Messages

I'll dig up numbers for you if you want, but I've read Adage for the past year (a year after this book was published, and based on data from the year before at best)  and been in fairly good contact with the industry that fuels TV (Hell, I got a bachelor's degree in it). Ad spending (particularly upfront buys) on TV space has declined due to a number of factors (accountability, availability of other media, etc.). You can read up on any agency and this seems to be the trend: TV is going the route of radio. It's still a bit early to be certain, but the dollars are already shifting. As of last year, the internet advertising arena is past saturation and interactivity is the keyword.

You might be a little deceived by increases in certain statistics. Keep in mind the the population in America is growing at a very rapid rate (legal and otherwise).

Wow, the total population is growing. Big fucking deal.

The fact is that the number of heads watching TVs are increasing, despite what happens to the total population. I mean, just because the population increases doesn't change that there are more people watching TV. Which was your original point.

Remember the part where you said TV viewership is dropping?

So the total population is increasing: so what? Big deal. You're still wrong in saying TV viewership is decreasing. And you said NOTHING about ad spending previously. In fact, ad spending has no impact on whether TV viewership is increasing or decreasing. It only determines the commercial viability of the medium. I mean, bringing that up seems to imply that the audience will increase if you pump more ad dollars into buying airtime to hawk shitty products. And audience numbers are dropping because advertisers are spending less on the medium.

Even if less money is spent on TV, the number of viewers has still increased. And lets say for example the average amount of advertising time is still the same but the costs are cheaper because they have to compete with the internet. There's an explanation that kicks your ad-spending rationale in the balls. Even though, like I said, it's totally irrelevant.

But my point is still correct and backed-up, TV viewership is increasing, not decreasing as you suggest.

In other words, you're wrong. Stop trying to make lame-ass validations, admit it, deal with it and move on.

As for the shift to interactivity, guess what: that's exactly what Johnson is talking about. People are no longer the passive viewers they once were. Our culture is making us more enlightened.

You are correct, the Family Guy blog post is an opinion (like most of the internet). My main point was the show isn't original (read the part about Stewie and the referential "punchlines").

I did read the part about Stewie and the referential punchlines. So what? If all you got is some yahoo's blog post about how Family Guy isn't original thus = not funny, then you really need to try harder.

I once read some yahoo's blog post about how Pulp Fiction wasn't original. He had a point but it's still a brilliant movie.

Daily Show also has its moments, but I'd hesitate to call it original (think back to SNL).

Cause SNL's Weekend Update was a half-hour show that explored politics with humour and included special political guests and improvised interviews and later lead to a spin-off that mocked Bill O'Riley. Yeah, those two are exactly the same thing.

I don't deny that Weekend Update was first on the scene. But The Daily Show is something completely different from it now.

Satire has a history past Swift's "Modest Proposal" and it's just seen on a different medium here (as they say in the industry, a "cold" medium, even).

I'm not saying satire is an original invention by The Daily Show. I mean, if you're going to jump to that conclusion, you might as well say Camus' The Outsider wasn't an original novel because his existentialist work was influenced by Nietzsche. And all books written in English are unoriginal because English language was an invention created many centuries ago.

I enjoyed AD as much as the next critic, but to be honest, it was very poorly received by the general public (or at least the Neilson representative public) and was axed. When it comes to shows, TV Networks behave like businesses regardless of the "intelligence" or "intertextuality" of the show.

Buuuuut, that doesn't change the fact it was original. Or does it? Why don't you tell me because that's why I brought it up. You know, cause Andail said there's no room for experimentation and I listed that out of a number of examples.

Like 24, which you ignored.

Even though it was a commercial success.

And an original attempt at experimentation.

Keep in mind that Family Guy was also axed back in the day.

And brought back to life because people bought a shitload of Family Guy DVDs. Likewise, Futurama is coming back. Your point was?

I believe the American version of "The Office" makes the sucessful multi-vehicle leap because of its content. It's easy for advertisers, since it has a distinctive style of humor, a certain setting, and a fairly specific audience. The mobisode and downloadable content (podcasts, etc.) relate perfectly to the technology adoption interval of its audience.

Which is Johnson's point.

Don't forget that Steven Johnson is primarily trying to make a living, just like the rest of us. No need to deify his means.

Haha, this coming from someone who calls himself "big brother".

Let me put it this way: Johnson wrote a book with good research to back it up, has written several other science books, has a background in science writing (particularly neuroscience) and works as a writer for the Univeristy of New York.

You, on the other hand, have some guy who doesn't like Family Guy writing in his blog, and an argument that seems to say our culture is shifting to an interactive and intertextual medium (the internet) but it's not the interactivity and intertextuality that's engaging people, which is a pretty conflicting point-of-view.

No offense to you, but who do you think I'm going to listen to?

If you really want to change my mind on this, okay, then convince me. Give me some tangible proof that our popular culture (including TV, music, video games, the internet) is rotting our brains.

Aye, people have always bitched about TV rotting the brains. Even during periods where MASH or Seinfeld were popular shows.

Speaking of The Office, I think the American version has finally found its groove. When I first saw it, yeap, it looked like a misguided rehash of the UK version. Now, after a few seasons, I think it's become its own show and not an imitator anymore.

In debating which is better, the UK one will always win out. It was the genesis. However, I think they're now two completely different shows, as opposed to the French version which hasn't really diverted from the UK version.

Yeah, I don't think we can hold up most modern TV shows as bastions of creativity or originality (http://zvbxrpl.blogspot.com/2004/09/why-i-hate-family-guy.html).

1. What the article is talking about is "I think Family Guy content=bad", but not the what the actual techniques of the show do. It's an opinion, and nothing really scientific about it. And although some may not like the content of the show, that still doesn't disregard that one must understand certain external media before watching the show to understand it.

2. The criticism against cutaway jokes and references is pretty disingenuious. Critics hail Arrested Development as one of the best shows ever and it has a huge number of cutaway references to a lot of things. Consider, for example, the numerous Happy Days references. They're not relevant to the plot, but they're damn funny. Gotta love Barry Zuckercorn about to comb his hair in front of the mirror like The Fonz.

3. Finally, I was about to criticise the article you posted as "just being some guy with blog", no scientific explanation or discussion as to what the show is actually doing. However, I thought about it a little more and I think that blog entry itself is proof of what Johnson is talking about. People are able to watch a show and provide their own analysis of the content using blogs today. The relationship between TV and Internet allow help the viewer become more than a passive viewer; they become someone who interacts with the culture.

Just because shows are graduating to cross-platform experiences doesn't somehow make more clever or better produced. To a large part, these shows are trying to integrate themselves with the internet and other interactive media to boost dying ratings. TV viewership (esp for the envied 18-25 year old male segment) has been dropping steadily over the years.

Bullshit! Who says TV viewership has been declining?

In 2000, the total number of television households in the US was 102.2 million. Now, it's 111.4 million.

In 2000, the total number of viewers was 259.9 million. Now, it's 283.5 million

In the last year alone, there was a 1.1 per cent increase in US Television Households.

There have even been significant increases across all demographics. In the 18-24 category, there was a 2 per cent increase.

This is all according to reports from Nielsen Media Research.

Just to reiterate what I said: TV viewership has been dropping steadily over the years?

BULLSHIT!

And if you look the last highest-rated TV show of the year (American Idol, also according the Neilson Media Reaserch), you'll see it has significantly increased viewership over the last few years. American Idol has more than doubled from an average of 12.5 million in the first season to 30.16 in the latest season. This is only in 5 years!

Now I'm not a huge Idol watcher. Reality TV/karaoke contest isn't my thing. But Idol is an example of a participatory/interactive media show. People can watch the show but not as a passive viewer; they make decisions about who they want to continue to the next round and vote via phone or SMS. They are interfacing with the culture. And I can see how this is more sophisicated compared to highest-rating TV shows from several decades ago like  The $64,000 Question or The Beverly Hillbillies.

And what you've said about the internet doesn't prove that audiences aren't getting smarter. The internet allows a participatory medium, which is different from several years ago where TV viewers would remain as passive viewer to the culture. Now people are interacting with the culture.

The fact that TV networks are integrating online proves they're trying to cater to desires of an audience that wants intertextuality.

If you look at modern cartoons, you will see a huge lack of production quality. Cheaper processes (that look cheaper, too) and totally ignorant dev execs are mostly to blame here. If you're interested, this is a good article:
http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=search&sval=RD01&article_no=2738

Great, a lack of production quality. Does that prove TV audiences aren't getting smarter? No, it only proves TV execs are thifty. But can you honestly say that the TV audience of The Simpsons era is dumber than the audience of the Flintstones era?

I fucking doubt it.

Before anything is allowed to come even close to a viewer, it has to be groomed, polished and worked over by the endless rows of experts who know exactly what the broad audience crave, until the whole thing reaches a stage where the professionals dictate what the audience wants and the audience goes along and think they want it too.

And how does this transition from catering to audience desire to forcing audience desire happen? Magic?

I still think the average audience member is smart enough to know what's not engaging. Otherwise the network demi-gods would use their sorcery to have us all watching Stacked with Pamela Anderson.

But let me give you an example where even experts can fail: Katie Couric.

Katie Couric's move from the US Today Show to the CBS News was a huge hype-up by network execs from CBS. People thought it was an excellent move.

However, in the short time she's been at CBS, her ratings initially peaked a short while and now have dropped below that of previous host Bob Schieffer. Not only that, today they're reporting more bad news for Couric: ratings for the Today Show have increaed since her departure.

It doesn't matter how much experts can polish. They can still lose an audience. They're not wizards. They can't cast "watch TV spells" on people. People can tune out and find something that engages them more.

I think when people discuss differences between cartoon sit-com X and Y, they don't realise how painfully similar these actually are, and that they both belong to a very narrow and crowded paradigm. Network pr, campaigns and commercialism only allow clones; the truly original stuff is too unsafe and may not appeal to the masses fast enough to yield profit.

What about 24? That's a very original concept and appeals to a mass audience.

The Simpsons when it first started was original and connected to a mass audience too.

The Daily Show?

Colbet Report?

And I'd still argue that a show like Dancing with the Stars has a higher level of sophistication than shows from 50 years ago.

Until we reach a stage where people are allowed to freely experiment, to create stuff because they think there is something lacking out there (and not because they know they can make it fit for a fair amount of viewers) we will only see clones; copies of a prototype whose sole purpose is higher ratings quickly.

But people are allowed to experiment. 24 is experimentation. Arrested Development is too. Lost is pretty unique too. The Sopranos. Six Feet Under.

What about The Daily Show? Colbert Report? They're experiments in comedy combined with news.

Even Keith Olbermann's Countdown is an alternative type of news show. And his ratings are increasing.

Matt Groening was allowed to experiment with The Simpsons.

South Park anyone?

Even the highest-rated show in the US, Dancing with the Stars, is something of an experimentation. Who'da thought so many people would be into ballroom dancing?

Even Seinfeld, the highest-rated show for two years (1995 and 1998) was experimental.

I think we're living a fallacy that all TV shows are the same. Sure, King of Queens looks like According to Jim. Granted, there are heaps of CSIs and Law and Order shows. But I do think there's variety out there. Not every show is a sitcom about a chubby husband and his hot wife or a CSI: Law and Order Division.

Television writers don't have to worry about crafting the english langauge anymore.  Its just one statement after the other, a couple a questions. and then someone gets shot.

I disagree and would say they care more than ever. One of the big challenges facing TV writers, and in fact most writers, is that due to shrinking time and space constraints they have to say as much as possible, be as expressive as possible using the least amount of words possible.

I think they're now more than ever making things tighter and more impactful. Granted, there are no long-running ultra-expressive stream of consciousness sentences you might find in, say, a Virgina Woolf novel (and I'm biased here and find Woolf painful to read) but I do think it's a challenge for TV writers to "cut the fat" as much as possible.

Shows like Arrested Development or The Sopranos are very tightly written, every line of dialogue contributing, advancing the story, and all lines tightly wounds together.

Instead of crafty rhetoric and flowing prose, most shows drown the viewer in technical or legal jargon.   I would even include X- Files.   "Scully, the pyschosphere of his brain appears to be shattered.  Maybe if I apply this benzine circusometer the wound will heal itself in the fourth dimension."  Miami Vice tried this shit and failed!  Michael Mann, and I still hate the movie!

I do agree that "jargon" can sometimes hinder a TV show. Orwell in Politics and The English language says "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent." What I do like is that in some shows they do explain the idea behind the jargon. Star Trek was good at this (A Futurama episode even said that on Star Trek they'd solve problems with a complex jargon-filled explanation and then re-explain it with a simple metaphor -- "Like putting too much air into a balloon!").

Perhaps the jargon is to give the show a sense of realism. I can see why a show like House would use a lot of complex medical jargon. But I do think with a lot of these shows there is a degfree of understanding because I can understand what's going on in a show like House.

oh, and it was brilliant when South Park called out Family Guy on the "Man, this is worse than that one time..."  gag.   More shows need good humor and good dialogue.  Its a hard thing to accomplish.   But I believe many shows are upping the ante even though they could take the "drown the audience in jargon or inside jokes" method.

I'm at odds here because while I think South Park is very cutting-edge satire and funny in its own right, I still think Family Guy's writers are damn good at constructing a joke and telling it extremely well. Despite how they integrate them into the story, they can still give a rapidfire succession of good punchlines. How anyone can't adore Chris showing an abstract painting and saying, "It's partly an expression of my teenage angst... but mostly it's a moo-cow!" is beyond me.

It also doesn't try to be self-important, like South Park can be sometimes. Like Kyle says in the same episode: "At least [Family Guy] doesn't get all preachy and up its own ass with messages, you know?" And keep in mind, before South Park became deep social commentary, it was about aliens communicating with a satellite dish sticking out of Cartman's rectum.

I think MacFarlane said it best in his speech at the Harvard class day 2006, when speaking as Stewie Griffin:
   
"You're wondering to yourselves: what can I expect from the outside world? Will I find my niche? What should I know about the vast territory that lies beyond the confines of my little subculture of textbooks, Ramen noodles, coin-operated laundry and TV shows that seem to think they can skate by with random jokes about giant chickens that have absolutely nothing to do with the overall narrative? The boys at South Park are absolutely correct: Those cutaways and flashbacks have nothing to do with the story! They're just there to be ... funny. And that is a shallow indulgence that South Park is quite above, and for that I salute them."

people who watched The Daily could recall more information about the 2004 US election that people who just watched regular cable news channels.

I don't find anything surprising about this result. People tend to remember stuff better if the person trying to remember it is engaged in the information. Think of the bottom-of-the-class student who can't remember any of the lessons but can ramble off years of sports stats with ease. I'd expect the Daily Show, which engages its audience with laughter - a very positive, memory-building stimulus - to be much more interesting and memory-enhancing than the regular news.

This is my point. 50 years ago there wasn't a show like The Daily Show. It's an advanced form of news show. It's the kind of show that requires a certain level of intertextuality between it and other shows/media. You have to understand these links before you understand The Daily Show. Hence, why a show like The Daily Show is benefitial.

News satire had the same educational value as regular news, and ... people who watched regular news could understand News Satire better

Of course. Satire requires understanding of the subject being satirized.

people who watch News Satire were encouraged to watch regular news.

I'll admit, this is surprising. I have no desire to watch the regular news after watching the Daily Show.

But you've just brought a conflict in your statements. You said news satire requires an understanding of the subject being satirised but it doesn't encourage study of the subject.  How else does one "get" the Daily Show? THere has to be some encouragement to follow regular news if you're going to follow The Daily Show.

if you even look at the mainstream, it's become more complex yet people are able to follow it.

See, this is where I disagree. People point to the explosion of shows with long story arcs (Lost, 24, Alias, etc.) as proof of "growing complexity." But I disagree for several reasons:

1. Shows like this (endless, constantly-evolving story arcs) have existed for quite a long time, in the form of afternoon soap operas, prime-time soaps (anyone remember Dallas?), and arguably even professional wrestling (which is usually more about the story arcs than the wrestling, and frequently referred to as "soap opera for men"). And if you look at other media - comic books spring to mind, but also old radio serials and saturday matinee sci-fi serials at the movie theaters - this form of story-telling has existed for decades, and traditionally been directed at kids!

These are  progressive evolutions of shows. You can't tell me that a soap opera or Dallas are as complex as something like 24. Also, look at a show like Arrested Development, which mocks such soap operas.

And also comic books have become more complex. Consider in the movie Big where the Tom Hanks character wants to create an interactive comic book.

And interactive comics are a little like... umm... what are those things called... they're like games that you can play on your computer... and they're like adventures... i forget the name but it's some kind of genre word... Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

2. I don't think the explosion of shows like this is evidence of the studios' commitment to boost complexity and intelligence. As DVD sales of television series has taken off, I think it's more likely a commitment to boost profits. I don't normally watch Lost, but I caught an episode recently. I thought it was interesting, and I was able to piece together some of characters' motivations, but ultimately I really didn't know what was going on. I don't think it means I'm dumb or that the show was unusually complex, I think it means the studio wants me to go buy the previous seasons to get caught up on the story.

But that's my point: they have to engage you with such a show using certain methods. Not only that, you can't just limt your viewing of this theory to just one show, but a complex web of media. Shows these day are more connected than they were many decades ago. Watch Arrested Development and spot how it ties into other shows and movies.

3. I think the complexity within an individual show is much more important than a series-wide storyline. Lost may have a complex storyline stretching back to the beginning of the show, but what happens in each episode? The one I saw was relatively simplistic - a rescue mission, with a couple flashbacks to explain motivation. But look at shows like West Wing (well, when the original writers were on it) and Law & Order. Minimal tie-ins between each episode, yet individually each one raises questions about and debates issues of public policy, law, and ethics. West Wing obviously puts a liberal/Democratic spin on it, Law & Order generally makes a convincing arguement for both sides and usually doesn't provide any answers (leaving the viewer to form their own conclusions, or learn more about the issue themselves).

But this is another good example. Not many TV dramas of the past were able to explore political issues. I can't think of another show that did the same as The West Wing. To understand the show, you do need some degree of understanding on how a) The American political system works, and b) current US political issues.

News programs of the 50s usually involved a newscaster sitting behind a desk reading headlines. But now you're got split-screen interviews with talking heads, a scroll bar down the bottom, occasional pop-ups, and other fancy touches. It's become more advanced -- the level of required engagement has multiplied -- and yet we're still able to keep track of it all.

Again, I disagree:

1. Let's not confuse advance in technology with increased complexity. In the 50's, you didn't have live satellite feeds. Now you do. And cutting to a poor reporter standing in the middle of a hurricane or riding on a tank in the middle of a battlefield is much more compelling television than someone in a studio talking about the devastation. It's all about visual stimulus.

But that's the issue. Forget the technology. The visual stimulus has become harder to follow. Even with a live feed from a reporter in mid-battle still has a scroll bar and headlines while the reporter talks. You'll notice they don't suddenly cut to a full screen view.

Also, now people can send e-mail to such shows or even start their own blog about the issues. They're becoming participants to the culture, thus demonstrating how we're engaging with it.

... just because we've become more accustomed to a greater decibel level of background information doesn't mean we've gotten any better at processing it. I've heard (although I don't have any numbers to support) that continuously jumping from one task to another degrades intelligence - and performance - since the mind isn't given the opportunity to ever focus on one thing. I've also read articles about using computer technology to filter out extraneous information to aircraft pilots and army soldiers so they can improve their focus and performance. Hardly evidence that we're able to better process an ever-growing complexity of information.

I don't this is a good example. The army relies on a lot of conditioning techniques and repetition to improve performance on a single task. So, they use computer technology to filter external info for pilots to help them be better pilots. Great. But how does that help with other problm-solving tasks. How does that allow them to become creative thinkers and enhance their options at solving a problem?

It just seems to be: focus on this, become a better pilot, repeat. That doesn't represent intelligence. I believe intelligence relates to free thinking and opening your mind to possibilities.

It's like a guy who uses a hammer, and is so focused on using a hammer, that he becomes the best hammer-guy in the world. But what happens when he comes accross a screw. He's fucked!

I'm not saying that people should get their complete education from TV, but I do feel that
people are able to foster better connections between things if they add popular culture to our diet.

Fundamentally, we are still only able to process one subject at a time. When I'm reading the ticker at the bottom of the screen, I'm not focusing on what the announcer is saying, and vice-versa. There may be more information on the television screen, but I'm still only following one thread. Furthermore, our minds require a certain amount of dwell time to absorb a particular subject, comprehend it, and remember it. Jumping erratically from subject to subject doesn't improve our intelligence, but instead degrades it. In the end, maybe all that information on the screen isn't helping us!

I think you're limiting Johnson's argument to just TV. No. It applies to popular culture as a whole. The fact that we can understand how one thing links to another aids our ability to solve complex problems better.

Finally, let me just say that I think this is a really interesting discussion. I've come to learn that tone can be easily misinterpreted through the written word, so I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick a fight with you. I don't want to see this discussion end in an unintentional flame war because of some falsely-perceived insult!

FUCK YOU PANSY






Do I really have to add a "just joking" to the end of that? 

studies have shown that average results for problem-solving skills, abstract reasoning, pattern recognition and spaital logic have all increased.

The other side of this is that, even if you can show a correlation between more intelligent television (and I don't know how, or if, Johnson makes a quantitative assessment of this) and higher intelligence, that hardly goes to cause-and-effect. Are we getting smarter because of better television, or is television getting better because we're smarter?

You're going to hate my answer.

This is the same thing they posed about The Daily Show in many studies. Like, an Annenberg study from a year or two ago showed that people who watched The Daily could recall more information about the 2004 US election that people who just watched regular cable news channels. This led to the question: is The Daily Show educating people better, or is The Daily Show just attracting a more educated audience.

Here's where you're going to hate me.

I did my honours thesis on this.

What did I discover? Well, I found 1) News satire had the same educational value and regular news, and more interestingly 2) there was a mutual relationship between News Satire and Regular News -- people who watched regular news could understand News Satire better and people who watch News Satire were encouraged to watch regular news. Both work in tandem, fueling each other.

Why did I bring this up? Because I reckon the question you pose has a similar answer. I reckon we are getting smarter because of better television and, at the same time, television is getting better to keep up with our level of desired engagement.

I think the advance of technology-driven media provides unprecedented opportunities for people to educate themselves and develop themselves personally and professionally, but to take advantage of it I think you have to look outside the mainstream and actively pursue the useful content.

Not necessarily because if you even look at the mainstream, it's become more complex yet people are able to follow it. Consider, for example, news programs. News programs of the 50s usually involved a newscaster sitting behind a desk reading headlines. But now you're got split-screen interviews with talking heads, a scroll bar down the bottom, occasional pop-ups, and other fancy touches. It's become more advanced -- the level of required engagement has multiplied -- and yet we're still able to keep track of it all.

Granted, I agree an in-depth assessment of our advanced cognitive abilities can provide a clearer picture on this issue. I'm all for more data on this topic as much as anyone interested in this topic is. But I do side with Johnson on this one. He linked the empircal evidence extremely well to his thesis. And I was pretty skepitcal prior to purchasing the book. In the end he convinced me.

Announced today: Feingold won't run for Pres in 2008.

"I'm sure a campaign for President would have been a great adventure and helpful in advancing a progressive agenda. At this time, however, I believe I can best advance that progressive agenda as a Senator with significant seniority in the new Senate serving on the Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Judiciary and Budget Committees," the senator explained. "Although I have given it a lot of thought, I cannot muster the same enthusiasm for a race for President while I am trying simultaneously to advance our agenda in the Senate. In other words, if I really wanted to run for President, regardless of the odds or other possible candidates, I would do so. However, to put my family and all of my friends and supporters through such a process without having a very strong desire to run, seems inappropriate to me. And, yes, while I would strongly prefer that our nominee in 2008 be someone who had the judgment to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning, I am prepared to work as hard as I can through the Progressive Patriots Fund, and consistent with my duties in the Senate, to maintain or increase our gains from November 7 in the Congress and, of course, to elect a Democrat as President in 2008."

I'm a little disappointed but can understand his reasons not to run.

EagerMind, it's interesting that you mention all that because Johnson also takes into account most of what you talking about especially the question of whether test scores can actually measure intelligence. What Johnson says, however, is that studies have shown that average results for problem-solving skills, abstract reasoning, pattern recognition and spaital logic have all increased.

He also states there are some intelligences ignored by these tests, such as emotional intelligence. However, studies have shown a general advancement in the areas I meantioned above.

Acting like a crybaby?  That's just great.  Are you fifteen?  I'm done talking to you.  You haven't even read my posts, and I'm tired of repeating myself.

You're calling me fifteen but you're the one getting stroppy and saying "I'm not talking to you anymore!!!" like some pre-schooler. Well, waa, waa, waa, I'm not talking to you either cause you're a poopy-head. You also smell.

P.S. When you cry, make sure you don't get any tears on your petticoat.

By comparing the machine-gun pace and disjonted themes of The Goon Show with the langurous pace and domestic scope of Everybody Loves Raymond, I could make the case that media output is becoming easier to follow.

I don't think that's a fair comparison, though. Everybody Loves Raymond isn't a sketch orientated show, it's a sitcom. Compare The Goon Show to something along the lines of Mr Show with David Cross and Bob Odenkirk. Or The Daily Show. Or Wonder Showzen.

Meanwhile, Everybody Loves Raymond is a pretty mid-level sitcom. The producers have even admitted it's very much in the style of an old fashioned sitcom. Look at something a little more advanced like, say, The Office (UK or US versions), Arrested Development, Curb our Enthusiasm or Entourage.

Even Seinfeld, although cancelled, represents an advanced form of sitcom.

Of course, The Goon Show is exceptional. It doubt it represents the majority of 1940/50s radio comedy, but it still makes it difficult to establish a trend from the simple towards the complex in the last half decade.

Sure, it's exceptional comedy. But I think the complexity has been outclassed by similar sketch-style shows. See examples above.

As for which is funnier, it's subjective. I prefer David Cross and Bob Odenkirk or John Stewart to the Goons. But that's a personal preference. You might think otherwise.

More significantly, I'm doubtful of this notion of MTV taking more brainpower to process. I'll agree that it takes a degree of mental agility to follow MTV, but I'd question to what degree MTV viewers actually process information.

I'm talking in comparison to American bandstand in the 50s. The degree is significant.

I suggest that the capacity to patiently dwell upon and consider a subject should be considered a valuable skill, after a fashion.

I think it would be a mistake to celebrate the exchange of this skill for the mental agility of MTV viewers. If there is a trend towards the complex in the mass media, it does not necessarily represent progress, nor an increase in the sophistication of our minds.

I disagree. I believe the comprehension of such complex and evolving culture is a testament to the development of our minds. Consider Johnson's example where he gives evidence of the average test scores increasing over generations. Now I'll state that you can't attribute these test scores just to TV shows -- that would be madness. However, they ARE attributable to the complexity of our culture as a whole. This includes all media, such as (and not limited to) TV, films, the internet, and computer games.

Frenetic pacing, fractured storytelling and layered narratives can be very effective, as in the examples you gave. They are not, in and of themselves, the marks of intelligent and effective drama. They can also be observed in the best and the worst modern films and the most and least imaginative television.

I'm not arguing that we've lost anything since the Maltese Falcon, I'm simply not convinced that we've enhanced our cognitive abilities. I don't believe that MTV or xXx are making people cleverer simply because they are fractured, frenetic and follow multiple threads.

In a way, they are. Compare 50 years ago to MTV's equivalent, which is something like American Bandstand, which seems very simplistic to watch these days.

You see, it's not the multi-track threads of a narrative themselves that increase cognitive functions. That much is certain. But more so it's how our brains process these narratives.

So you have all these multiple tracks in MTV happening at once and our brains piece them together. Where as something like Bandstand takes lesser effort to process.

I admit, MTV and xXx are crap. But compared to equivalents of the 50s, I'd say they take more brain power to process.

And keep in mind, Johnson devotes a section to empirical research.

It's like Robin Williams says, if there was a woman president there'd never, ever be any wars. Just every 28 days some severe negotiations.

You tell me not to throw insults around before calling me a dickhead. Way to take the moral high ground!

It was meant to be a joke, you know, I take the moral high ground and tell you not to throw around insults, then i use one.  Ha ha.  Guess you didn't get it.

Oh sorry, I guess didn't see it. Maybe if you weren't acting like a crybaby, I would have.

Dude, Hillary could have run for senate in Arkansas in 2002, if you want to be so literal about it.

No she couldn't. She's already a Senator for New York. Duh!

Interestingly, Republican Senator Tim Hutchinson was defeated by Democratic challenger Mark Pryor after Hutchinson got a lot of negative publicity from a his marriage scandal (divorced his wife and married one of his staff). Hillary had a damn good chance in 02 as well.

So I'm not exactly sure what "facts" I've gotten wrong.  I was sharing my "opinions" and didn't intend to write a thesis for the adventure game development community.  If you want to call my "opinions" rhetoric, then go ahead.  But I'll keep sharing them.

You were trying to tell me that Hillary could have run for Arkansas instead of New York in 2000 and in doing so she would have lost. I said this was impossible to do since Arkansas didn't hold a Senate election that year.

It's a dumb hypothetical based upon faulty information. You got called out. Deal with it and move on.

As for rhetoric, you've basically gone on and on and on with your posts without anything to back them up.

I'm pretty sure that all I said was that HILLARY had no chance of getting elected President,

Uh, no. You said: "Also, there's a really nasty streak of anti-feminist, anti-women-as-leaders resentment in the media and public at large that would make her candidacy problematic."

If there is such a problem with "women-as-leaders" and them being seen as "bitches", why are people electing representitives in the House and the Senate?

And if they're electing women in such offices, why not the president?

If there's such resentment with gender roles and misogyny, why is there a growing number of representitives? Why was there speculation over "Hillary vs Condi" a few months back in regard to 2008?

Sure, there's some perception of "women leaders=uh oh", but I do think that times have changed to the point where enough states realise that maybe a woman in power isn't such a bad thing.

it's clear that you haven't driven around places like Arkansas, or Texas, or Iowa, or Missouri.

Just a minute ago you said Arkansas has had a female Senator.

And Senator McCaskill in Missouri.

What I'm trying to say is that things are changing. And according to the information I've presented, it's still likely that Hillary will lead the Dems in 2008.

But for the record, last time let's get this straight, I will make my opinion clear.  I think women in general have more of an up hill battle when running for office, especially in more rural "red state" areas.  I think lots of people, especially in rural "red state" areas, have very negative reactions towards Hillary, and those reactions have everything to do with her history as First lady and the fact that she was an independent, strong-willed woman.  For that reason, I don't think she'd fare well as a candidate for the Presidency.

Look, I don't deny that a lot of people in red states have a negative perception of Hillary and women as leaders in general. But you seem to think that the 2008 election rests of Red States. What about swing states?

And in regards to swing states, I can only say this: things change, my friend. More people will start to realise that women-on-top aren't as scary as people would think. A lot of the swing states voted for Bush in 00 and 04, but this year they've voted differently. They've put Pelosi in charge.

If Pelosi is the first female majority house speaker, what's to stop Hillary?

DGMacphee, why are you being such a jerk?  There's no need to call me an idiot.  I was talking hypothetically, at least about Tennessee.  But you know what, you're right.  I should do my research before giving my opinions!  I'll go crack the books right now!  Thanks for teaching me this valuable lesson. 

Really. 

Thanks a lot.

Oh, please. If you're going to say to me, "Notice Hillary didn't run for Senate in Arkansas" as one of your main points without actually checking if Arkansas had their seat open that year, hmm, yes, that constitutes idiocy.

If you're going to engage in some political discussion, make sure your facts are right. Otherwise you could say things like, "Ned Lamont lost the Connecticut to a llama".

Seriously, you want to talk, fine, then talk. But at least make sure you've got your facts straight. Otherwise people, like me, are just going to think you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

But I should say that Harold Ford Jr. came from very far behind and ran a fantastic campaign.  I doubt Hillary would have fared as well, but hey, I guess if I actually did my research as you'd suggest I would in fact be able to gain multi-dimensional clairvoyance and decisively see all  possible electoral outcomes.

But clairvoyance isn't really an accepted research metho... OH YOU WERE BEING SARCASTIC! ZING! How stupid of me for not seeing that. Ha ha, you got me!

Claire McCaskill is a born and raised Missourian who's been a politician there for decades.  Just because MO voters barely elected a local democrat with high name recognition, doesn't mean they'd elect Hillary.  But again, I don't have the power to do research / see through time.

But that wasn't your point. Your point was that she's a woman and being woman=no chance of being elected. You even said so: "I think it really comes down to people's reaction to strong-willed women". Now you're saying, "Hey Claire McCaskill can get elected to a non-New York state, but not Hillary."

Seriously, are you making this up as you go along?

I like how you didn't answer my question.   Do you live in the states?  Have you seen any of the TV commercials that were on during the election?  I mean, turn on Meet the Press or This Week and you'd have seen all the right wing talking heads using Pelosi to scare up Republican voters.  I'm sure plenty of people saw through that kind of thing, but I think it's a clear indicator of how a women, specifically liberal women, can be vilified here.

Maybe if you read my response to jet in the same post, you'll see that I don't live in the US.

However, thanks to miracles known as "The Internet" and "YouTube" and "online polls", I can gain as much insight into the American political system as any American can. I probably know more about US politics and politicians than my own country's politics (Mainly cause I find US politics more interesting). Even American friends of mine say I seem to more about their own political climate than they do.

Yes, I've seen the right-wing talking heads using Pelosi to scare Republican voters. So what? What about uncommitted voters? They're the ones who get swayed. As the polls I mentoned said, most people like Pelosi. If the majority of voters didn't, why are the Dems now controlling congress?

By the way, I think it's odd how you want to condemn my knowledge of US Politics just because I don't live here even though you didn't even know Arkansas didn't have an open seat in 2000.

For the record, I would love to see a female president but having traveled all over this country, especially in really rural areas, I can honestly say that I don't think it'll happen any time soon.  At least not Hillary, there's too much baggage there.  It could more likely be a conservative woman, like your Libby Dole.  But I hope I'm proven wrong!  That would be great.

Maybe not a woman anytime soon. But it won't happen anytime soon unless people try.

Also, I think Russ would be a great candidate.  I've thought about going to work his campaign if he ran.  I don't know that he'd have a chance to win, but I think he's got a pretty good shot.  He's principled and stands by his opinions.  That will get you far in this country.

Aye, that's why I like him. I particularly liked his speech on the censure motion he put forth. That's what made me say, "Wow, this guy is great!"

But seriously, just relax.  We're just having a debate here, you don't need to throw around insults.  You dickhead.

You tell me not to throw insults around before calling me a dickhead. Way to take the moral high ground!

Seriously, pal. I'm all for debate. But one thing I cannot stand is people who come to a debate with no substance. It's all just empty talk, talk and more empty talk. You want to make a good point, fine, come armed with facts. Something to back up your point. Not rhetoric.

As for being a dickhead, you're not the first one to call me that on this forum. In fact, I think the first person to say I'm a dickhead was me.

But I prefer professional dickhead.

Speaking of which, same Gallup report said (from memory) 58 per cent of voters were ready for a black presidenial candidate.

Which only means 58% doesn't care which party to vote for, so should the other be black, then the other one would win.

Eh? How'd you get to that conclusion.

Speaking of which, same Gallup report said (from memory) 58 per cent of voters were ready for a black presidenial candidate.

Which makes my support for Feingold even more ludicrous!

[Arkansas didn't have an open seat in 2000]

Erm, what is your obsession with Hillary? What has she done that makes her such a great leader?
People call her a carpet begger!
You mock Jack Thompson, but she supports him (or visa versa, whatever).

Don't want to come over cross, but I don't see her as THE politicion to kick start the progression. I don't know somebody who is, but is't not her.

Maybe if you opened your eyes and actually read my posts, you'll see I never said I supported her. I said I supported Feingold (and it doesn't matter anyway because I'm not from the US, so I can't vote on either of them).

What I am saying is that she's the best chance the Dems have at having a presidential candidate. And most opinion polls reflect this position.

I'm just thinking realistically. Realistically, she's the best chance the Dems have.

Yes, I'm fully aware that people called her a carpetbagger in New York and that people got over it.  But that's because it's fucking New York.  If she had tried running, oh let's say in Tennessee, she'd have gotten her ass handed to her.  She's appreciated in one of the most liberal areas of the country.  Big whoop.

Other states she's lived in?  She's from Illinois, right?  Ok.  She's got Illinois locked up.  Another liberal stronghold.  Hooray.  Then you've got Arkansas.  Not exactly friendly territory.  They elected her slick southern husband, not her.  Notice she didn't run for Senate in Arkansas...she never would have won.

Maybe she didn't run in Arkansas because Arkansas didn't have an open seat in 2000 (you idiot) and tried out in New York because the incumbent retired. You know, cause people seem to prefer incumbents over new challengers and with the incumbent gone Hillary had a better chance.

Speaking of incumbents, what if she campaigned in your other example, Tennessee (which WAS up for grabs in the 2000 Senate elections), against Bill Frist. Firstly, that's a dumb example cause we're talking Frist here. How are you going to unseat someone as high up as the Senate majority leader from a state he's held since 1995? That's just crazy talk!

But since Frist retired, you do realise this year the Tennessee races were pretty close with Republican candidate Bob Corker winning by 3% against his Democrat opponent (51% vs 48%)?

I think Hillary had as much chance if she was the opponent. Look at McCaskill's victory in Missouri against an incumbent low-level Republican. Missouri has been pretty Republican influenced over the last few years with candidates like John Danforth, Jim Talent and John Ashcroft. (Only variation was when Ashcroft lost to a dead man in 2000).

but hay in tennisee they're all right-wing repubs there, am i rite?

Also, perhaps you should stop the wild speculation and do your damn research BEFORE giving your opinion.

And people are not ok with Nancy Pelosi.  I don't know if you're American or not, and listen to American radio or TV, but during  the election Pelosi was held up as this SAN FRANCISCO LIBERAL!!!! image in order to create fear in teh conservative base.  There was quite a tinge of anti-feminism in the language used by the ads and media personalities.

By American TV and radio, do you mean Fox News and Rush Limbaugh?

Seriously, if people were that worried about Pelosi being a femo-commie-babyeater, why the hell did the majority of American districts vote for a Democrat-controlled congress? Surely they think she can facilitate better policy decisions regarding Iraq than Dennis Hastert. Otherwise, why'd they vote for her?

Maybe the majority of the American public voted while drunk that day. Y'know, since FHM and RALPH say all women look hotter after a couple of cold ones, did the voters decide "damn pelosi's pretty hot i'd hit that" and vote for their Democrat congressman?

Seriously, a recent CNN poll shows most people like her - 35 per cent favourable, 24 per cent unfavourable, 23 per cent have never heard of her, and 19 per cent are unsure.

I think it really comes down to people's reaction to strong-willed women...they're viewed as "bitches" be it in the boardroom or workplace or the White House.  Hillary got lambasted during her husbands presidency for doing things and saying things that, if a man had said them, wouldn't have caused such a raucous.  Honestly it's reprehensible, but I think it's the real reason America won't elect a woman President any time soon.

So that's why Elizabeth Dole and Jean Schmidt didn't get elected into office! Because they're women!

Oh wait, they DID get into office! But they were Republicans. I guess you have to be a Republican if you also want to be a strong-willed woman.

Hello, Condi!

On the other hand, you have Katherine Harris. And I don't think she lost because she was a woman. I think she lost because her campaign was poorly run and most of her staff deserted her.

Seriously, I think you have some wacky logic that just doesn't make sense here.

Sure, there's some perception of "women leaders=uh oh", but I do think that times have changed to the point where enough states realise that maybe a woman in power isn't such a bad thing.

In a Time poll, 19 per cent of sampled voters said they'd prefer a male president, 11 per cent prefered a female president and 69 per cent said it doesn't matter whether the president has a vagina or not.

1 per cent said they were unsure.

Likewise, a recent poll by Gallup shows 61 per cent of Americans (selected randomly throughout the country) feel ready for a female president.

In the same poll, 55 per cent ready for a Jewish president.

According to those figures, I'm supposed to be crazier for supporting Feingold ahead of Hillary as opposed to saying Hillary has a good chance. But you seem to be lambasting my speculation on Hillary in 2008 but not Feingold.

In response, I only have one question: Whaaaaaaaaa???

Finally, I still think Edwards was a fine candidate, it's just that Kerry was a terrible.  Talk about how public speaking is critical---Kerry could not communicate a single cogent message to the American people.  He just would ramble on and on about miscellanea while referencing arcane policy info.  Bush used accessible language and repeatedly stressed clear ideas.  Cheney didn't have jack to do with Bush getting relected.

Both Kerry and Edwards weren't great. It was like the Dems were running a zombie and Gomer Pyle for Pres and VP. But the Dems picked 'em so they must be worth something, right?

As for Cheney, I think he's evil, but as for whether he's an effective VP -- who knows? Various polls showed different winners in the 2004 VP debates. I do think Cheney sucker-punched Edwards in that debate and, trust me, I say that with a great pain in my voice.

I do think having a good VP helps. After all, people have to consider a replacement if something happens to the president. Case in point, look what happened to Kennedy or Nixon and their respective VPs Johnson and Ford.

Running mates really don't matter all that much IMHO, just look at Edwards and Kerry.  Edwards was a great VP choice, but he couldn't help save that sinking, pretentious ship.

No, Edwards was terrible choice. He was as effective as having a boiled carrot for a running mate.

Look at Cheney. The man is evil, but still an effective running mate for Bush.

Clinton is very popular in New York, specifically downstate.  That's great for New York, but it won't get you far elsewhere.  People outside of New York HATE New York

You do know that people described her a carpetbagger because she moved to New York just to run for the Senate seat there, right? Originally she wasn't very popular as she is now, winning only 55% in 2000.

But hey, you only just ignored the many other states she's lived in and all the work she's done in those states.

Also, there's a really nasty streak of anti-feminist, anti-women-as-leaders resentment in the media and public at large that would make her candidacy problematic.

Really? People seem to be okay with Nancy Pelosi as the new House Majority Leader. What resentment in the media are you on about?

Finally, Clinton has no charisma. She's a terrible public speaker.

Has you actually listened to a Bush speech? I don't think it's all that important to be a good public speaker.

Hillary might be populair in the new england area, but she's disliked unanimously by the south and the mid west. Even the big cities in the south east and south west, she isn't taken seriously.
Her conservative viewpoints to compensate with republicans won't work. It's better to find someone who has the balls to be liberal.

Hence why I said "if she picks the right running mate".