Best – Page 8 – HystericallyBored

In his dissent in Mr. Florence’s case, Judge Louis H. Pollak, a former dean of Yale Law School, was also skeptical of the majority’s theory. “One might doubt,” he wrote, “that individuals would deliberately commit minor offenses such as civil contempt — the offense for which Florence was arrested — and then secrete contraband on their persons, all in the hope that they will, at some future moment, be arrested and taken to jail to make their illicit deliveries.”

The older I get and the more I see of cases like that of Mr. Florence the more I believe that the difference between criminality and civility in our society depends upon who was first to pull out the gun.

Mr. Florence got a ticket once. In 2003 he committed a traffic offense. He paid his fine. He obtained a letter from the court certifying that he had paid his fine– God knows why he even thought for a second he would ever need it. Just because he was black? Because he was a financial adviser to a car dealership and made a decent wage? Because he drove a BMW? [You know, I suspect that a certain segment of the population has already sighed a little sigh of condescension: well– he’s black and driving a BMW…..]

Then, in 2005, Mr. Florence was pulled over. His wife was driving and his four-year-old son was in the back. The cop called up the record of the offense and arrested Mr. Florence on the spot. Mr. Florence showed him the document from the court showing that he had paid the fine for the offense. The cop– representing you and me and all other white taxpayers, and Clarence Thomas, one must suppose, because he sure as hell didn’t seem to represent any coloured taxpayers– arrested him anyways. He was held for eight days.

You don’t believe that? I don’t either. Here’s a direct quote from the NY Times article:

Mr. Florence was nonetheless held for eight days in two counties on a charge of civil contempt before matters were sorted out.

Say what you want about the NY Times, they almost always have the facts right, so I believe it.

But here is the issue germane now– maybe– to the Supreme Court: he was ordered to strip, bend over, and separate his cheeks while a group of manly police officers looked on.

Mr. Florence is asking the court to rule that such intrusive, humiliating actions are not justified by the law. The prosecutors argue that such procedures are justified by the enormous risk of people driving around with drugs or weapons stuffed into their anuses on the off chance that a police officer might stop them, call up a paid traffic ticket on their computers, and prove incapable of decoding the information correctly and decide this person was a threat to society and needed to be locked up in the same jail cell as a rich convict who had secretly arranged the entire thing from his prison cell and doesn’t care where the contraband has been.

The black man on the Supreme Court will relish ruling against him, but what about the seven sane members (Scalia, in my view, is nearly a psychopath) who might consider Judge Pollak’s perspective above.

What kind of person believes the police should have the right to pick up a man — seemingly at random– and strip search him and hold him for eight days… for a traffic offense (if one were to assume, crazily, for a moment, that Mr. Florence was even guilty of not paying the fine)?

Yes, the Supreme Court said, “that’s all right, that’s all right, that’s all right with me…”

[Update 2022-04-30]

And of course it was a 5-4 decision. But don’t worry– Amy Coney Barrett has assured us that the Court is not political and of course the 5 who voted in favor of this outlandish travesty were not Republican Appointees (oh yes they were).

2011-03-052022-05-05

Bill’s Top 50 Canadian Singles of All Time

Bill’s Personal Choices: Canada’s top 50 singles.

On the CBC’s list:

There are some great songs on the list, but “Four Strong Winds” as number 1??!! “Snowbird”, that bland, vacuous, treacly, schmaltz at #19? “Life is a Highway”? Tell me, do you think anyone else ever thought of the highway as a metaphor for life? Or flogged “all night long” as a chorus? “Summer of ’69”? An embarrassing rehash of Bob Seger’s most obvious lyrics.

There was an obvious, alarming tendency to prostrate us all before the gods of international popular acceptance. So Sarah McLachlan had to be on the list, even though it’s hard to think of a single song by her that was so outstanding that it deserved to finish ahead of, say, “Lovers in a Dangerous Time” written by Bruce Cockburn and performed by the Bare Naked Ladies. Or even fluff like Joni Mitchell’s “Big Yellow Taxi”, which I can’t believe even she herself took seriously…. (“Court and Spark” would have been a far more interesting choice.) And where, in heaven’s name, are the Northern Pikes and Crash Test Dummies? Oh– I get it. Didn’t have any U.S. hits.

If you think “Canadian Railroad Trilogy” is so great (#6), tell me, when was the last time you actually listened to it?

And all those factories and businesses that the railroad brought to Canada– “for the good of us all”?

It could have been worse. Celine Dionne and Walter Ostenak did not make the list, though Paul Anka did.

My number one is Neil Young’s “Helpless”, because it captures that resigned Canadian acceptance of over-arching doom, and its shadings of hopes and dreams– so Un-American in it’s denial of personal control. And it has one of the greatest lines ever, in Canadian music: “In my mind, I still need a place to go; all my changes were there”.

“If I had a Million Dollars”– is it a novelty tune like “Hockey Song”? Maybe. But it’s also wittier and funnier and quintessentially Canadian– who else would buy Kraft Dinner with their million dollars?

Bill’s Highly Disputable List of Top Canadian Popular Songs. Not quite 50 yet…

No, “Snowbird” does not make the list.

Rank	Song	Artist
1	Suzanne [1966]	Leonard Cohen
1.1	Helpless	Neil Young
2	Famous Blue Raincoat	Leonard Cohen
4	Early Morning Rain	Gordon Lightfoot
4.1	That’s What you Get for Lovin’ Me	Gordon Lightfoot.
5	Cowgirl in the Sand	Neil Young
6	Echo Beach	Martha & the Muffins
7	Lovers in a Dangerous Time	Bruce Cockburn.
8	Venice is Sinking	Spirit of the West
9	Old Man	Neil Young
9.5	The Weight	the Band
10	Both Sides Now	Joni Mitchell
11	Heart of Gold	Neil Young
12	Barrett’s Privateers	Stan Rogers
12.5	Superman’s Song	Crash Test Dummies
12.75	Dream Away	Northern Pikes
13	Court and Spark	Joni Mitchell
14	Tears of Rage	the Band
14.1	Where Evil Grows	Poppy Family
14.2	American Woman	The Guess Who
15	You Were on my Mind	Ian & Sylvia
15.5	Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm	Crash Test Dummies
16	Montreal	Blue Rodeo
17	Stage Fright	The Band
19	Born to be Wild	Steppenwolf
20	First We Take Manhattan	Leonard Cohen
21	Down by the River	Neil Young
22	Hallelujah	Leonard Cohen
23	Wake Up	Arcade Fire
24	Scared	Tragically Hip
25	Old Man	Neil Young
26	Hey Hey, My My	Neil Young
27	Home for a Rest	Spirit of the West
28	Carrie	Joni Mitchell
29	If I Had a Million Dollars	Bare Naked Ladies
30	What a Good Boy	Bare Naked Ladies
31	Tokyo	Bruce Cockburn
32	Universal Soldier	Buffy Ste. Marie
33	Tell Me Why	Neil Young
34	Raised on Robbery	Joni Mitchell
35	1234	Leslie Feist
36	Take This Longing	Leonard Cohen
37	Which Way You Goin’ Billy	Poppy Family
40	Sh-Boom [1955]	the Crew Cuts
41	Superman’s Song	Crash Test Dummies
42	Woodstock	Joni Mitchell
43	So Long Marianne	Leonard Cohen
44	For Free	Joni Mitchell
45	A Man Needs a Maid	Neil Young
46	Heart Like a Wheel	Kate and Anna McGarrigle
47	Complainte Pour Ste-Catherine	McGarrigle Sisters
48	Black Day in July	Gordon Lightfoot
49	Come Calling	Cowboy Junkies
50	Come all Ye Fair and Precious Ladies	Rankin Family

Absolutely positively never ever going to make my list: K. D. Lang’s awful, overwrought delivery of Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah”, the pinnacle of self-serving, claustrophobic, look-at-me-sing-oh-god-I’m-so-humble-I-can’t- believe-it-narcissism. Her rendition robs the lyrics of every ounce of meaning and context and it’s a performance calibrated for people with a shallow understanding of “she tied you to her kitchen chair/she broke your throne and she cut your hair”, a vague sense of titillation, and a conviction that the louder, more ostentatious voice, the deeper the meaning.

And that goes double for Rufus Wainwright’s whiney, weaselly cover. And shame on “Shrek” for trivializing the whole thing by putting into a cartoon about a troll that farts.

Check John Cale’s version for a corrective.

2011-03-052022-04-30

Foreign Aid

I have an absolutely brilliant idea for aid organizations in the U.S. Go to the government, congress, and the president, and make a simple proposal.

Propose that the government hold a referendum on how much of the U.S. budget should be devoted to foreign aid.

Many U.S. politicians whine on and on about what the American people want: well, here’s your chance to put your money where your mouth is. Let’s see what the American people want to do about foreign aid.

So let’s ask the American voter: how much should we give to poor countries to help them out, as a percentage of the federal budget? The results will be binding upon the government. It will allocate the amount chosen by the tax-payers (either an average or plurality) for foreign aid, working through existing, reputable agencies, for the next four years. Say, offer a choice of a) 10%, b) 7%, C) 5%, D) 1%, E) less than 1%.

No shenanigan’s here: ask what absolute amount– not how much it should increase or decrease (they will almost always say “decrease” because the perception is that we already give too much).

I am very sure that American aid agencies will benefit beyond their wildest imaginations! They will receive 10, 20 times what they normally receive. The world will be blessed.

You see, it is true that most Americans think that foreign aid should be cut. At this time of fiscal crisis, that’s the first item on the list. Fair enough– so what do you think it should be cut to?

Well, first of all, how much do you think we spend right now? The answer might surprise you. The average American voter thinks the U.S. spends 10, 15% on foreign aid. They think that because, though they don’t think of themselves as being that generous, they think those liberals in the government probably are, and they probably give too much. Twelve percent? Are you nuts? In this day and age? We got needs at home! We need to take care of our own first.

All right — so how much do you think is the right amount? I would guess that they would find 5% pretty reasonable. That’s not really very much for a wealthy country like the U.S. If U.S. citizens are suffering under this recession and under the relentless attacks on working Americans by the Republican Party, they are at least, generally not starving to death, as they are in the Sudan, Ethiopia, and even areas of Pakistan after the flooding this past year.

Well, times are tough: maybe 4%.

What does the U.S. actually give in foreign aid?

Here’s the number: .4%

Yes, 4/10s of 1%. You read that right.

So even if they chose a ridiculously low amount like 2%, the poor of the world would rejoice.

2011-03-012022-04-30

The Wonder Years Without the Music

Here’s my second brilliant idea of the month!

As you may or may not have heard, a well-regarded TV series, “The Wonder Years”, has never been released on DVD. Why not? Lots and lots of people want it. Well, the problem is that “The Wonder Years” used a lot of popular music in the background of many episodes. At the time, the cost of using pop music in a tv show or movie was negligible. Now it is not. Everyone got greedy. Of course, the owners of “The Wonder Years” are also greedy– they are dissatisfied with the amount of money they will make if they have to pay all those royalties.

The funny thing is, you could probably acquire most of the songs used in the show for a very reasonable cost, if you just bought them on iTunes. Maybe you already have copies of those songs. In fact, if you are fan of the “The Wonder Years”, chances are pretty good that you already have a fully licensed, fully paid for copy of the songs used in the show.

So what we need is software.

What we need is for the owners of “The Wonder Years” to release the series on special DVD’s without the expensive already paid-for music. You put the DVD in your computer and this special software scans your hard drive, finds the missing music, and synchronizes it. Then it burns the entire DVD to a new blank. Problem solved.

The only problem is that this would make naked a little-understood fact about copyright: you are paying twice, three, four times for the right to listen to the same song, whether you have the album, the CD, the iTunes version, or a movie or TV show with that song on it, your wedding video (if your videographer paid for and charged you for the rights– not likely.)

And by the way, it’s not the artists who are greedy, of course. It’s people who usually swindled the artists out of their rights in the first place. They’ll be damned if you get to watch “The Wonder Years” or the great documentary on the civil rights movement, “Eye on the Prize” with the music.

Fred Savage, who played “Kevin” on “The Wonder Years” grew up surrounded by some of the most beautiful and, in the case of his co-star Danica McKellar, smart, women in Hollywood.

Who did he end up marrying? Someone he met in kindergarten.

I had stopped watching “The Wonder Years” after a year or so because I thought it was getting too precious, and I began to find the narration annoying. I just read a TV critic who feels that the narration “made the show”. Hey, maybe I was wrong. I don’t know. I won’t be able to re-examine the idea until it does finally get released on DVD. Or not.

2011-02-092022-04-30

The Black Swan

“Joan Crawford would have killed to play her. ” NY Times, on “Black Swan”.

And noted: “Dancers often spend more of their time in front of the mirror than before an audience”.

Okay– first of all I do want to say this: I think Natalie Portman is one of the most enlightened, smartest actresses working today. You may not want to see her as inspiration for your acting technique, but she is model of wisdom in every other respect. I’m not kidding– check out what she does and says in her non-Hollywood life. She’s very, very wise.

I’m going to add to that– Natalie Portman is at a priceless, searing stage of her life. She is smart enough to perceive the twisted effects of celebrity (the perverse obsession with her role in “Leon: The Professional” for example and the sexualization of her image as a boyish naïf from all of her movies), but not old enough yet to resign herself to it. She expects better. But she is pleasingly reflective and down to earth and astute and it will be sad when she stops commenting on it and it becomes a part of her permanent emotional armour and we will have lost something.

However…

The biggest problem with “Black Swan” is that director Darren Aronovsky and star Natalie Portman– who, by the way, is really a terrible actress– never really shows you the payoff: a talented dancer at work. They don’t know how. Watch fifteen minutes of Mike Leigh’s “Topsy Turvey”, or even “The Red Shoes”, and then try to tell me it’s not possible. It absolutely is. “The Black Swan”, in fact, makes the worst mistake a movie of this type can make: it wallows in the suffering without even hinting at the reward, and in this kind of narrative, the only satisfactory explanation for the suffering– aside from pure monotonous psychosis– is the glory of the reward.

Just one example: at one point the director threatens to take the role away from Nina because she hasn’t demonstrated sufficient passion (which, cringingly, is linked to the director’s sexual fantasies). We are left clueless about just how wrenching, in real life, a decision like that would be. We are left with the impression of a parent threatening to take dessert away from a child if she doesn’t do her homework. We are left with the impression that the director actually chose, as his star of this production, someone he clearly believes is incapable of performing it.

It’s not really like he realizes he made a mistake. It’s like this: the viewer realizes that the director could never really had a good reason for choosing her in the first place, and the story loses all sense of believability.

We are left with the impression that someone else could just step into the role, precisely the opposite of what the director thinks the audience will think as Natalie Portman crinkles her face unpleasantly and weeps to tell us instead how much she suffers for her art.

I’ve said it before– the rule about showing a believable drunken man is to produce a man trying (and failing) to stand straight– not someone trying to look like he is falling over. Natalie Portman, for 90 minutes, looks like she’s trying to fall apart.

Joan Crawford or Bette Davis could have played this.

Why was Leslie Manville from “Another Year” not nominated for a “Best Supporting Actress” Oscar? Well, aside from the obvious– no powerful Hollywood machinery working on her behalf to get her the nomination– well… that’s about it. That’s why she doesn’t get the nomination. That’s why so many mediocre actors and actresses do get nominated.

So when Natalie Portman gets all tearful in a few weeks, convinced that her peers really chose her for this award, for her acting, for her dedication, for her unremarkable impersonation of a ballet dancer in a few select shots…. think about that last shot of Leslie Manville in “Another Year” realizing that whatever it is Tom and Geri have…. she doesn’t.

That is, simply, truly great acting– not the showy pseudo-method business that wins you Oscars.

2011-01-292022-04-30

127 Hours

Based on Aron Ralston’s book “Between a Rock and Hard Place”. Leaving aside the point that someone who did something unimaginably stupid (tracking off into the back-country without telling anyone where he was going) now commands $30K + to give inspirational speeches, this is a very compelling true story about how Ralston was trapped in a narrow crevice with a large chock-stone rock pinning his hand against the side, for 5 days. He had no cell phone or personal locator, only a small amount of water, and a dull knife. He had not, as I pointed out, told anybody where he was going. [Note Ralston’s not the only failure to cash in on his own stupidity. Click on the line to read about the commander of the Greeneville, who crashed into and sank a Japanese fishing vessel while essentially taking guests on a joy ride.]

As the world knows, Ralston eventually had to cut off his own arm to escape, and was rescued a few hours later by some Dutch hikers. Not much actually happens in the film, other than the obvious, but Boyle imbues the story with stylish flourishes, exploring Aron’s memories and feelings as his predicament becomes progressively grim. It’s well-filmed, at the exact location it happened.

I guess I missed the part where this is an “uplifting” paean to the human spirit– he made a stupid mistake and, like any sentient being, wanted very, very badly to survive, and that’s what the movie shows us. How you morph this into the theme of a speech so that everyone rises and applauds at the end is a mystery to me. We’re supposed to learn that we want to live. We’re supposed to be incredibly pleased that he did something so stupid he had to pay for it with part of his arm. So when you are out there thinking that you just want to die, think of Aron Ralston, and be inspired by his example: you want to live.

For my money, “Into the Wild”, about a not dissimilar situation, has far greater insight into the issues involved, distilled, at one moment, (in the film) into the sadness of Hal Holbrook’s face as he realizes that Chris McCandless is about to do something precisely that stupid. If you missed it– a far, far better film than “127 Hours”– “Into the Wild” is about a young man named Chris McCandless who was a bit of an adventurer (like Ralston) and a non-conformist (he gave away his college money to travel, penniless, around the country, hitch-hiking and camping out), who makes the reckless decision to try to survive on his own in the wilds of Alaska, hunting and fishing, and living off the land. The older adults around him can’t really try to stop him, but they know just how crazy and foolish he is, and they still like him, and try to discourage him.

The difference is that “Into the Wild” offers some thoughts about the idea of just running off like that, taking large risks, without the slightest thought for the loved ones you are possibly leaving behind. “Into the Wild” raises the suggestion that there is something self-centered and willfully naïve about that attitude. We still admire McCandless, and the adults he met on the road certainly found him likable– but that was precisely why his fate was so poignant. It wasn’t necessary. What was the upside to the risk?

In short: if you saw and admired “127 Hours”, please, please get yourself a copy of “Into the Wild” (2007), and think a lot about the differences. “Into the Wild” shows you what happened– like “127 Hours”– but it has a lot more wisdom to offer.

“127 Hours”, like “Slumdog Millionaire”, is a film that tries to give you the feeling that you’ve been through a bracing, intense, authentic experience, without having to actually have the authentic experience.

Which is not to say that watching an enlightening film enlightens anybody: really awful discussion IMDB.

Why is there no name for this syndrome of young men who admire the courage, the grace, the beauty of self-immolation? But we know about them. That’s where we get our killers from, whenever we need an army.

FYI the scene with the two girls at the idyllic pool in the cavern… yes, pure Hollywood. Didn’t happen. But you probably didn’t need to be told that, right?

In a film that is otherwise quite respectful of reality, I guess the producers couldn’t resist. I’m not sure I blame them entirely.

They also couldn’t resist going a little over the top at the end… you’re desperate, damnit! You’ve been trapped for five days! You think of your dear mother! So you push yourself on and on but your body gives out and you collapse! You’re delirious. Look delirious. More delirious!…

Or the audience won’t get it.

2011-01-182022-04-30

Robot Love

After the Performance: AI

There has been a bit of noise this week about the IBM computer that supposedly defeated some of the top human Jeopardy Contestants. I have rarely heard such unmitigated bullshit in the past few years. Consider this:

The computer was allowed to store the IMDB and several encyclopedias including Wiki on it’s hard drives. The human was not even allowed to use Google.

The computer did not express the slightest desire to play the game or win. The IBM programmers did. They cheated by having the IMDB and Wiki with them when they played while the human contestants, of course, did not even have a dictionary.

Some of the observers were dazzled that the computer was able to understand a rhyming word– what animal living in a mountainous region rhymes with “Obama”? They were surprised that the computer had been programmed to “know” that llama rhymes with Obama? You are indeed easily impressed.

The odd thing is that the computer’s performance hasn’t even been all that impressive, even if it was actually a “performance” in any human sense of the word. Apparently, it is offered the question in text rather than verbally. 25 IBM programmers in four years couldn’t do better than that? And why does it get a bye on the verbal questions? Human contestants can’t ask for a print out of the question before they offered verbally to other contestants.

This is a scam.

The bottom line, of course, is that computers can’t “think”. They will never think. All they can do is process data. The data and the processing are constructed by humans. The computer contributes nothing but the illusion of autonomous operation.

People who think computers think are staring at the puppets at a puppet show and wondering what they do at night after the performance.

2010-12-082022-05-10

Lost Obama

Reading the comments section of a piece on the New York Times website, one is struck by the unanimity and passion of the readers who feel that this last one, this deal with the Republicans to keep the Bush tax cuts, is the last straw: they will never vote for Obama again. They feel betrayed, disappointed, angry.

The depth and breadth of rejection is stunning– post after post after post, categorically insisting that Obama is done.

Why didn’t we just elect McCain/Palin and get it over with? Other than Health Care, is there anything important that would be different? Is the Health Care plan even all that great, after gutting it of all the genuinely progressive elements?

It is striking. It is almost tragic. Suppose they got really mad and decided they would support someone progressive and liberal and passionate in the next round of Democratic presidential primaries, someone who is about change, who promises a new approach to government, and who seems to genuinely care about the average working stiff: they will never know until it’s too late if that person is going to be another Obama. They will never know until it’s too late if that man or woman is going to be signing another massive tax break for rich people, or cutting social security, or putting people on trial in front of military tribunals.

The funny thing is, if a nut case like Sarah Palin got elected, she’d probably do exactly what she promises to do, leading us all into disaster after disaster, like Iraq, Afghanistan, coal-fired power plants, ethanol, and the collapse of the financial industry.

An esteemed colleague of mine makes a compelling case that it’s too early to judge– every recent president plunged in the opinion polls at this stage of his presidency. Clinton and Reagan both recovered. George W. barely recovered. Health care may yet prove to be the jewel of his administration and the economy could turn around and everyone might eventually forget all about the mid-terms and the winter of 2010. It’s possible.

It’s possible that it takes two years for a new man to really begin to fit into the suit of the presidency, to know the length of it’s sleeves, the ability to stretch, the tightness around the crotch. Maybe we will see somersaults in 2011 and 2012.

Obama has made some exceptional appointments, and the government is at least behaving rationally on a range of domestic issues that never see the front page. But like those readers of the New York Times, I wonder why when some asshole on the right campaigns on stupid ideas like environmental and banking deregulation and aggressive military policies and lower taxes for the rich, he gets to do exactly what he said he was going to do, but when someone rational on the left wins an election, he always seems to track so far to the middle you have to wonder why we even have two parties.

Why not just let the tax cuts expire? Obama made it reasonably clear that he wanted to keep the tax cuts for the lowest earning Americans and the middle income Americans. Why not refuse the deal with the Republicans and say, fine, let them all expire. Most Americans, in poll after poll, support the elimination of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans, as Obama proposed. Why didn’t he have the guts to fight for it? He just traded about $4 trillion in benefits to the well-off for about $56 billion in aid for the jobless.

Very, very good deal if you are rich in America. In fact, there’s a word for it, if you are rich in America, during a time of economic hardship and war: “obscene”.

He won’t get credit for extending the tax cuts anyway– the Republicans will be crowing about this for years to come. They’ll let everyone know that Obama was against it, even though he signed it into law. He won’t get credit for compromising– this kind of compromise looks weak and indecisive. And the projected deficits will be even bigger than they already were, which the Republicans will use as an excuse to attack Social Security and Medicare.

That’s the Republican way: create deficits and then campaign as fiscal hawks.

It looks for all the world like a lose-lose situation, and it looks humiliating and insulting and embarrassing.

Is it a done deal? I’m watching with great curiosity. There is a bit of rumbling among Congressional Democrats that they might not vote for it. It’s a very intriguing idea. Especially if you just got creamed in the mid-terms and you have this feeling of having your noses rubbed in it.

Especially if you are ambitious and think there might be room of the left for an insurgency in 2012.

You should have voted for Hillary instead? What would she do differently? Well, take a cue from Bill, for one thing: Clinton stood up to the Republicans when they held the government hostage to their agenda in 1995.

What did Clinton do?

Armey replied gruffly that if I didn’t give in to them, they would shut the government down and my presidency would be over. I shot back, saying I would never allow their budget to become law, “even if I drop to 5 percent in the polls. If you want your budget, you’ll have to get someone else to sit in this chair!” Not surprisingly, we didn’t make a deal.

Wow. So what happened to the uncompromising Clinton? The highest approval ratings since he took office in 1992.

On the other hand, the glee with with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell greeted the announcement of the deal is positively nauseating.

2010-11-092022-05-10

CBC News: Copying CNN’s Dismal Formula

Richard Stursberg came to the CBC about six years ago, hired some American consultants who told him that people want more weather, more banter, more light news, more trivia in theirs newscasts, and systematically destroyed the least worst news broadcast in Canada.

My wife and I now watch PBS news from the U.S. I’ve tried out CTV occasionally. Incredibly, it is better than the CBC National. I didn’t think I would ever be saying that.

So here’s the CBC: Nancy Wilson is the hostess on the weekend. She is a perfect little hostess and I think she should take time out from her busy hosting gig to maybe hock a little Tupperware or Avon on the side. In the meantime, she conveys to the viewer just how remarkably trivial the world is out there. One minute it’s a tornado or earthquake or war killing thousands of people, the next it’s chilly out there– did you bring a sweater, Mark? Might be a good day to curl up with a warm book. Did I mention the airplane crash? Let’s go to the reporter in the news room– look! He’s got his sleeves rolled up! He must be working very hard, and you can tell he’s incorruptible because, for God’s sake, he has his sleeves rolled up. And he’s moving! He’s walking from one desk to… where-ever. The camera is moving with him. By golly, this is real news I care about, not some mere journalist. And now, let’s cut to Diane to explain how we can keep our kids safe from meteorites– Diane? Diane has moved to the same desk as Nancy– they are having a conversation about the news, just like people you know.

I’ll admit, the PBS Newshour seems a little dry in comparison. There is a ten or fifteen minute lead story, explored in depth, then the news headlines, then three more stories, usually, each allotted about 15 minutes. Fifteen minutes, compared to most news broadcasts, is a lot of time. Stories can be explained and analyzed in depth. The expert guests often look rather plain– you immediately suspect they were recruited for their expertise rather than their looks.

Stursberg has now resigned, with no explanation. I hope the CBC realizes they made a big mistake and chooses to head off in a different direction. The first step should be to unmakeover the National.

Am I the only one who does not like the National makeover? No, not by a long shot. Ratings are down between 30 and 40%. More on Richard Stursberg.

The idea was that even if old fogies like me get pissed off, the new format would attract young people. One prays for future generations if they’re right.

So, when do they admit failure and move on to something more interesting?

By the way, CTV News ratings are currently about double the CBC’s.

The CBC makeover into a pale clone of CNN is not a coincidence. The chairman of the CBC, Richard Stursburg, openly wanted the CBC to be more like the big American stations.

So that’s why we also got absurd programs like “The Border” and “Dragon’s Den” and “Battle of the Blades” and “All for one with Debbie Travis”.

Category: Best

The Psychopathic Justice