure. Rather's critics were furious when he got the job anyway but they should have celebrated. By giving him Walter Cronkite's desk, CBS turned a dangerous reporter into a usually-safe anchorperson. It also helped contribute to the growing irrelevance of the evening network newscasts. As the world of communications has changed, Rather has steadfastly adhered to the old school of broadcasting, thereby putting his show out of touch with much of America. The cold, clipped delivery and bizarre folksy expressions have also contributed to this.

The interesting thing to me is that when Rather steps down, he'll have held the CBS anchor chair for 24 years, which is five longer than Cronkite…and yet, no one seems to care all that much who replaces Dan. When it was Uncle Walter stepping down, it was a matter of national concern as to who'd be his successor. The post was that important. That so little attention will go to the question of who'll get it now is a pretty good sign of how much it's been devalued. And while a lot of that is not Rather's fault — the communications industry changing and all — some of it is. He stuck around long past his usefulness…long enough to downgrade the job and make it an easy one to fill. I'm thinking Tom Arnold…maybe Carrot Top. Looks like Ozzy Ozbourne's going to have some free time…