Consonants and vowels all together, equally

You know how every year, folks complain that there are nothing but reruns in March and April, or curse the networks for putting a favorite show on hiatus and replacing it with some new thing, and every year I explain how sweeps work? Well, this year is going to be totally different!

First, February sweeps have been pushed back to March because of the switch from analog to digital signals in 2009. Since sweeps are for the local affiliates, and they're the ones who will be most affected by the switch of the over-the-air signal (if you have a cable box you have no worries) Nielsen is giving them an extra month to get their shit together before measuring their ratings.

Now word comes that May sweeps have been pushed up a week to avoid an early Memorial Day holiday, leaving only 3 weeks in April between the two sweeps months. Given that most shows will have aired 8-10 of their 22-24 episodes through the November sweeps, I predict that many might take all of December, January and February off, and come back in March to finish their seasons straight through from March to May sweeps; after all, that's only 11 weeks. The networks can then program an entire season of either a midseason replacement show, or a reality show, in those 12 weeks over the winter.

Of course, if SAG strikes, then anything could happen. Two seasons in a row with strikes, that's bound to do great things for US television!

I don't really like manifestos. I don't think writing something extreme really moves forward the conversation; it more allows people to ignore the interesting thought that might be in the middle of all the condescension and villify the author. Those that agree can clutch the book to their breasts; those that disagree can throw out the book with the garbage without a second thought.

The recent politics quiz put me as a "third way liberal" and somewhere along the way I've become sort of reflexively in the middle. It serves me well as an historian; ask an historian a yes or no question and their answer is usually "sort of." I'm not sure where this comes from--perhaps it's the biracial thing, perhaps a positive outlook on other people--but I'm always looking for parallels, for commonalities, for a starting place for conversation, for ways we can start to move toward a place "beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing," to quote Jalal al-Din Rumi. Now, dear reader and friend, you may have a different feeling about this, but if I were to go on NPR and talk about "This I Believe" it would be:

Calling those with whom you do not agree delusional is never a good idea.

Being called a nut doesn't make anyone want to hear what you have to say; it makes them want to punch you in the face, or, with me, wonder why you hate them so much. Never mind the polarization, as though intelligent people can only think one way, which simply isn't true. In addition, changing the terms of the debate requires MUCH more subtle tactics. More seduction, less aggression.

The problem with being reasonable is that you won't get much attention for it. It won't win you fangirls. It won't make you enemies. You won't end up getting cited all over fandomwank or whatever supposed "true story" of the past is getting posted on journalfen. It won't give you an flist in the thousands. Most of the time no one comments on your entries, and sometimes you wonder if anyone even reads the comments you make in their journals, much less your own journal. I'd reckon that ten seconds after they read it no one will even remember that you wrote it or that you're on their flist. I've (mostly) made my peace with this, though I get a little grouchy from time to time. It takes me a while to decide how I want to respond to things and by then people have moved on to their new shiny and I feel like an idiot for still caring.

To that end, I'd like to link you to my latest bit of writing, which was about Studio 60 and was posted as a comment on Carrie's LJ, mostly because I like what I wrote. I would follow that up by saying that for all the people that have been killed and wars that have been waged in the name of capitalist imperialism, I don't see a lot of people screaming about how bad capitalism is, which makes the "religion kills" argument somewhat weak in my opinion; I more agree with Lord Peter Wimsey that "the first thing a principle does--if it really is a principle--is to kill somebody."

I had four bits of a post in my head this morning but two of them are moot at this point. The other two are about online friendship, and race. [Poll #834301]

I was thinking about how excited I am that there will be new VM tonight, which reminded me about that WB-UPN merger. (Hence the sifl & olly "I am a media geek" icon rather than the Veronica and Weevil drive off into the sunset icon.) ( The merger: Good for the viewer, bad for channel 9, because it's Les's world and we just live in it. )

Okay, so now I'm wondering if anyone has written Jeff Zucker/Les Moonves slash, which only confirms that fandom has taken over my brain.

( 1. Being a Fan, only not, part 1 )

( 2. Being a Fan, only not, part 2 )

( 3. Being a Fan, only not, part 3 )

( 4. Cross-posting )

And in the time I wrote this entry, I formulated my research question. Go me.

I don't usually do those tirades where you say that you are sick of reading entries that all say the same thing, but I'm making an exception today.

I'm tired of reading entries from people who are tired of the way that the media covers international events. I have spent so much time on this journal trying to explain the way that economic imperatives and various other things conspire to create the media industry that we have today, but does anyone decide that what they want to do is start writing letters to the FCC? No, they decide they want to bitch some more on their journal. Christ Jesus, shut the fuck up or start listening to Radio Pacifica or whatever the fuck you want because I no longer care.

Now, about the Papacy in general. I can understand if you think it's irrelevant because you are not Catholic. However, I would say that it's worthy of news coverage. The Church does have influence in many countries. I understand that there are several people on my flist who are far from Catholic but everyone bitching about this endlessly--I mean, if I said, alas for I am sick of hearing about Passover the entire LJ community would be in my journal calling me an anti-semite. It's hard rowing enough being a lapsed Catholic and having any faith at all and thinking that any of you lot think I have a brain in my head without all the not-so-subtle sarcasm and condescension. Let's remember that Christian /= moron.

So how do I feel? Of course I was hoping for a John XXIV, and of course I didn't think we would get one, but seriously, I wish we had done better than this. All I can say is, at least he's old. He doesn't even have JPII's benefits, and all of the downfalls. This is pretty damn sucky.

Then again, maybe he'll just excommunicate the entire American church and we can just go our own way. I'd be down with that, man.

ETA: And as for the Nazi stuff, I send you to anw's entry on that fallacy.

Christmas weekend thanks for Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday.

I could write a reply to all the bitching about TV news but I've done it so many times before I feel like a broken record. They say it's a sign of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome, so I'm going to step back from the brink. All of you who think that TV news is going to bring you objective coverage that appropriately weights time spent to the relative importance of the story might want to think about that as well.

Meanwhile, I'm watching some daytime trash television before I hop into the shower and then go shopping. Ah, Springer. Though what I really love are the ads for ambulance chasers and ITT Technical Institute.

1-NBC cut a quick shot of an elderly patient's breast from the episode of ER that ran last night. They said they felt it was appropriate (and it would air after 10:30pm) but in the current climate they didn't want to cause their affiliates any headaches.

2-CBS pressured Janet to pull out of the Grammys. She wasn't going to perform (they are very strict about performing only songs that have been nominated, and she didn't release anything last year) but she was going to introduce a Luther Vandross tribute. CBS is also using a video delay to ensure there are no surprises during the show.

3-The NFL decided to take pop out of the halftime show for this Sunday's Pro Bowl in Honolulu, substituting hula dancers, traditional drummers, and local singers for a planned JC Chasez performance. He may still be singing the anthem, though.

4-Advertisers like Pepsi are angry because the halftime show has overshadowed the ads, which almost no one is talking about.

5-Some idiot woman in Tennessee has filed a class-action lawsuit claiming the incident caused everyone injury.

( Another little bit of American television economics for you. )

Red states and blue states, man. We are so clearly two countries, it's ridiculous.

This is for rabican, and also for vanityfair whom I'm sure wants us the f*** out of her LJ. If the rest of you would like to see the start of this conversation, go here.

The Peter Pan Syndrome was one of those pop psychology books that made the rounds of the daytime talk shows (this was back in '83, before things went tabloid, when all the shows were like Oprah and Phil Donohue). I think it was the first one to make use of a children's book character. It was written for women who are in relationships with men who "never grew up", like Peter Pan. These men behave irresponsibly, rarely take other people's feelings into consideration before doing something, and generally behave like they are the only people that matter (unless they want something from you, in which case they will behave like you are the only person that matters). Dr. Kiley claims it stems from persmissive parenting; he was part of that backlash against Dr. Spock. As in the Barrie book, the wives become Wendy--they mother him, clean up after his messes, etc. And as soon as they become mama, they're sunk, because Peter Pan will have no reason to change his behaviour in any way. If you look back at the original book, Wendy is mothering Peter Pan even though they are sort of the same age. The Peter Pan figure is generally a charming rogue, which is how he gets away with what is essentially classic narcissistic personality behaviour. That's what I meant by Peter Pan not being all sweetness and light--there are consequences to never growing up, to endlessly living a boys adventure tale. Maybe not to him, but certainly to the people around him, and there are a LOT of people who have suffered because of Sirius' heedlessness.

Hermione could become a Wendy if she isn't careful; it's why R/Hr would do her such a disservice but H/Hr would be good for her. Harry doesn't listen to her half the time anyway. However, that isn't to say that Ron is a Peter Pan; he isn't. But put some charmer in front of Hermione in the right mood and watch out.

Tinderblast, I hope this answers your questions, but feel free to reply for more clarification. And thanks again for the shibby icons.