Whitney Matheson and Aaron Schatz
"Save Our Shows": Are There Any Worth Salvaging?
By Aaron Schatz
Posted Monday, April 2, 2001, at 12:21 PM ETWhitney,
Wow, I've been looking forward to appearing at the "Breakfast Table" since my college years, when I was but a wee Kinsley-worshipping acolyte. This morning for breakfast, we have banana yogurt and delicious, office-brewed Lycos coffee. Thanks for coming along. I promise Slate readers there will be very little discussion of tax cuts in this space.
I guess, riffing off last week's Breakfast Table, we should agree at the very beginning not to refer to each other as "Whit" and "A.J." Speaking of A.J., I missed seeing him on The Sopranos last night; I think that as he's grown older, he has become my favorite character. I know you just got cable; did you catch last night's episode? A great one, but I must admit that The Kinks' "Living on a Thin Line" never quite struck me as a song I wanted to watch women pole-dance to.
Monday morning for me means counting the new Lycos 50, my raison d'etre. It takes a couple of hours to put it all together, so I won't have results to discuss until later today. But on first glance, what hits me is how popular the search term "Jennifer Lopez" is. It looks like she's going into the top 10 thanks to that Oscar dress, and the dress itself may make the list. Last February "Jennifer Lopez's Grammy dress" actually made the Lycos 50 for three straight weeks, all on its own. I know you were a big fan of the Björk swan dress, so we'll have to see who got a bigger rise in searches thanks to a wacky fashion statement.
Speaking of J. Lo, there seem to be negligible searches for old flame Sean Combs under his new name, "P. Diddy." The only thing faster than a ride up the rap charts is a ride down the rap charts, which means there may be five or six '80s bands left who will never get to cash any Puff Daddy sampling royalty checks. I bet Mr. Mister is crushed.
Your newspaper is running its annual "Save Our Shows" column today. I took a peek at the list of shows, and none them really excite me. Honestly, is the world really a better place because Two Guys and a Girl is on the air each week? I think that show is listed in the dictionary under "harmless mediocrity," although it is nice to have a program on the air based in my neighborhood (Davis Square, Somerville, Mass.). I think I've watched the show twice, and once was an episode where they portrayed Tufts as a football powerhouse playing UCLA, the equivalent of seeing Marcia Gay Harden on the cover of Maxim.
Share this article on Digg
Share this article on Buzz
Your thoughts? Will your life be less complete if The Weber Show is cancelled?
Aaron
P.S.: Do you listen to music while you work? I always do. Current choice: Liquid Skin by British band Gomez.
"Save Our Shows": Are There Any Worth Salvaging?
By Aaron Schatz
Posted Monday, April 2, 2001, at 12:21 PM ETWhitney Matheson writes "Pop Candy," a weekly pop-culture commentary for usatoday.com. She also compiles a daily entertainment Weblog. Aaron Schatz writes the "Lycos 50," a daily review of the people, places, and things users are searching for online. Reader Comments From The Fray:
[Wednesday notes from the Fray Editor: Well we're enjoying a nice level of meta-discussion about the Internet, as obviously all Fray workers and posters are top experts in this matter. Fletch suggested that one line from the post below by (noted troublemaker) Neill Hamilton should be the Fray's official motto: "The whole point of things is to argue about them." We think his entire post could be a Mission Statement for Fray posters, it so accurately sums up their world view.
Mangar has a post enticingly titled "All the answers, right here," which leads to a very nice thread. We like Biff's sentence "Since this is the 'Breakfast Table' I'll try to be as pointless and incoherent as possible," though obviously his thesis is totally wrong. We were hoping that Fraypersons would start telling us what they were listening to while they posted, but as the Breakfast Tablers seem to have given up on this too... if you're not careful we'll start telling you in our Notes what the Fray team of musical experts is listening to.]
The whole point of things is to argue about them. While this maybe my legal training bubbling to the surface, the point of things placed in the public commerce of ideas is for them to be debated. What other purpose does Bobby Valentine exist for, except to second guess him on sport radio talk shows? Just because our debate and argument has no effect on the outcome doesn't change our God given right and duty to complain. Hence [any] argument that we should simply accept things is a very denial of of why we were placed on earth. Only Republicans and atheists would attempt to deny God's plan by telling us to shut-up.
--Neill Hamilton
(To reply, click here.)
The voice-mails are still there [on the Psychoexgirlfriend.com site]. You have to scroll down from the ads. If anything, the "hoax" claim has been even more interesting than the site itself. In the end, the early registration date is the only real evidence that the site is a hoax, but it seems perfectly plausible to me that this guy registered the site before all the voice-mails had been left in anticipation of this eventual bonanza. Once you deal with that problem the rest of the argument falls apart. For instance, the fact that the ads are so sophisticated and annoying: it again seems more than plausible that this guy simply took whatever advertising he could get to keep the site going. It must be a real money pit.
Anyway, the hoax argument seems to have entered the conventional wisdom at this point, even to the point that people are announcing that the voice mails aren't even there. The only thing more popular than getting on board a fad is getting on board the debunking of the fad. Around and around we go on this wonderful, productivity-enhancing thing called the Internet
--Michael Paisner
(To reply, click here.)
[Monday notes from the Fray Editor: Pop culture: worthwhile subject or red herring? The Fray isn't sure. No less a personage than Wakefield's wife (and a warm welcome to you ma'am) declared firmly that she was not up for "the adulation of those who're already more than adulated", part of a long and interesting thread. Charmy summed up the arguments nicely, and we really want to know the answers to these questions: do Slate readers fantasize about Washington parties? Does Norm Sloan of NC State have the most garish sports jackets of anyone who ever appeared on TV on regular basis (here)? Have the Old 97s really lost it (here)? Is the correct answer to "Madonna: soul sister or plantation mistress?" in fact another question: "Madonna: One Smart Cookie--or just a silly, rich Pop Tart?" Answers please from Fray posters and Breakfast Tablers.]
I think most people have their gossipy side. And it isn't that much fun to discuss the scandalous personal lives of the politicians and the punditariat (they aren't very attractive, most of 'em), or what they're wearing. In politics, we tend to deride the idea of having someone as an "image" or an "icon," branding themselves like Madonna. In pop culture, this is a time-honored custom. We're invited to fixate on these stars, imagine their lavish houses and parties, etc, whereas I doubt Slate readers fantasize about being invited to Washington parties. Though I think there's a few distinctions to be made. Discussing pop culture that one doesn't personally consume sometimes gets boring (because of the air of condescension, "I would never watch that awful Spears girl").
--Charmy
(To reply, click here.)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
I Have Seen the Future of Apple, and It Is Boring
Blogs Are Full of Hot Air. But Are They Causing Global Warming?
Handsomest Surgeon General Ever?
Why Obama Really Picked Panetta To Run the CIA
How Many Albinos Are There in Tanzania, Anyway?
The Pentagon Is Building Robots To Raise Children
Reader Comments From The Fray:
[Wednesday notes from the Fray Editor: Well we're enjoying a nice level of meta-discussion about the Internet, as obviously all Fray workers and posters are top experts in this matter. Fletch suggested that one line from the post below by (noted troublemaker) Neill Hamilton should be the Fray's official motto: "The whole point of things is to argue about them." We think his entire post could be a Mission Statement for Fray posters, it so accurately sums up their world view.
Mangar has a post enticingly titled "All the answers, right here," which leads to a very nice thread. We like Biff's sentence "Since this is the 'Breakfast Table' I'll try to be as pointless and incoherent as possible," though obviously his thesis is totally wrong. We were hoping that Fraypersons would start telling us what they were listening to while they posted, but as the Breakfast Tablers seem to have given up on this too... if you're not careful we'll start telling you in our Notes what the Fray team of musical experts is listening to.]
The whole point of things is to argue about them. While this maybe my legal training bubbling to the surface, the point of things placed in the public commerce of ideas is for them to be debated. What other purpose does Bobby Valentine exist for, except to second guess him on sport radio talk shows? Just because our debate and argument has no effect on the outcome doesn't change our God given right and duty to complain. Hence [any] argument that we should simply accept things is a very denial of of why we were placed on earth. Only Republicans and atheists would attempt to deny God's plan by telling us to shut-up.
--Neill Hamilton
(To reply, click here.)
The voice-mails are still there [on the Psychoexgirlfriend.com site]. You have to scroll down from the ads. If anything, the "hoax" claim has been even more interesting than the site itself. In the end, the early registration date is the only real evidence that the site is a hoax, but it seems perfectly plausible to me that this guy registered the site before all the voice-mails had been left in anticipation of this eventual bonanza. Once you deal with that problem the rest of the argument falls apart. For instance, the fact that the ads are so sophisticated and annoying: it again seems more than plausible that this guy simply took whatever advertising he could get to keep the site going. It must be a real money pit.
Anyway, the hoax argument seems to have entered the conventional wisdom at this point, even to the point that people are announcing that the voice mails aren't even there. The only thing more popular than getting on board a fad is getting on board the debunking of the fad. Around and around we go on this wonderful, productivity-enhancing thing called the Internet
--Michael Paisner
(To reply, click here.)
[Monday notes from the Fray Editor: Pop culture: worthwhile subject or red herring? The Fray isn't sure. No less a personage than Wakefield's wife (and a warm welcome to you ma'am) declared firmly that she was not up for "the adulation of those who're already more than adulated", part of a long and interesting thread. Charmy summed up the arguments nicely, and we really want to know the answers to these questions: do Slate readers fantasize about Washington parties? Does Norm Sloan of NC State have the most garish sports jackets of anyone who ever appeared on TV on regular basis (here)? Have the Old 97s really lost it (here)? Is the correct answer to "Madonna: soul sister or plantation mistress?" in fact another question: "Madonna: One Smart Cookie--or just a silly, rich Pop Tart?" Answers please from Fray posters and Breakfast Tablers.]
I think most people have their gossipy side. And it isn't that much fun to discuss the scandalous personal lives of the politicians and the punditariat (they aren't very attractive, most of 'em), or what they're wearing. In politics, we tend to deride the idea of having someone as an "image" or an "icon," branding themselves like Madonna. In pop culture, this is a time-honored custom. We're invited to fixate on these stars, imagine their lavish houses and parties, etc, whereas I doubt Slate readers fantasize about being invited to Washington parties. Though I think there's a few distinctions to be made. Discussing pop culture that one doesn't personally consume sometimes gets boring (because of the air of condescension, "I would never watch that awful Spears girl").
--Charmy
(To reply, click here.)