|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Monday, 11 December 2006 |
|
A few weeks ago I wrote about how the internet has made it possible for a person to watch more television than ever before without spending a dime; through shows made available online by the major networks. This week, I’ll enlighten you to something that is available on the internet (through iTunes), that you watch, but ultimately helps you watch less television. It sounds paradoxical, except for the part where it’s really not so much and so maybe I guess I’ll downgrade it to a mild catch-22.
This magical new thing in television is called The Soup. It’s the next generation of show in the lineage of E!’s Talk Soup. Talk Soup was a show that boiled down the funny moments of talk shows, made them into nice little out of context clips, and then made fun of them.The Soup isn’t much different except for a shift in focus. The net the show covers has been expanded to include reality television, celebrity gossip, Spanish telenovelas, and even shop-from-home network segments.
This blend of elements doesn’t exactly sound like the most tasty or even tasteful brand of television viewing. Honestly, not even I’m interested in any of the elements I listed above on their own, but everyone knows that certain elements of bad things can run off the edge of the scale and loop back around to the other side. We’ve all watched hours upon hours of blaxploitation movies for the unintended comedic value. It’s unavoidable.
This is where The Soup shines, and how it ultimately allows you to watch less television. The soup distills the funniest unintended moments from each of those areas into a nice decoupage of Dr. Phil telling someone, “that is one skanky-lookin’ coke whore,” Tyra Banks yelling that it’s a “Panty Party” on the set of her show in order to help women with their self esteem, and self-centered narcissists explaining point-blank to the camera that they’re just misunderstood on their reality show. All of this is served up to you with funny puns and occasionally obvious, but unavoidable, jokes from the show’s very handsome host, Joel McHale.
I think the most refreshing aspect of The Soup, for me, is the perspective the show brings. There’s a lot of crazy television on the air. Not all of it has to be taken, or even deserves to be taken, seriously. If there’s a show that is showcasing something completely ridiculous, in a completely serious way, they will be nailed by The Soup. The show doesn’t care about politics, ratings, or the feelings of the people who make fools of themselves in the public space. If Pat O’Brien is going to play tennis with Anna Nicole Smith in the Bahamas while wearing a full suit and jacket, then there’s going to be someone to answer to come Friday at 10PM.
The future is here. You don’t have to watch hours upon hours of bad television to find the unintentionally funny moments. The Soup does it for you in a nice 22 minute package every week. I didn’t even know I needed a service like that until it was available!
|
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Monday, 20 November 2006 |
|
This week I have decided to devote my column to someone that makes a big impact on my life everyday. She helps feed me. It may not sound like a lot, but it definitely falls under the headings of important and critical. This woman is none other than The Retreat’s Hostess, Jackie Carroll.
She’s the type of person who always remembers your name, and inquires as to what your friends are up to that night if they happen to not accompany you. She is a sort of grandmotherly figure that is important to have available, particularly to those of us who are away from home. She makes The Retreat feel like a homely, comfortable place to be. I have always appreciated that, and it has always gone without saying.
That is, until this year’s Homecoming. She was voted Faculty Homecoming Queen this year thanks to a large group of students who appreciate the work she does every night for them. It was satisfying to see that happen for her, because so often the people who are so nice to you day in and day out, when they don’t necessarily have to be, go underappreciated. It felt good to be able to show her how much we appreciate her.
I could write about how much that experience meant to her here, but it would be empty. I am not her, and so it wouldn’t mean as much even if the words I wrote were the exact ones she would say. Thankfully, Jackie was willing to speak for herself. So today I will end my column with her open letter:
“When I learned that I had been nominated for the Homecoming Royalty Court I felt both excited and honored. It was an amazing week for me. Some students came into the Retreat on Thursday before the week of Homecoming and told me I had to be at Irving Gym on the following Monday night at 7:00pm, and to make sure I got that night off work. I talked to Polly, my manager, she took care of it, and I was able to go.
At Homecoming, I got to meet some of the faculty and see students with their smiling faces. I was really surprised when my name was called for Queen. It was such an honor to be nominated, but then to be crowned was the most exciting thing that has happened to me in a long time. I got to wear a tiara and sit on the back of a convertible for the first time in my life. However, the best part of the parade was hearing the students cheer for me as I waved to them along the way.
I also got to go to dinners served by the people of Ball State University Dining(which were outstanding), and meet the entire Homecoming Royal Court. But, the most exciting time by far, was at the football game at half-time when Todd Porter and I were introduced at half-time. The cheers of the students were wonderful and made me tear up.
I just want the students, faculty, and staff to know how exciting that week was for me, and how much I appreciate all of your votes. Thank you all for a most wonderful experience, and an exciting time.” --Jackie Carroll
|
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Sunday, 05 November 2006 |
|
Something happened on Friday that made my day. It was walking past a television in the Arts & Journalism building and seeing Christian Evangelical Pastor Ted Haggard’s face on CNN with the words “Accused of Having Sex with Gay Prostitute,” at the bottom of the screen.
Most people wouldn’t have recognized the man, but I did because over the summer I was able to see Richard Dawkin’s short BBC series called The Root of All Evil which hypothesized that religious evangelism was the source of most, if not all, the evil in the world. This man, Ted Haggard, had a debate with Dawkins at his home parrish in Colorado Springs. The debate centered around whether or not evolution was well enough supported by science to be sure that it was happening or had happened. Dawkins represented the science side of the debate while Haggard represented the Christian Evangelical point of view. It culminated in Ted Haggard screaming at Richard Dawkins and angrily forcing him off his property.
This is why I was happy to see the news on CNN on Friday. It’s not that I like to see people in pain, or be brought down. It’s that it felt like a substantial blow to a very vocal, and very unreasonable, minority that want to force their will on the majority.
Haggard has spoken openly, and at length, on many occasions about his beliefs that evolution is false and that to be gay is to be an evil sinner. Suffice to say, he’s anti-gay marriage, and I feel that this is an unreasonable stance.
Let’s do some math. I assure you it will be simple. There exist two variables; A and B. A is equal to B in every way. So then if you were to perform any mathematical operation on them the result would be equal every time between them because they are equal. A + B is equal to B + B is equal to A + A is equal to B + A. This makes perfect sense.
In this country, men and women are supposed to be equal. What is available for one, at the public level, must be made available to the other. Isn’t it sexism then to require for a marriage license that people in a pair not be the same sex as each other? Men and women are supposed to be treated equally. To say that gay people cannot marry is to say that one or both members of the pair deserve to be treated differently at a public level, and not equally. This is unacceptable and unreasonable.
Christian Evangelical Ted Haggard represented 30 million such people, and stopped representing them when they, and the world, found out he was a fraud. I feel the proof is in his reaction. People like Haggard love to argue about their beliefs. They don’t hold back their very unreasonable and unpopular opinions. So the fact that he has nothing to say and has no defense for this new information is an admission of guilt, because it is so much against-type for his character. He has an answer for every question about evolution. Yet, he vacates his pulpit the very second his true nature his brought to light.
I sleep better knowing that the people know the truth about Ted Haggard, and that a figurehead for the unreasonable has been brought down. I sleep better knowing that the world is finally waking up to the idea that there’s a good reason these people speak far too loudly about issues that shouldn’t be any big deal.
Gay marriage shouldn’t be a big deal. Men and women are supposed to be treated equally, and not allowing people of the same gender to marry is a violation of this. End of story.
|
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Monday, 23 October 2006 |
|
The future is finally here. Not today’s future, but the one from about 8 years ago. It was at that point everyone started announcing that the internet was the wave of the future and we would be able to do everything we would ever want in this brand new and exciting way. They said it would force television into obsolescence, and put newspapers out to pasture.
Fortunately, none of those things have happened. We still have television to feed our need for weekly serial dramas about people stuck on islands that bear a remarkable resemblance to Hawaii, and we still have newspapers to provide us with our daily dose of ink of dead trees. The internet hasn’t made anything go away. It has just given us new, and sometimes better, ways to do the things we’ve always been doing.
Thankfully, one of the more recent things the internet has made possible is a better way to watch television. ABC rolled out its flash-based television show streaming solution near the end of the last television season. This television season, CBS and Fox have joined the mix with their own versions of the technology. These services enable people to watch episodes of shows they might have missed, for free, with extremely limited commercial interruption. Seeing what you’ve missed is something that’s becoming more and more important as our television presentations begin to resemble those of movies, and less commercials is something we can all agree is a good thing.
I’m a horrible snob, but I love television. I like Lost, Grey’s Anatomy, Gilmore Girls, Veronica Mars, The Colbert Report, Penn & Teller’s Bullsh*t, and on occasion even Survivor. I love television, but I hate being chained to it every night of the week.
Now, I don’t have to be. Before, the only people who had this type of freedom with their television viewing were the people lucky enough to have a TiVo-like device. But for college students who don’t have money or control over their television system, TiVo’s aren’t available.
This is why I say the future is finally here. Thanks to the magic of the internet, anyone with a fairly decent speed internet connection can watch all sorts of television they may not have had time for before. I’ve not watched Survivor since the second season, but now I get to watch it and enjoy it at my leisure with 30 second commercial breaks. I couldn’t tell you what time it airs or on what channel, but I can tell you I’m enjoying the experience. That is what television is about for most people.
If you like the idea of free television on demand. Think about surfing to Fox.com, ABC.com, or CBS.com and giving it a try. Television on demand is something that people have been claiming to want for a long time, and I would hate to see it disappear from a lack of consumer demand. I can tell you from personal experience that it works wonderfully on the dorm internet connections, and you have nothing to lose because it will cost you nothing.
Every season I find myself watching more and more television than I have before. This television season is no exception, but I’ve also been busier than I ever have been before. Thanks to the internet, these two things don’t have to conflict.
|
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Saturday, 21 October 2006 |
|
As always, this carnival is not about whether or not the things are right or wrong. Those are value judgements based on a person's own character.
For example, I choose not to drink for reasons of my own. I feel it is wrong for me, but even though that is the case I cannot come out and say that it is wrong for anybody else.
It is not good policy to say that what is good for me must be good for everyone else. That's called solipsism.
This carnival is about things that are defensible philosophically, but unpopular on the whole.
This week's carnival received a multitude of entries, per usual, but only one made the cut. It's one of the best I've ever read about a very unpopular subject, feminism. While I usually pick a few less than stellar entries and include them, this week I did not want to do that. I wanted to draw attention to a post that is so good as to out-shine all the competition.
Entries
A very well-written response to feminists who think the government should be giving women a leg up was submitted, titled Memo to Old-Line Feminists
In Closing
If you had submitted a post for this edition of the Carnival of Correct, but Unpopular Ideas but did not see it here, it could have been for one of a few reasons.
- Submitting more than one post is fine, but please note I will only post the one I think is best supported and best represents the aim of this carnival.
- If posts have assumptions made without research to back them up they will not be included.
I think that about covers it. Thank you to whomever submitted a post to this edition of the carnival, and a special thanks must be extended to all of the readers this carnival was prepared for. Without you, there would be no reason to have a carnival.
Please use our carnival submission form if you would like to submit your blog article to the next edition. |
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Monday, 16 October 2006 |
|
Last week was an extremely lucky one for YouTube founders Steve Chen and Chad Hurley. I say lucky because they finally found a way to make serious money from the project they started 18 months earlier, and rid themselves of the responsibility of a site that falls under the category of problematic in the area of maintenance. One of the best kept secrets of one of the internet's most popular websites was that it wasn't making any money, primarily because of the site's content: streaming video. There is simply no faster way to burn bandwidth, especially when you start piling on millions of users without charging subscription fees or selling significant advertising. Two weeks ago, YouTube was the definition of a money pit. The site was millions of dollars in venture capital money in the hole with no end in sight, and there were quite a few lawsuits pending for copyright infringement. With the concept of YouTube being user-uploaded video, there was also no end in sight to the litigation. Though, Steve Chen and Chad Hurley probably knew all of this going in. Build it and flip it was their business model. It's one that's picking up steam fast with sites like MySpace selling to News Corp for $580 million dollars. The strategy goes like this. You build a dynamic site that contains only user-created content. It helps if the content can be grouped or rated somehow by the users to give them a sense of interaction. Then you get the 14-30 year old demographic on the site, and it spreads essentially like a virus once the ball starts rolling. A few months down the line you offload it to one of the large internet companies like Microsoft, Google, or Yahoo for exorbitant amounts of money. It's an incredible long shot, but that's how you make $1.65 billion dollars in 18 months. But as much as the founders of YouTube are breathing a sigh of relief upon the closing of the sale, the site was not a bad buy for Google. Google is a smart company, and definitely knew what it was getting. Google's own video solution, Google Video, failed to compete with YouTube over the last 18 months, and Google is one of the most successful online advertising companies. The name of the game at Google is automation. They've automated crawling the internet to index pages, as well as reliably ranking those pages by popularity and usefulness. Their crowning achievement, however, is automating the sale of advertising. Its very widely used AdWords and AdSense programs automate the advertisement sales and placement on a sliding scale depending on the amount of money advertisers are willing to pay for certain keywords. It's almost as if they've automated the general process of earning money. It's the perfect program for a site like YouTube that has an audience of 72 million people worldwide and an ever-increasing stable of content. It also helps that Google is no stranger to copyright lawsuits. Its book search indexing project has been halted many times, but things like copyright infringement suits tend to be much easier to handle with a team of lawyers on board and boatloads of cash. The $1.65 billion dollar question on everyone's mind right now is, was YouTube really worth nearly 3 times as much as MySpace? On that only time will tell, but I'd say it's a decent bet that it was. |
|
|