I really like Robert Thompson, Director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University. While he rarely criticizes the medium to the extent some others might, he provides a welcome voice of reason in the face of network hype. Take this quote, for example, about a show that HBO will air in December:
"We've created this population of people who just have this unbelievable urge for slobbering attention. It used to be you had to be good at something before you could get onto TV. Now ... if you simply sacrifice your privacy, and perhaps a bit of your dignity, there's a little room for everybody."
No sense in me railing against the direction broadcast video is heading: (a) nothing I say will change it and (b) a large number of American viewers want this kind of programming, as the ratings rise and content proliferation shows. I just don't understand why anyone would go to a brothel, negotiate and pay for service, and allow himself (or, surprisingly, herself) to be filmed doing it (the negotiation and payment, not the service itself). Does dignity no longer have value in our culture?
Okay, I love Weekend Journal, but sometimes it annoys me. For example, Laura Landro, who writes The Informed Patient column, also writes The Finicky Traveler column, which could easily be titled Snobby Bitch's Guide to Making Even the Most Luxurious and Elegant Places Seem Like Flophouses. I'm not sure exactly what it is that irritates me so much about her Finicky Traveler columns, nor why I insist on continuing to read them, but they do, and I do. In the old, pre-political correctness days we used to call her a JAP (short for Jewish American Princess, which came to take on a meaning of its own unrelated to the religious observations of the person it was describing). But she is beyond that. She is finicky beyond all reasonableness, and thinks nothing of dropping $700 a night on a hotel room and then complaining that it was a lousy place to lay her head for one night. Meanwhile, Laura, you could have, for example, stayed in the Holiday Inn for $120 like the rest of us and sent the remaining $580 to a battered women's shelter or a homeless shelter.
Anyway, enough of that rant -- I'm sure I'll get back to "Dr." Laura soon enough. What got me off on this digression was an article in today's Weekend Journal on an unscientific poll they took about how much money survey respondents are planning to spend on holiday gifts for family, friends, service providers, etc. Here are the opening two paragraphs:
With Christmas on the way, Ann Hyatt Logan is making a list, checking it twice -- and chopping it down. Her sisters will get second-hand books and photos plucked from around the house, while a longtime friend can expect a tray from eBay.
But the doorman? He's getting $80, just like last year. The hairdresser won't be disappointed, either. "There's no reason they should have a hard year," says Ms. Logan, a 54-year-old lawyer from New York.
Now, I admit to knowing about Ms. Logan only what the writer has chosen to reveal, but let's review: she is 54 years old, female, probably unmarried (gifts for sisters and friend, but no mention of gifts for children or spouse), attorney, from New York, lives in a doorman building. I know nothing about her current financial situation, but let's be honest: if you can afford to live in a doorman building (probably in New York City), are employed as an attorney and have no immediate family to financially support, how do you justify spending more money on a gift for the doorman than on your sisters or a longtime friend? As I wrote above, I have only the writer's words to judge this woman by, but given this limited universe of knowledge about her, let me make clear that I am appalled at this.
Where are this woman's priorities? Am I the only person who feels this way? It is all about priorities, and if I use The Wall Street Journal as my guide, apparently I have my priorities all screwed up. According to the Journal, doorman > sisters, hairdresser > longtime friend and, by inference, me > anyone else. I must be dumb, because I still don't get it. No, I get it. I just don't like it.
"We've created this population of people who just have this unbelievable urge for slobbering attention. It used to be you had to be good at something before you could get onto TV. Now ... if you simply sacrifice your privacy, and perhaps a bit of your dignity, there's a little room for everybody."
No sense in me railing against the direction broadcast video is heading: (a) nothing I say will change it and (b) a large number of American viewers want this kind of programming, as the ratings rise and content proliferation shows. I just don't understand why anyone would go to a brothel, negotiate and pay for service, and allow himself (or, surprisingly, herself) to be filmed doing it (the negotiation and payment, not the service itself). Does dignity no longer have value in our culture?
Okay, I love Weekend Journal, but sometimes it annoys me. For example, Laura Landro, who writes The Informed Patient column, also writes The Finicky Traveler column, which could easily be titled Snobby Bitch's Guide to Making Even the Most Luxurious and Elegant Places Seem Like Flophouses. I'm not sure exactly what it is that irritates me so much about her Finicky Traveler columns, nor why I insist on continuing to read them, but they do, and I do. In the old, pre-political correctness days we used to call her a JAP (short for Jewish American Princess, which came to take on a meaning of its own unrelated to the religious observations of the person it was describing). But she is beyond that. She is finicky beyond all reasonableness, and thinks nothing of dropping $700 a night on a hotel room and then complaining that it was a lousy place to lay her head for one night. Meanwhile, Laura, you could have, for example, stayed in the Holiday Inn for $120 like the rest of us and sent the remaining $580 to a battered women's shelter or a homeless shelter.
Anyway, enough of that rant -- I'm sure I'll get back to "Dr." Laura soon enough. What got me off on this digression was an article in today's Weekend Journal on an unscientific poll they took about how much money survey respondents are planning to spend on holiday gifts for family, friends, service providers, etc. Here are the opening two paragraphs:
With Christmas on the way, Ann Hyatt Logan is making a list, checking it twice -- and chopping it down. Her sisters will get second-hand books and photos plucked from around the house, while a longtime friend can expect a tray from eBay.
But the doorman? He's getting $80, just like last year. The hairdresser won't be disappointed, either. "There's no reason they should have a hard year," says Ms. Logan, a 54-year-old lawyer from New York.
Now, I admit to knowing about Ms. Logan only what the writer has chosen to reveal, but let's review: she is 54 years old, female, probably unmarried (gifts for sisters and friend, but no mention of gifts for children or spouse), attorney, from New York, lives in a doorman building. I know nothing about her current financial situation, but let's be honest: if you can afford to live in a doorman building (probably in New York City), are employed as an attorney and have no immediate family to financially support, how do you justify spending more money on a gift for the doorman than on your sisters or a longtime friend? As I wrote above, I have only the writer's words to judge this woman by, but given this limited universe of knowledge about her, let me make clear that I am appalled at this.
Where are this woman's priorities? Am I the only person who feels this way? It is all about priorities, and if I use The Wall Street Journal as my guide, apparently I have my priorities all screwed up. According to the Journal, doorman > sisters, hairdresser > longtime friend and, by inference, me > anyone else. I must be dumb, because I still don't get it. No, I get it. I just don't like it.
posted by fkaJames at
11/22/2002 11:50:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home