Well, anyway, soon thereafter, TV news shows made a Big Deal out of Donald Trump being interviewed -- rudely, as it turned out -- by an ABC-TV reporter whom I have long believed is named Rachel Snot. For as long as Trump occupied the presidential and post-presidential political scene, I had watched Snot's pout-faced stories on ABC-TV News, her facial expression almost always betraying her true feelings when the topic of Trump surfaced.
Therefore, it was no surprise that Trump's entrance couldn't even elicit a greeting from Snot, as she slipped right into hardcore question mode. So harsh and uninviting were her cold interrogation words, in fact, that at least one other journalist later scolded her, and people online even responded with threats of personal harm. That certainly isn't cool.
But enough frivolity. I'm sure the National Association of Black Journalists will clear this up soon, as Ms. Snot appears to be one of theirs. Now, on to. . .
Oh, and the Olympics: Do you watch those silly things? I haven't been, as this affair is something I will always skip if given a choice between it and running my hands through a box of used kitty litter. Nevertheless, that little incident about a woman being beaten -- literally -- by a man pretending to be a woman during a brief boxing match was disturbing. Until women rise up in numbers and until science and common sense get a renewed foothold in society and its classrooms, this kind of outrage will repeat itself in multiple ways.
Watch this or else: As a child in the 1950s, I still remember those old TV shows, generally half-hour displays incorporating horse operas, family situations and comedy. Some went on for an hour, but they were rare. In any event, there were routinely shows named after their sponsors, such as the Armstrong Circle Theater; there was Texaco gasoline which brought us Milton Berle; Alcoa Aluminum brought us the strange (for its time) "One Step Beyond."
TV and radio commercials back then were appreciated (and sometimes informative) because they were few in number during an hour and almost never seemed intrusive.
That was then.
Today, what do we have? We are subjected to frequent basket-loads of commercials which last almost as long as the brief segments of original programming waved in front of our faces. Meanwhile, we are reminded that commercials pay the bills, lest we would have no programs to watch or hear.
With the growth of Internet entertainment, TV and radio often struggle to remain relevant, though, fortunate for them, the sad collapse of newspapers around the country has simultaneously shuffled essential ad revenue to the broadcast media.
Still, all is tenuous. TV stations and suppliers reliant upon old TV westerns, dramas, comedies and motion pictures have done about all they can to cut, slice and mutilate the work of talented writers, producers and directors in order to make room for the advertising dollar, and the effects are visually brutal on the TV screen. As never before, crucial events and scenes are interrupted and commercials appear so fast that the viewer almost believes they are part of the plot. Of course, this stems from the years when viewers could purchase devices to record their favorite shows with all commercials deleted, thanks to an ability for the machines to recognize pauses between programs and commercials.
Today, the wrestling match goes on among the need for networks and stations to pay the bills. the profit motive and how to keep viewers or listeners in the chair or on the sofa, and for the viewership results are ugly. The number and depth of commercials dominating every program is out of control, and the traditional audience is on the decline. Streaming, that great white hope of the alternative entertainment industry, is starting to crack, perhaps on the way to joining the problem list of traditional media.
Me? If I see or hear a commercial appealing to my needs or wants, I'll scour other sources to buy the product -- which is quite possibly cheaper and better than the version advertised. Why? Because competitors aren't spending tons of money buying sponsor time and they therefore probably pay their employees better to concentrate on a more reliable product. When I find a cheaper and better product, I haven't been averse to contacting the TV or radio sponsor of the advertised product and letting them know.
The media consumer is the only one who can tame the wild commercial beast, if this is even possible, and you do it by complaining to the sponsors and TV or radio stations, and by purchasing advertised products from somebody else. A terrible solution for many, yes - but what other power have we? Broadcast institutions need to find a way to sort through this plethora of mind-numbing commercials, many of which one can't remember or care about anyway, without killing their Golden Goose.
