Reality TV...very real

Luci's struggles against Project Green Light Australia reminded me of my regular thoughts about the reality of reality TV game shows. I have my conspiracy theories about how rigged these shows are. Now the shows in question may not be directly manipulated to dictate who wins or looses, but the circumstances of the game can be adjusted to suit a particular contestant.

The grandaddy of reality TV game shows is Survivor. Every year a new wave of contestants try to outwit, outlast and outplay each other. But every year, we also see slightly different variations of the game each year. Tribes get mixed up at different stages, if at all. Tribes merge at different stages. There are different numbers of tribes at different points in the game. Because of the security surrounding the production of this show, no one outside of the production staff know what is up ahead.

But...how do we, the unsuspecting public, know that what happens has been planned right from the very beginning? I think it is obvious that the votes at tribal council are adjusted in the pot to be revealed in the most dramatic way possible. It is also very apparent that the host, Jeff Probst, has really disliked some of the contestants. Surprisingly enough, none of these have ever won a series.

Survivor is not the only reality game show out there that could be manipulating things, but as with any largest participant in a given field, it makes them an easy target. I don't want to target only Survivor (I am a fan of the show) but I am too lazy, and harried by children to get them something to eat (go eat some cardboard, kids), to properly research other shows.

My point still remains: How do we know that the sequence of events are not manipulated to suit particular contestants. How do we know that it is reality TV, and not just actors pretending to be reality TV contestants?

DPS

DPS

They go in threes

Has anyone else noticed that celebrities seem die in groups of three? There appears to be a trend that there will be a group of celebrity deaths within a week or so of each other. Of course, I can not bring up any corroborating data to support this statement, but it is my general feeling.

Having stated this, I am fully aware that Australia has had 4 celebrity deaths in recent weeks:
1) Don Chip
2) Colin Thiele
3) Steve Irwin
and now...
4) Peter Brock

Now, as far as I can predict, my feelings about celebrities going in threes is about to be shot down, or we are due for another two famous deaths within the next week or so. These will not necessarily need to be Australian to qualify.

We will have to wait and see.

DPS

The wonders of music

Last weekend I watched School of Rock for the first time. I know, I know...it's been around for ages. Its just been one of those movies that I never got around to seeing. Until now.

This posting, though, is not about School of Rock. This movie reminded me of my opinion of the music industry. An opinion that I would now like to share with you.

Record labels suck. Big time. They are companies that are following a business model that came into existence over 50 years ago, and are extremely reluctant to change, no matter what technological changes occur.

The media often run stories on the decline in CD sales, and how the record companies are blaming the proliferation of illegal MP3s on the internet.

I can not remember where I read it, but I have read someone pointing out that the sales of CDs has been artificially inflated due to the number of people replacing their vinyl and cassette tape collections with CDs. This replacement phaze is apparently petering out. Therefore the number of CD sales has been dropping, as people are scaling back to be only making new purchases, not purchases to replace vinyl LPs or cassette tapes. Yes, some CD sales wil be lost by free mp3 downloads, but how many people in the past have had a taped copy of a CD they "pirated" from a sibling or a friend? I know I have.

If record companies want to win back market share from internet downloaded music, then they need to be offering something extra that you can not get via download. Not just a CD with a bit of cardboard acting as a cover. Something else needs to be offered. Something that you can not access through downloading the songs. Some bands have made their record companies follow this path e.g. Pet shop boys re-released some early music, and added a booklet for each CD (slotted into the cover). these types of booklets can be a fan's nirvana, providing extra background and inside information on the music and the band. Not many bands have done the same thing. Why would people bother to pay for a CD, when they can get a copy for free, either by downloading it, or burning a copy of a friend's CD.

MC Lars' song "Download this song" is a great thesis on the new music distribution model, and the hipocrasy of the major record companies.

$18.98 Iggy Pop CD?
What if I can get it from my sister for free?
It’s all about marketing Clive Davis, see?
If fans buy the shirt then they get the mp3
Music was a product now it is a service
Major record labels why are you trying to hurt us?
Epic’s up in my face like, “Don’t steal our songs Lars,”
While Sony sells the burners that are burning CD-R’s

As a side note, I find microsoft's Digital Rights Management a laugh. Windows media player will not let you directly copy a protected CD (e.g. straight from CD-ROM drive to CD-R/W drive). However, it will not even raise a murmer if you rip the CD to your hard drive, and then burn the CD's contents to a blank CD-R or R/W. Great protection!

Anyway, That is my first major issue with the music industry. I was reminded of my other beef while I was watching School of Rock.

My other beef is the lack of originality in many of today's groups and/or atists.

Where are the supergroups? While the majority of the music industry's new artists are RnB and rap fuckwits, there are no new supergroups like the days of old (60's-80's), like The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, The Who, Genesis, etc. The only thing we have today, even slightly resembling the supergroups of old, are...those same supergroups themselves. Revived, and pushed back out onto the world stage in a last ditch effort to prop up the record companys' bottom lines. There are fewer and fewer bands and/or artists with the ability to put on a good show these days. Even the middle aged reanimated groups of yore are not as energetic as they used to be.

Tied in with all this is a problem that I refer to as the lack of virtuosity in bands today. We rarely see bands with members who could be said to be a virtuoso of their instrument. I remember the days when concerts used to have a certain period when each band member spent time doing a solo, showcasing their virtuosity on their instrument. We don't see that anymore.

All we get now in new bands is RnB and Rap shite, or bands emulating the sounds of the 60s and 70s, like Wolfmother (blurgghhhh!) and Jet, for example. The record companies are not interested in nurturing and developing new and different talent. They want to be able to quickly produce a product that they know will work, because it sounds a lot like something else that was very successful in the past. They are not willing to take a risk and try something new. They will keep trying to find acts that will reproduce a sound that has already prooved to be successful in the past.

Of course, there are always exceptions to any rule, as there are some groups and/or artists that do not fit into this mould, however on the whole, my setiments hold true.

There is nothing new in the music scene. Except for Ultimo, of course.

DPS

I can't believe it!

Well, I guess I shouldn't be suprised. It was going to happen sooner or later. Someone has posted the video of Steve Irwin's death on Google Video.

I'm not even going to comment. Each individual will have to make up their own mind if they want to see it or not.

DPS

Funny

Check this out. This is one of the funniest things I have ever seen.

The Princess strikes again

Naomi Robson has once again shown her arrogance and willingness to blame others for her mistakes. Robson was apparently forced to apologise for a "tacky" move during a broadcast outside Australia Zoo for Today Tonight. She appeared on camera in a khaki outfit, with a live lizard on her shoulder.


Come on! What the fuck is this woman's problem?

What is going on in her precious little brain that makes her think that this is in good taste? This just smacks of the media trying to emulate the big story of the day. There is no sincerity in this type of move. But, I guess I should not be surprised by this. I have heard a number of stories about Robson, and her "Princess" attitude. But, the commercial channels themselves have been doing this kind of thing for years. Who remembers the man who was lost in the middle of the desert in remote WA a few years ago, and when he was found by a commercial camera crew, they didn't whisk him to a hospital straight away in their helicopter? Oh no. They got him to walk around for a bit first, so that they could get some shots of him from their helicopter, then do a story, and then they were kind enough to actually rescue him. I can't remember which channel it was, but it was the sort of thing that is not confined to one particular show.

There are many other examples of news and current affairs reporters' egos getting in the way of their judgment, and trying to maximise the "exclusivity" of their story by doing things that are either stupid and ill considered, or just plain fucking dangerous. Not dangerous for themselves, of course, but for someone else "in the line of fire" (remember Mike Willisee and the kids held hostage by muderers near Dorrigo/Armidale, NSW).

Back to Robson's crass display, I love this: "In a rare victory for Channel 9, viewers even went so far as to switch stations to rival A Current Affair, which overtook Today Tonight in the official viewer ratings for the night." Nice to see that viewers showed their contempt for Robson the best way for Channel 7 to sit up and take notice.

Another good indication of the public's lack of tolerance for this type of thing, is from an online poll conducted by The Daily Telegraph. Now the Tele's readers are not usually considered the most enlightened lot, but even they were not appreciative of the khaki appearance: In an online poll 71 per cent of Confidential readers thought the khaki shirt and lizard stunt were too crass so soon after Irwin's death, with just 28 per cent saying it was a fitting tribute to him.

Now, if an inbred pack of Telegraph hick readers feel this way, then I feel confident in saying that the rest of the educated public would feel even stronger about it.

If all that isn't bad enough, when Robson was forced to apologise, she tried to shift the blame onto, a) her wardrobe assistant for the khaki outfit, and b) a young Irwin fan.

Oh come off it. a) We all know that Robson would not be seen dead on screen in any outfit she hadn't personally approved, and b) we also all know that Robson wouldn't be seen dead on screen with any live animal that she hadn't personally approved.

I don't know about you, but I'm not buying any of it. We all saw how she was dressed during some of the broadcasts from Beaconsfield (not live to air, but as reported by other sources), I have heard too many other stories from reporters about Robson's behaviour to believe that she was not in charge of the whole episode.

To be partially fair, though, I have to admit that I have had no personal dealings with Naomi Robson, and that she may very well be a very nice, polite, considerate lady. Then again, she may just be the most stuck up bitch that the western world has ever seen.

You decide.

DPS

PS. Strangeness...I've searched online for an image of Mike Willisee, but can't find one of him anywhere. Well, nothing recent. Has he managed to wipe his previous career as a current affairs "journalist" off the pages of history?

Dreaming of good customer service

My previous posting about telemarketers, or CSRs, seems to have pervaded into my dreams. I woke up this morning on the tail end of a dream....

I was at my grandmother's house, only the lady in question was not actually my grandmother (both of whom have passed on), and we were in the U.S.A., but I was calling her grandma, and nothing seemed to be out of the ordinary.

Anyway, my 'grandma' was talking about how she had recently fallen in the bathroom and had been unable to get help (how this situation was resolved was not discussed). It cam out in conversation that she now had one of those emergency beacon distress alarm thingys, in case it happened again.

I found it in her dressing gown, hanging on the back of the bathroom door. In my dream, this beacon looked like a mobile flip phone. I opened it to check that it still worked, and saw that it sent a signal. I don't remember specifically how I saw this, but I knew it had happened. After I knew that it had sent a signal, I though it would be wise to call the monitoring people, and let them know that there was not a real emergency. So, using the emergency 'phone', I called the monitoring people.

I explained to the man that answered that there was not an emergency, and that we had just briefly opened the 'phone'. I heard him mutter something, then pause, and then say something like "thank you for calling". I asked him what he had said, and he refused. Then I figured out that he had said "Wanker". I told him that I hear what he said, and I knew what it meant, as I was Australian, and not American (remember, my 'grandma' lives in the U.S.A.).

The bit that tells me that my previous posting has pervaded my dreams is that I didn't go off at this CSR. I calmly talked to him, and explained to him why it was inappropriate to call people a wanker. Unfortunately, I do not know how the conversation ended, as I woke up part way through, but it seemed to be going well.

I am slightly disappointed though, that I didn't fly off the handle. I mean, if you can't do it in your dreams, when can you?

DPS

A man of the people...NOT

John Howard has once again demonstrated to the rest of the world, that he is definitely not a man of the people. In parliament today, he was speaking of the tragic death of Steve Irwin. I wasn't able to catch all of what he was saying (kids were making noise) but I heard him refer to Irwin as the "Crocodile Man".

CROCODILE MAN? You've got to be kidding me. It really irks me when people like Howard (sorry Mikey_Capital, I think Beazley is just as bad) try to show how in touch they are with the everyday people of the population. All it takes for their shallow attempts to become unstuck, is for them to make a simple mistake in their grandstanding speeches.

To me, if you can't get the name of someone right, then they are obviously not all that important to you. How dare Howard stand up in parliament and espouse how great Steve Irwin was, and then not even bother to get his common name correct.

Kids on the 'Net

My daughter came home from school on Friday, excited to tell me about a web site one of her friends had found. It is a short flash cartoon series that they had been looking at during school time. I don't know if you have heard of it. It is called Salad Fingers, by David Firth. It can be found, amongst other things, here. It is building up quite a following, including parodies, Fan Fict, clones, Lego models, and served as the inspiration of other animations. It even has a wikipedia entry. Just do a Google Search for "Salad Fingers", and you will find your bounty.

Now, have a look at some of the episodes. When I saw them I thought, "weird, but cool, and yet slightly disturbing, which can be cool too." My second thought was, "the teacher let the kids watch this at school?"

I don't personally have a problem with it, but I could imagine teachers and some parents getting quite offended if they knew their children were watching this at school. I asked my daughter what her teacher was doing when they were watching this, to which she informed me that her normal teacher was not there, and that the Computers teacher was taking them at the time. She didn't enlighten me as to what the Computers teacher was doing, but she seemed to imply that the teacher knew what was happening. The teacher probably just thought the kids were looking at harmless fun animations, without really looking at what they were doing.

I found the whole thing quite amusing, and I was happy to see that my daughter seems to be developing the same appreciation for the darkly absurd that I have. I find it funny what kids come home from school with knowledge of something totally unexpected. Most times you will find that it is knowledge that has been gained from other children.

I do have one doubt about this whole thing, though. It clearly shows that the children are not very closely supervised when they are on the internet at school. This could be a worry.

DPS

P.S. Another great flash animation I have seen is the Banana song at rathergood.com, One of my all time favourite internet songs. It gets stuck in your head. I challenge you to watch it, and then not have "I bought the wrong bananas, I bought the wrong bananas (I bought I bought the wrong bananas)" going through your head afterwards. Go on, I dare you!