Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Ha Ha Ha Ha Good

Ha Ha Ha Ha Good (Page 2)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2022, 04:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Perhaps because they are the primary ones who do it. I've noticed that conservatives are supposedly about freedom, but want to control everything within reach. Like semi-independent agencies.
Conservatives say they’re about freedom.

Most conservatives believe that when they say it.

They’re lying to themselves, and hence lie to everyone else about it. The reality is they’d prefer to exert dictatorial control.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2022, 04:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Conservatives say they’re about freedom.

Most conservatives believe that when they say it.

They’re lying to themselves, and hence lie to everyone else about it. The reality is they’d prefer to exert dictatorial control.
We had a conversation a while back about deluded vs. people who knowingly propagate delusion. At what level do you believe people are aware of reality but choose to propagate delusion because it benefits them? State reps? Federal reps? National media? Think tanks e.g. Heritage Foundation or AEI?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2022, 06:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Perhaps because they are the primary ones who do it. I've noticed that conservatives are supposedly about freedom, but want to control everything within reach. Like semi-independent agencies.
Yeah, that drives me nuts, too. They are hyper concerned about the First Amendment, unless it is about topics they feel uncomfortable about. Peter Thiel is really concerned about leftists canceling Free Speech, unless the rainbow press outs him. Then he goes to defcon 4 and indirectly bankrupts an entire publication, bypassing the publications insurance. Personal freedom is super important, unless you happen to be a woman and potentially pregnant. Etc.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Even independent people's voices aren't "protesters" - they are "rioters". Unless they are pro-conservative, in which case they are "freedom protesters" - even if they kill cops.
Just to connect this to the discussion at hand: choice of language is a huge thing when making the news programs for German’s public broadcasters. Sometimes they get it wrong (the moniker Döner-Morde, Döner murders, comes to mind), but usually they try to use neutral language. That’s very tricky for the reasons that you give: one person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist. Was January 6th a coup attempt? All of these questions need to be discussed in depth in advance. Consistency helps a lot here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2022, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
We had a conversation a while back about deluded vs. people who knowingly propagate delusion. At what level do you believe people are aware of reality but choose to propagate delusion because it benefits them? State reps? Federal reps? National media? Think tanks e.g. Heritage Foundation or AEI?
Perhaps I’ve refined my delusion argument since we last discussed it, but I think you may asking about something else.

Take any given liberal beef with a conservative position. The non-delusional conservative rebuttal is “this is true… but I don’t care”. In contrast, the delusional conservative gives the best argument they’ve found to prove they do care.

Plenty of conservatives have realized the reality is they just don’t give AF, but there’s little incentive for them to be honest about it public so they play along.


What I feel you’re asking about are full-on bad actors, which I feel is something different.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2022, 06:58 PM
 
We're gonna go off on a tangent here but modern conservatives lie about everything now. They don't care about religion, family values, freedom, they only care about money. With sticking it to the libs an added bonus but not the point. In the UK they also seem to care a lot about being racist and awful to immigrants. Just today the incompetent Home Secretary described migrants in the English Channel as an "invasion". She is a particularly awful shitbag though.
The reason politics has broken down is because only one side is being honest about what they want and why they want it.

Anyway, the BBC used to attack any and all politicians pretty consistently when they deserved it, all through the 80s, 90s and 2000s. Even the early 2010s, but now they let Tories say whatever they want without really questioning them or tackling any of the lies or nonsense. With Labour or others they interrupt, argue, prevent them from talking, ask them stupid or irrelevant questions they shouldn't be expected to answer. Its really bad. But if you still think thats my left-wing bias talking, the last Tory government treated the BBC as a national asset as did every government before it. This government has gone to lengths to threaten and legislate to remove its funding model altogether. And they also tried to sell off the only TV Channel that really takes them to task, undoubtedly to one of their donors. Some of the specific bias might be imagined, but in totality its not.

Line of Duty was a popular crime show. Not sure if that gets exported much or not.

Ratings do matter, even to a non-profit broadcaster because they do still have a finite budget and they won't waste it on stuff people don't watch. Some absolutely treasured shows have been cancelled over the years. Blue Peter was a kids show that was around like 50 years but is now gone. (I think). Grange Hill was another about a secondary (high) school that was really gritty when it launched and tackled serious issues like drugs and sex. It got really tame by the time it was finally axed but it lasted a couple of decades and was iconic for a generation.
There are some things considered valuable despite limited viewership. Radio 4 broadcasts the shipping forecast several times a day. No idea how many listen, but its critical to those that do. Life and death sometimes I expect.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2022, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Ratings do matter, even to a non-profit broadcaster because they do still have a finite budget and they won't waste it on stuff people don't watch.
Which seems self-evident to me.

It’s irrelevant this is the same metric used for commercial broadcasts. Like I said, what’s relevant is the expectations of the broadcaster.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2022, 06:49 AM
 
That hits and contradicts precisely what I’m saying: Ratings gauge popularity; public programming needs to be about RELEVANCE.

The two are not the same thing, and often enough, are even mutually exclusive.

It is ESSENTIAL MISSION of public broadcasters to produce material that is relevant, even if few people will watch it.

It bugs me when my license fees are used to produce commercial tripe that is more than plentiful on channels that are commercially financed.

I WANT to switch to a public channel and see stuff running that may be of no direct interest to me, but that I know is super relevant to others. Often enough, I’ll get hooked and learn something I wasn’t even aware I should have had an interest in.

That’s also a huge problem with algorithm-driven media like Spotify, YouTube, and other social media: I don’t necessarily WANT „more like this“. I already KNOW this. Show me something that’s NOT like this. Don’t bore me with shit I‘m already aware of in some form.
But that’s another whole bag of Pandora‘s snakes.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2022, 03:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
It is ESSENTIAL MISSION of public broadcasters to produce material that is relevant, even if few people will watch it.
If two programs are equally relevant, how does the public broadcaster decide which one to produce?

Perhaps the one which provides the most value to the public?

Is not the program more people consume providing more value?
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2022, 04:46 PM
 
Depends on which value of “value” you’re using.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2022, 05:00 PM
 
What other form of value would be appropriate?

It can’t be relevance, because that value has been made equal in this scenario.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2022, 05:05 PM
 
1000 people are given a bag of Reece's Peanut Butter Cups. 100 people are given a week's worth of healthy groceries. Which has provided more value? Is it the total number affected or the enrichment delivered?
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2022, 05:12 PM
 
The value of public broadcast being financially independent is precisely in being able to provide programming that balances out what the commercial alternatives are already capable of flooding the market with.

Beyond the basic fundamentals necessary for a functioning democracy — news, critical analysis of politics and investigative reporting independent of financial interests — that necessarily covers special-interest programming that is relevant or crucial to parts of the population but has no hopes of commercial viability.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2022, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
1000 people are given a bag of Reece's Peanut Butter Cups. 100 people are given a week's worth of healthy groceries. Which has provided more value? Is it the total number affected or the enrichment delivered?
That’s not the scenario.

The scenario is we have two different, but equally healthy bags of groceries.

We buy 1,000 of each type and give them away. At the end of the day bag A is gone while 500 of bag B remain.

Assuming some draconian health code forces that excess to go in the trash, should we buy the same amount of each bag for tomorrow, or devote more funds to bag A?
( Last edited by subego; Nov 1, 2022 at 05:54 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2022, 05:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
that necessarily covers special-interest programming that is relevant or crucial to parts of the population but has no hopes of commercial viability.
Yes.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2022, 06:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That’s not the scenario.

The scenario is we have two different, but equally healthy bags of groceries.

We buy 1,000 of each type and give them away. At the end of the day bag A is gone while 500 of bag B remain.

Assuming some draconian health code forces that excess to go in the trash, should we buy the same amount of each bag for tomorrow, or devote more funds to bag A?
I prefer spherics analogy because not all media is "healthy", and nor is the goal of media producers to make healthy food. Some are motivated and justified by ROI, some on integrity of offerings. Watching cops, the bachelor, sitcoms, is junk food: Fun, relaxing, but not intended to better humanity. NPR newshour, Chronicle, 60 minutes? Maybe?

oh no I posted in politics aaaaaaa
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2022, 06:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I prefer spherics analogy because not all media is "healthy", and nor is the goal of media producers to make healthy food.
The question is “how does the public broadcaster” decide.

To make it explicit, the public broadcaster I’m imagining wishes to make healthy food, as a public broadcaster should.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2022, 07:49 PM
 
Please define what you mean by "commercial viability." Because there's a lot of BBC's programming that has been quite "commercially viable" in terms that would translate to US television (I'm thinking of things like Faulty Towers, the Blackadder series, and so on. Oh and the serious stuff too...

BBC's news stood for balance and fact-based reporting for so long that it seems like they defined that sort of news programming. The kind of thing that Walter Cronkite and Chet Huntley/David Brinkley used to do on CBS and NBC respectively, back in the day. I miss that stuff. "Here are the facts of this issue. We'll update as things change." Nothing more.

I can clearly recall the horrible spring and early summer of 1968, when two major figures were assassinated. And the news reported the facts, then moved on. Oh, and there was ONE news program in the evening, and when it was over, it was over. No repeat until nausea sets in. The CNN model really fornicated what people thought of as news... Honestly, how much real national-scale news can happen within the time between the "evening news" and the "late news" at 5pm/10pm?

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2022, 10:19 PM
 
In this market, back in the day, Fawlty Towers and the like was only available on public television.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2022, 01:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
The kind of thing that Walter Cronkite and Chet Huntley/David Brinkley used to do on CBS and NBC respectively, back in the day. I miss that stuff.
Well, those are commercial networks, so those things existed due to the financial realities of the time. Specifically, over-the-air television was the dominant form of media consumption, and the untold wealth it generated was split between only three national companies… whose license to operate was granted by the government.

This led to what was in effect a golden age of television journalism. The networks were making more money than god, so they could kick way more money to their news departments then the news departments were bringing in. Further, even if the news department wasn’t bringing in entertainment-grade ratings, it still made financial sense to appeal to their audience, who was truly national. Where there was money in news, it was in non-partisan news. Lastly, as much as any of these networks would have liked to stridently push an agenda, that would have brought the FCC down on them, which considering how much money was on the line just simply wasn’t worth it. The goose is laying golden eggs.

These financial realities have changed. Television is no longer the dominant medium. Over-the-air television is an adjunct to cable, so FCC control of the transmission medium has disappeared. Rather than being flush with cash to rain on news departments the traditional networks can barely keep the lights on. Catering to a national audience does not make financial sense.

The golden age is long gone.

What we have now is probably closer to a natural state of affairs in terms of commercial journalism. Likewise, gatekeepers generally suck, and I’m glad those gates have been ripped down. Of course, Google, Facebook, etc., are trying to build them suckier.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 2, 2022 at 03:59 AM. )
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2022, 08:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That’s not the scenario.

The scenario is we have two different, but equally healthy bags of groceries.
We don't. The proliferation of the 24-hour news cycle, faux-reality TV, and social media shows that optimizing for commercial viability means you press some very specific buttons that trigger very specific brain chemicals. The end run of "Ow, My Balls" surrounded by ads on all sides is the natural conclusion of our current path of grabbing attention and maximizing engagement.



That's junk food. Specifically and scientifically optimized to very effectively trigger some very specific brain chemicals in just the right amount to keep people coming back for more. Short term profits, long term detriment to individual and societal health.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2022, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
That's junk food. Specifically and scientifically optimized to very effectively trigger some very specific brain chemicals in just the right amount to keep people coming back for more. Short term profits, long term detriment to individual and societal health.
This does not sound like the content which is on public television.

I have qualified my statement that I am talking about public television, but I shall do my best to remain patient and repeat the qualification as many times as necessary.

The question is how does the public broadcaster decide which of the two shows to fund. Do not public broadcasters, at least in America, generally need to decide between “healthy” and “candy”, or do they decide between various flavors of “healthy”?
( Last edited by subego; Nov 2, 2022 at 01:44 PM. )
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2022, 02:33 PM
 
Ok, limiting this to public tv: Some healthy is more marketable than others. Sesame st was so marketable it's now on HBO.

Austin city limits / music
Masterpiece theater / literature / shows with british aristocrats / mystery, historical, veterinarians - Some marketability if it takes off aka downton abbey, movie tie ins, merch, dvd sales
Kids programming / $$ toy marketing / educational
geography
documentaries
history

I see an attempt to provide variety and value to various audiences. Kids tv is developed by local stations, and other pbs can pick it up and then you have a nationwide sensation like Zoom or Sesame. Sometimes you have Arthur, Martha Speaks or Cyberchase. Do they develop the shows thinking it'll be a moneymaker or popular? Presumably the creator station gets royalties from the rest...

bbc might have different motives than pbs.

btw it ticked me off when PBS became a paid app like hbo. :/
( Last edited by andi*pandi; Nov 2, 2022 at 04:45 PM. )
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2022, 03:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This does not sound like the content which is on public television.
It's the end result of optimizing for engagement. Other factors have to weigh in - does this show feature a diverse cast? Does it have a niche appeal, but to a niche traditional media hasn't covered? Does this show have characters that break traditional gender roles or heteronormative expectations? Any of those things can hurt a show's reach or commercial appeal, but provide a benefit to the communities it serves, specifically communities that are typically shut out by existing commercial media.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2022, 04:46 PM
 
The question posited two shows of equal relevance.

The show that is diverse, appeals to a niche not served by commercial interests, breaks traditional gender roles and heteronormative expectations is equally relevant as the show which does none of those things?

I put the qualifiers in my question because they’re critical to the point. Remove the qualifiers and it’s not the same point.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 2, 2022 at 07:53 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2022, 07:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Ok, limiting this to public tv: Some healthy is more marketable than others. Sesame st was so marketable it's now on HBO.
In America, I’d say the more marketable end of these examples should probably be commercial and free up money for non-commercial productions.

If HBO wants Sesame Street they should bring back Fraggle Rock.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2022, 08:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This does not sound like the content which is on public television.
Yes, because the incentives are different.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The question is how does the public broadcaster decide which of the two shows to fund. Do not public broadcasters, at least in America, generally need to decide between “healthy” and “candy”, or do they decide between various flavors of “healthy”?
Healthy vs. non-healthy foods is one aspect, but I’d add other attributes. Think of spicy food: I love spicy food. In fact, food I find pleasingly spicy is inedible to most other people (no exaggeration). My mom hated raw fish, so no sushi for her. Public broadcasters carry a lot of niche programs such as classical concerts and operas, discussions about obscure topics or very local topics (each state also has a public media organization).

I think Spheric hit the nail on the head when he homed in on the word relevance as opposed to just plain viewership numbers, it is a more holistic measure.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2022, 08:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think Spheric hit the nail on the head when he homed in on the word relevance as opposed to just plain viewership numbers, it is a more holistic measure.
I agree, which is why I chose to make relevance a fundamental and non-severable trait of the hypothetical programs in my question.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 2, 2022 at 08:35 PM. )
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2022, 04:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If HBO wants Sesame Street they should bring back Fraggle Rock.
Worth it for the theme tune alone.

Meanwhile, BBC Radio 5 spent the entire day yesterday serving the needs of he government who have whipped up the media to talk about nothing but immigration while the economy and the NHS collapse.
This included a long story from a woman who spoke about her adult sister being groomed and (presumably - I didn't hear the end of it) abused by an Albanian drug dealer. The clear moral of the story being that all Albanian immigrants are drug dealers and worse, manipulative violent rapists. At no point did a presenter ask how many other Albanians, drug dealers, or Albanian drug dealers this woman or her sister had encountered without being abused by them.
Recent stats are saying the majority of people braving the English channel in dinghies or by paying smugglers are Albanians. The implication there being that Albania is not at war so they are not genuine asylum seekers. Though I saw another sat that 86% of all visas granted to asylum seekers were trafficked Albanian women. BBC didn't mention that either of course.
Between their abject failure and the Home Secretary using words like "invasion", its utterly disgusting.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2022, 12:08 PM
 
So, I really like radio, a lot. When I was growing up, Chicago was by far the best radio market in the country. For many years I considered doing it professionally.

Even I stopped listening. I used to throw NPR on in the car, but came to the conclusion sitting in silence was a better use of my brain power. If I want the radio experience now, that’s what Pandora’s for.

Do people in the UK without one foot in the grave still listen to radio? I hate to break it to the other radio aficionados out there, but this is a dead medium.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2022, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
My mom hated raw fish, so no sushi for her.
As an aside, I was lamenting how much I want to like Japanese cuisine, but the concentration on fish just wrecks it for me.

I want cow, dammit!
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2022, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The question posited two shows of equal relevance.

The show that is diverse, appeals to a niche not served by commercial interests, breaks traditional gender roles and heteronormative expectations is equally relevant as the show which does none of those things?
That is an unanswerable question the way you've phrased it, because those specifics you mention probably make it more relevant to particular groups of people.

A different example: Stand-up comedy. Does making the subject matter of one political satire in otherwise equal format change the relevance? Absolutely. Does it change commercial potential? Absolutely.

It is no coincidence that virtually all relevant formats for satirical political commentary are found on public stations here in Germany, and not on commercial broadcast.

Ironically, it is those programs that are mass-shared by those "critical" of our government (and government system), who are also generally those shouting loudest about abolishing the broadcast license that made them possible.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2022, 12:44 PM
 
With the latter, perhaps they see America, where satirizing the government is a viable commercial enterprise, and would prefer not to have a conflict of interest.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2022, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
That is an unanswerable question the way you've phrased it, because those specifics you mention probably make it more relevant to particular groups of people.
That wouldn’t make the question unanswerable, it would make the scenario impossible. The question can still be answered, and it has an unambiguously obvious and self-evident answer.

While a real-world scenario would be more complex, it would not wholly negate the principles demonstrated in my idealized scenario.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2022, 03:21 PM
 
To make this more nominally real-world, we can return to my previous example: Dan Rather versus Carl Sagan.

Is the argument the respective ratings their public television offerings should have no bearing on their budget whatsoever?

My argument is it should have some bearing, but not anything like it would be for a commercial offering.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2022, 03:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The question posited two shows of equal relevance.

The show that is diverse, appeals to a niche not served by commercial interests, breaks traditional gender roles and heteronormative expectations is equally relevant as the show which does none of those things?

I put the qualifiers in my question because they’re critical to the point. Remove the qualifiers and it’s not the same point.
That feels like a non-question. "If all other [unquantifiable] aspects are the same, should we make a choice based on how popular a program is [something you can't know in the creation stage of a show]?"
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2022, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To make this more nominally real-world, we can return to my previous example: Dan Rather versus Carl Sagan.

Is the argument the respective ratings their public television offerings should have no bearing on their budget whatsoever?

My argument is it should have some bearing, but not anything like it would be for a commercial offering.
That's not an either/or, AFAIC.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2022, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
That feels like a non-question. "If all other [unquantifiable] aspects are the same, should we make a choice based on how popular a program is [something you can't know in the creation stage of a show]?"
A show in the creation stage doesn’t have any ratings yet, so the metric obviously won’t apply there.

I’ll rephrase the question.

Should ratings have no bearing whatsoever on how public television allocates its budget?

My answer is it should have some bearing, but far less than it would in a commercial context.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2022, 04:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
That's not an either/or, AFAIC.
No bearing and some bearing are mutually exclusive, no?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2022, 04:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A show in the creation stage doesn’t have any ratings yet, so the metric obviously won’t apply there.

I’ll rephrase the question.

Should ratings have no bearing whatsoever on how public television allocates its budget?

My answer is it should have some bearing, but far less than it would in a commercial context.
Yes? Has anyone ever disagreed with this?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2022, 04:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Yes? Has anyone ever disagreed with this?
This has been my argument for the last 20 or so posts… sure seemed to me people have been disagreeing.


Edit: I did keep trying to float the idea maybe my point wasn’t being properly understood, but those efforts resolutely failed to gain traction.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 3, 2022 at 05:12 PM. )
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2022, 05:18 PM
 
Well, bonus points to you for wording an inarguable argument in a way that got 20 people to argue with you.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2022, 06:16 PM
 
Here’s the original question.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
If two programs are equally relevant, how does the public broadcaster decide which one to produce?
I know I’m not the best communicator, but I put “public broadcaster” and “equally relevant” in there

How much of the tangent into unhealthy programming and not accounting for diverse interests is on me?
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2022, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
No bearing and some bearing are mutually exclusive, no?
Dan Rather and Carl Sagan are not an either/or choice.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2022, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Dan Rather and Carl Sagan are not an either/or choice.
Ah! That makes more sense!

I’m, not saying they are. What I’m saying is if they both ask for the same budget, how that plays out is going to be strongly influenced by ratings. Despite the unimpeachable quality of work, if one of them is in the toilet they’re going to need to revise their expectations and make do with less.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2022, 01:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As an aside, I was lamenting how much I want to like Japanese cuisine, but the concentration on fish just wrecks it for me.
That’s because sushi is the most popular dish. Ramen, for example, is a soup made from a pork broth. (There are literally hundreds of variations, some are vegetarian or vegan, others contain fish, but most are pork-based.) Ramen restaurants are gaining in popularity. My wife worked in a ramen restaurant when we lived in Toronto.

There are many other popular meat dishes, yakitori is one. While it translates as grilled chicken, you can grill all sorts of meats, vegetables and combinations thereof.

Another super popular dish is okonomiyaki. It is barely known outside of Japan and Korea for reasons I don’t understand. It has all the ingredients of a great, super popular dish: it is easy to make, it is very versatile (meaning you can easily make variations of a theme and put in/leave out ingredients). It is like a Japanese pizza/pancake. The most common topping is slices of pork.

Coming back to my mom, she didn’t care for raw fish. I vastly prefer raw fish to most forms of cooked fish. Except oysters, I like mine grilled. Anyway, back on topic.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2022, 01:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m, not saying they are. What I’m saying is if they both ask for the same budget, how that plays out is going to be strongly influenced by ratings.
What do you mean by “how it plays out?” IMHO that depends on how are you judging success in either case. I reckon there are rating targets on public TV, too, but that’s quite different from private TV stations. A publicly funded science show does not have to compete with the ratings of Mythbusters.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Despite the unimpeachable quality of work, if one of them is in the toilet they’re going to need to revise their expectations and make do with less.
I think TV producers have clear expectations of what ratings they want to see. Some public TV programs will be canned if (1) their niche is contracting and (2) their ratings are decreasing. However, speaking for Germany at least, the public TV stations have a few ratings juggernauts: one is the evening news, they are so successful that other channels start their evening program at 20:15, which is when the most famous public news program ends (20:00–20:15). And there is sports: the public TV channels have consistently outbid private channels for the World Cup, the Euro Cup and they carry quite a few Bundesliga and Champions League games (at least last time I checked). Imagine of the Super Bowl was on PBS with minimal advertisements. Their sports program Sportschau also gets a lot of ratings.

Plus, I think the US market is rather different: many US shows are being exported to the majority of the world whereas shows produced in other, non-English-speaking countries are made more for domestic consumption. (E. g. you can tell by the fake Australian accent Adam Savage sometimes puts on that he is aware of the (apparent) success of Mythbusters Down Under.) Only thanks to Netflix did I become aware of more internationally produced shows from countries like Korea and Turkey.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2022, 05:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
We don't. The proliferation of the 24-hour news cycle, faux-reality TV, and social media shows that optimizing for commercial viability means you press some very specific buttons that trigger very specific brain chemicals. The end run of "Ow, My Balls" surrounded by ads on all sides is the natural conclusion of our current path of grabbing attention and maximizing engagement.



That's junk food. Specifically and scientifically optimized to very effectively trigger some very specific brain chemicals in just the right amount to keep people coming back for more. Short term profits, long term detriment to individual and societal health.


This is actually a good microcosm for discussion of free markets vs regulation isn't it. With no regulation, you end up with 'Ow, My Balls' and ads tattooed on your face or stencilled onto your mornings slice of toast (patenting this idea now) and a population of morons giving themselves bleach enemas at the behest of an angry tv presenter with a bad wig.

There must be some kind of critical mass measurement when a population becomes dumb enough to vote for a certain kind of asshole/idiot. Is it too obvious to call this the 'Trump Limit'?

Lets brainstorm better names than that.

Bad Hair Threshold? Works for Johnson too.
Something about Political Junk Food?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2022, 05:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So, I really like radio, a lot. When I was growing up, Chicago was by far the best radio market in the country. For many years I considered doing it professionally.

Even I stopped listening. I used to throw NPR on in the car, but came to the conclusion sitting in silence was a better use of my brain power. If I want the radio experience now, that’s what Pandora’s for.

Do people in the UK without one foot in the grave still listen to radio? I hate to break it to the other radio aficionados out there, but this is a dead medium.
Radio still has a few places its clinging to. Lots of folks still listen in the car. Digital radio in cars is not that prevalent here as far as I know. Internet radio in cars even less so.
Plenty of workplaces still have it or tolerate it. Building sites, factory floors etc. Plenty of offices play it on low though they are more likely to switch to Spotify or such. Builders and factories are less tech-focused so they remain old school.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2022, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
What do you mean by “how it plays out?”
Meaning that if two public television shows of unimpeachable quality ask for the same budget, and one of those shows has very poor ratings, the show with poor ratings won’t get as big of a budget despite the quality.

The idea of public television money going into FIFA’s coffers makes me want to vomit. Shameful.

It’s possible Adam’s just being his normal ham. Australian accents are a riot.

“For the glowie of MAHHHHS”
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2022, 11:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Ramen, for example, is a soup made from a pork broth
The Americanized version is a cheap food staple, though I splash a gallon of sesame oil on it.

Actual Ramen joints are a thing now, but I generally need to dump ingredients. Not a fan of leafy or fungal in my soup. I like tonkatsu and shoyu broth, but can’t stand miso.

For chicken… sorry, gotta go Korean.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:58 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,