Pee-yoo! It's inconceivably bad. I'm not going to take the trouble to formulate sentences about how bad it is and why it's so bad. It's just too completely bad!
If you want more, go here, here, here, and here. (Via Memeorandum.)
१५ फेब्रुवारी, २००७
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३७ टिप्पण्या:
What would anyone expect? This turkey was previewed to advertising interests a while back. It will get a certain following among the "pull my finger hear me fart" crowd.
Saddest thing is that some people will cite it as a source for news and fact. Honest to God. They will. Just watch on here.
It's not as funny as this mini-mall dude...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiHaqCFQLxA
but it's funny.
But the other new FNC show, Red Eye, is pretty good.
Really, really awful. Who thought the viewers wanted a watered-down version of SNL news?
But it's clean and articulate, so they've got that going for them.
This is a repeat failure for conservatives in the entertainment industry. Whenever liberals make their movie/tv show clearly partisan, the audience hates it too. The reason why the Daily Show and the Colbert Report are funny is that they aren't completely partisan. They just lean left. Kind of like how South Park leans libertarian (or as the creators say, they hate liberals more than they hate conservatives) and many liberals enjoy the show.
I agree with Matthew's assessment. Don't know if he'll agree with mine. I don't have TV, so I'm not going to see it anyway, but in general, conservatives do better with an interactive media, liberals with a "set piece" media. The set piece requires a finely-tuned sense of the impression you are creating, the interactive requires a broad familiarity with the requisite information. (Note: I am purposely avoiding comment about depth of information for either group at present.) As currently constituted, liberals make more appeals to the social superiority of their ideas, conservatives to the debating superiority.
Wow. Those clips are bad.
The show's a piece of shit. Gee, what a surprise!
Conservatives simply aren't funny. At least not intentionally.
It would have been better if Coulter were the President and Rush the VP.
Could someone please name only 3 conservative comedians? You can't.
Americans have grown up listening to liberals making all the jokes that when a conservative or something politically incorrect comes around it looks completely alien to them and say it is not funny or possibly racist.
Check out www.ourcountry.com they are trying to do conservative comedy there too.
Jonathan,
I believe that Yakov Smirnoff and Dennis Miller would disagree with your assessment.
It will improve. My gripe with Fox is:
1) O'Reilly is a blowhard. Bad research. Fumbled badly by claiming [assertion without evidence] that Swifties were discredited. And again by calling the Minutemen "vigillantes" [they only spot illegals and call them in; they never engage]. He also interrupts his guest just as they are trying to make an interesting point [even the liberals - yes Bill I'd like to hear them finish]. Its very irritating. So I've stopped watching him.
2) Greta with her underwear-sniffing rubberneck. Chandra/Lacy/etc. victim-celebs being exploited for the amusement of people who stop to gawk at roadside accidents. I was impressed with her Clinton coverage at CNN during the impeachment, but now it looks like she's less about legal analysis and more about sensational panty sniffing. Oooh, breaking news - the prosecutor wore a red tie today! What do you think of Chandra Levy's pap smear, Greta?. Why can't she cover more important legal issues like eminent domain and SCOTUS?
"It is satirical, timely, and funny. It also has the additional merit of pointing out the silliness of political correctness."
Riiiight. Because comedians and shows like the Daily Show, Colbert Report, Chris Rock, Sarah Silverman, Dave Chappelle and all the rest are just lockstep PC thugs.
I think someone said it best when they said that this show is basically just about appealing to the bizarre alternate reality many conservatives live in. Look, we live in the same crazy reality as you, where like, gay penguins are so crazy and funny! Whoa!
Look, we live in the same crazy reality as you, where like, gay penguins are so crazy and funny! Whoa!
What? There are people who don't think that gay penguins are funny? Really? Come now, gay penguins. In what strange version of reality is that not funny? Penguins are amusing to begin with, and projecting our all-too-human concerns onto animals is funny. Therefore, QED, the combination is funny (asuming a competent joke writer).
Sorry, but while any given gay penguin joke could fall flat, that's no indictment of the idea. Just consider the fun that say, South Park, would have with it....or the Daily Show.
Can someone explain what is being lampooned with the Have a Cigar? line that President Rush feeds VP Coulter (who seriously needs a haircut, by they way)? President Clinton and Monica? (How timely!) Pelosi and the now smoke-free Speaker's Chambers?
If the audience can't tell, how is it supposed to be funny?
Two words: Bad Writing.
Whenever liberals make their movie/tv show clearly partisan, the audience hates it too.
"The West Wing" ran for seven openly partisan seasons. You can make a successful show about anything if the writing's good.
Matthew:
The Daily Show kind of leans left? Bullshit. It leans to far it's fallen over and made a massive crater in the ground.
I can't stand watching that show because of what the audience gives away: people laugh at jokes, but they cheer at speeches. Next time you watch TDS, compare the number of Stewart's lines that get hearty laughter vs. estatic whooping and cheering.
I was about to blog about the "1/2 Hour News Hour" this weekend, after I saw the show.
And the first thing I was going to say is, who came up with the title?
Maybe the same person who came up with the pulsating red Alert.
Alert. Alert. Alert.
Dopey.
Cheers,
Victoria
"The West Wing" ran for seven openly partisan seasons. You can make a successful show about anything if the writing's good.
This conservative's fav show was West Wing. I ignored all the strawmen. Sad too, because watching Sorkin's biased episodes is like watching Picasso paint with only half the color spectrum - the show could have been brilliant.
I agree with Fatmouse. Daily show jokes mostly get cheers, not genuine laughs. I find some of them very mean spirited, I balk at some of the jabs on Bush. And I am not even an American!
The clips were every bit as funny as just about everything Al Franken has done in the past decade, but that's not really saying much.
And I'd be much more impressed with the claims that Dems have a sense of humor and Repubs don't if a few Dems could laugh at themselves.
watching Sorkin's biased episodes is like watching Picasso paint with only half the color spectrum - the show could have been brilliant.
And sometimes it was. My favorite episode had Sam acting as an advocate for the daughter of a man who was accused of being a Soviet spy in the "bad old days".
At the end, the National Security Advisor calls him in and shows him a report classified well above his clearance (after having it vetted and blacked out). There, in black and white, is the proof, from intercepts, that the man in question was a Soviet agent.
And of course Sam can't tell anyone the real reason the Presidential pardon can't go through...
At its best, the show caught the real triumphs and tragedies of being the President's man.
I didn't mind the bias, because every Presidential staff is going to be biased for "its man". And, often enough, Sorkin avoided the easy victories and let real life kick his idealists in the teeth.
Victoria asks, "who came up with the title?"
Someone at MTV in 1983. It was a short-lived show with former SNL comedian Victoria Jackson, who I think is wonderfully funny. I guess they didn't use the Google.
When I read that "Studio 60" would include a female comedian whose standout characteristic is that she's a sincere Christian, I thought it was based on Jackson. Instead, it's apparantly an homage to Kristen Chenoweth, who was on West Wing. Odd that they missed whole SNL-Christian comedian link.
I didn't mind the bias, because every Presidential staff is going to be biased for "its man". And, often enough, Sorkin avoided the easy victories and let real life kick his idealists in the teeth.
Well, obviously a bunch of Democratic characters, if well-written, are going to act like a bunch of Democrats. The point is that the Republican characters acted like how Democrats think evil Republicans act, rather than acting like a bunch of Republicans. Sorkin's inability to conceive of a Republican who was (a) non-evil and (b) really a Republican reached its absurdist peak in the final season, which featured a Presidential race between a Democrat and a RINO. The Republican lost, of course, for no reason explained within the show.
The show had great dialog, but politically speaking it was, with rare exceptions, quite silly. As the "The American President" showed many years ago, Sorkin is great with wordplay, but has no real conception of American politics.
Oh, one more thing:
There, in black and white, is the proof, from intercepts, that the man in question was a Soviet agent.
It actually reflects just how ubiquitous left-wing bias is in the entertainment industry that the above constitutes a surprise twist. It has been known for *years* that the bulk of the people accused by the government of being Soviet agents were, in fact, Soviet agents, just as the bulk of the people accused of Communist Party ties really did have such ties.
That the presumption was that the man was falsely accused, and the revelation that he was a traitor is the surprise "didn't see that one coming" twist, is itself a good indicator of just how relentlessly leftie we expect TV to be. I was shocked by last season's Battlestar Galactica episode where the President bans abortion on the grounds that the human race is virtually extinct and needs to repopulate. An entirely rational decision to make -- so why was it surprising to see it made? Perhaps because it was the first time I'd ever seen any TV show or movie actually present an abortion ban as the right thing to do.
The clips of this show are painful. They need to trash it and get some new writers.
Not surprisingly it is on "Fox News". They should just drop their "fair and balanced" logo and go with "the republican propaganda arm"
Also, isn't the average fox news viewer like 70-this type of comedy may go over well with the senior set.
Jon Stewart is definitely liberal but in addition to slamming republicans as well as some democrats he goes off on celebrities and cable news personalities. If the Fox program just goes off on liberals it will be tiresome. But then again all of the other fox news programs just go off on liberals and they seem to do really well.
Stewart had a hilarious segment on Rick Sanchez from CNN getting tazered. Of course then someone from Fox News did a tazer program and someone from Good Morning America did it. Watching them all react to being tazered was great.
The fox news guy kept saying f..k while he was being tazered. Stewart then gave the award to Rick Sanchez for still being the best response to being tazered in television news.
Also, isn't the average fox news viewer like 70-this type of comedy may go over well with the senior set.
The average viewer ages for Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC are all in the 50s, with Fox falling between the slightly older CNN and the slightly younger MSNBC.
Jon Stewart is definitely liberal but in addition to slamming republicans as well as some democrats he goes off on celebrities and cable news personalities.
Which would make his show the liberal equivalent of The O'Reilly Factor. Sounds about right.
Revenant again fills his half glass half full. Of course he fails to include that Fox News Programs isn't among the top 40 cable ratings anywhere and that MSNBC is the only network gaining viewers and is roughly equal to Faux in the 18-49 demographic against which most advertisers buy, and of course the "drive by" media kills them 10 to 1 but I digress.
Further there is NO comparison between John Stewart and OReally?. Stewarts audience is decades younger and on every demographic scale of importance, (education, etc.) they blow OReally off the map. (not to mention there appears to be a few on this board who don't get Colbert...a conservative???...humorless republicans who think that).
Then there is the wishful thinking of comparing 7 years of Prime Time West Wing with the Rush and Annie show. If this is your idea of quality judgment and critical analysis, just shoot me now.
You right wing goobers are bad enough when you putz around with war and politics but are downright dangerous when you become TV critics. Olberman just got a 4 year contract extension and Faux is paying off phonesex fines for OReally. And Revenant 6 years younger for a mean demographic age is a BIG deal and that was 2004 numbers you looked at (yes I read that too)..it is even better for MSNBC now as they draw advertisers who have figured out that it is no longer necessary to curry favor with the GOP by buying on Faux Noise. Everyone knew the game and now everyone has caught on that you don't have to play it anymore.
as to West Wing...it was enjoyable because the people appeared and spoke smart. Isn't that what we want? Smart? Great debate? Real Thinking? Doesn't that explain the appeal? and West Wing goes right on to Bravo - certainly a smart network - and literally makes that network glow because the people who like good words, well spoken and smartly written, followed it there.
Can't you see that there is a need for the highest common denominator not just the lowest? That people would have a lot more confidence in the way things evolve and work if there were some actual brains on exhibit?
I remember Karen Hughes "gushing" early on in the Bush salad years about "how engaged" he was. Well duh. But in the 6 years hence, he has proven to be completely out of his depth and that in itself is what makes the right wing in this country SO UNFUNNY. I can't explain away anything they do as funny ha ha because of the tragedy they have visited on us. When turds like Rush and Anthrax Annie try and be broadly humorless we are reminded that what has be thrust into our lives is not funny, hurtful and harmful, and above all mean spirited.
There are certain number of reality video shows that carry my point. All the funniest home video crap ..well most of the segments...involve someone getting hurt...a kid falling, a guy getting hit it the balls by something, a woman hurling herself like a pig on hot pavement, a pet falling off the tv on its head....WHY is this funny? It is the agony of others and we like, (I dont but others might) to laugh at the plights of others 'cause it makes our daily life look ok in comparison.
This is beyond that. It is feckless attempts at humor to make a political point not worth making. Rush may be a very good hate monger but he isn't really funny to the majority and Ann Coulter is just a shrew, shrill phoney. That they can be the Rowan and Martin of Faux Noise makes me gag.
The point is that the Republican characters acted like how Democrats think evil Republicans act, rather than acting like a bunch of Republicans. Sorkin's inability to conceive of a Republican who was (a) non-evil and (b) really a Republican reached its absurdist peak in the final season, which featured a Presidential race between a Democrat and a RINO.
Exactly. Peggy Noonan and other conservatives were hired on to be advisors for West Wing when it started, to provide realism re the Right. They were let go and the liberal advisors were kept on - the result was perpetual strawmen whenever a conservative issue was featured.
unpracticalman: yah, that episode was one of my favs too. Also the one where Leo bitch-slaps the congress-critters during his Senate testimony re the Bartlet illness. And the one where Toby loses a bet to Josh and has to follow every intro with "and I work at the White House", which becomes tearfully significant when he's chatting up a middle-class guy at the bar re tuition costs for his daughter.
I just wish Sorkin had included my side of the aisle in his work. Such a lost opportunity. He threw red meat to the moonnbats, when he could have instead engaged both sides with the shades of gray between our differences. His bias limited his artistry.
Same with Studio 60 and the "token" Christian. She's only meant to serve as a foil for bashing the Religious Right - like having Pat Buchanen on to represent the right on CNN Crossfire. I'm especially disappointed in Sorkin's cowardice: Radical Islam is the greatest "theocratic" threat of our time, but he chooses to "speak truth to power" to those pesky Evangelicals instead.
Wake me when he has the balls to confront Islam.
Invisible Man,
You are entitled to your opinion. And you only named two conservative comedians.
Revenant again fills his half glass half full. Of course he fails to include that Fox News Programs isn't among the top 40 cable ratings anywhere and that MSNBC is the only network gaining viewers and is roughly equal to Faux in the 18-49 demographic against which most advertisers buy, and of course the "drive by" media kills them 10 to 1 but I digress.
Indeed you do. The reason I "failed to mention" all those factoids is that they weren't relevant to the question being asked -- namely, what the average age of Fox viewers is.
If you want to argue about whether or not Fox is doing well, I'm confident that there are people who actually *watch* Fox News who would be happy to take you up on that.
MSNBC is the only network gaining viewers
MSNBC has been in the cable news basement, behind CNN and FOX, for some time now. So to trumpet that they are gaining viewers is disingenuous. They have nowhere else to go but up.
actually it is a big deal. TV ratings is a zero sum game. As cable needs wired homes to receive and that the wired homes are just about maxed at this point, and that faux has about 6 million more homes (due to its pricing policies and grandfather contracts with cable providers) it has no growth area. that it looses viewers and loosers younger viewers is a huge deal. they have no programming to bring them back.
you need to think and get facts before you summarize. tv ratings, advertising and viewership are very complex issues and there is a lot of nuance. that may bother you but its true.
actually it is a big deal. TV ratings is a zero sum game.
The *share* of the ratings is a zero-sum game -- it has to add up to 100%. The ratings themselves -- the count of people watching the show -- are not a zero-sum game, since at any given time the overwhelming majority of people aren't watching any TV at all. This means that any given show can, in theory, dramatically increase its ratings without any other show losing any viewers at all.
It is the ratings, not the share, that advertisers care about (10% of 20 million > 100% of 1 million). So as far as the business side of television is concerned, ratings aren't zero-sum.
[Fox] has no growth area
Now that's a dumb thing to say. Just about every cable-connected household in America gets Fox, but most of those people don't watch cable news at all. All of those people are potential Fox (or CNN, or MSNBC) viewers.
tv ratings, advertising and viewership are very complex issues and there is a lot of nuance. that may bother you but its true.
HD, you've got enough trouble just spelling English words. Don't try to get a handle on the complexities of TV ratings. :)
revenant...
honest to god you are not right and you are out of your depth here. leave it alone ok? you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about
tv audiences have been stratified and niched into verticals for years and the refine grows, not shrinks. you are of course away that with the margin of error NO ONE could be watching faux noise?
if ratings and share were as you portray, there would be no variance. destination television is gone. channel or network allegeance is rare..faux actually is an exception and that is not a good thing...it is a reinforcement issue..must like the faith and values network...and drammatically diminishes the available pool of new viewers.... and what is the come'on?
"tune into faux tonight where we explore new revelation in the natalie holloway murder/disappearance. Wall to wall coverage goes from 7 to 11...cut to Geraldo"????
Yeah..that will bring them in in droves.
Again, little fella, you don't have any idea whatsoever about what you are posting about...so do your self a favor and quit embarrassing yourself.
HD & Revenant,
I realize this comment is days late, maybe no one will read it. That said, when it comes to what matters for the future, I think you are both wrongly focusing on TV ratings.
Look at the Nielsen website traffic ratings for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. CNN.com and MSNBC.com squash FOXNEWS.com in terms of unique visitors.
Does anyone really think we'll be getting our news in 2017 even remotely like we did in 1997? If I were FoxNews I'd be genuinely worried about that.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा