GM,
If you watched the MLB All-Star Game’s pre-game show last night, you’ll know where I’m going with this. If you didn’t watch it, go to Google and enter the following:
obama all-star “why did fox”
There are plenty of results.
The buildup to Obama’s ceremonial first pitch was beyond sufficient. Torn between its two main objectives, achieving high ratings and convincing viewers that they have a cool president, ESPN dedicated significant time to promoting FOX’s All-Star Game coverage. Maybe I’m just being cynical and ESPN shows such as Pardon the Interruption and Around the Horn were simply practicing responsible sports journalism as they always do (except when it comes to interviewing Stephen Curry nine times a quarter). But let’s just say I got sick of hearing instructions like “aim high” and “don’t try to do too much” directed toward a man who should have been too busy to hear them.
They got me, though, and I cancelled exercise plans in order to see Obama’s pitch, hoping it would be dainty enough to draw some criticism from the sports media (since the real media don’t dare). Finally, it was time. Obama stepped out of the cart, took the ball from Stan Musial, shook the hand of the uninformed driver, and trotted to the mound enthusiastically. And this is where it goes downhill.
I’ve been watching baseball on TV since I was 5 or 6 years old. No matter how many advances they make in game coverage, the angle from which the pitch is shown does not change. Sure, we occasionally get a shot from behind the plate, but we’ve pretty much established that the camera needs to be in left-center field and zoomed in on the pitcher, catcher, and umpire. FOX, however, decided to put a camera guy at third base so that all we could see was half the flight of the ball once it left the president’s hand.
I demand to know the politics behind that decision. Naturally, I would assume that it’s the liberal media making sure that we don’t see Obama fail at anything. (Keep in mind that the FOX broadcast network differs from FOX News. See Family Guy, a show that’s not only fiercely liberal but preachy!). But he didn’t fail, as I know from my Internet search, so why not show a replay? It was no post-9/11 George W. Bush strike, but it was still better than 90 percent of the ceremonial first pitches I’ve seen.
So which do you think will come first, GM—an explanation from FOX or a National League win?
-JW
JW,
I was actually listening on the radio, and wouldn't you know it, they cut to commercial the second the ball left his hand.
Seriously, I don't understand what happened, either. It seems to me that the chances of Obama getting it across the plate were about as good as those of George Bush changing the channel back in Dallas. In other words, pretty good. After all, this is the guy who "accidentally" appeared shirtless in a tabloid during the campaign. (Thank God Hillary didn't feel the need to follow suit.) This is the guy who plays basketball! And buys his daughters a puppy! He's just like us, only better. Of course he throws a zinger.
So why does FOX cut away? I'm guessing that the shot you saw was the network's "Capturing a Historic Moment" shot--wide, iconic, and in no way confusable with the standard camera work that the cretins pitch to. Sure, regular sports fans wanted to see if the guy could bring it, but the tens of casual fans who tuned in were looking for a live-feed of the next cover of Time.
If there's a lesson here, it's that liberals were completely justified in their desperation to see the end of the Bush presidency. I swear, I'm so sick of Obama after just six months that I'd voluntarily give up the next seven years of my life. Can't you see it? A contemporary Rip van Winkle, I wake up just in time for the final months of yet another endless election cycle to find that a fresh new face will soon be tinkering mindlessly with the economy, deploying our troops with no underlying military philosophy, and renewing Maya Angelou's White House pass. Maybe a new i-product will have been invented, too.
In any case, let's not get too worked up about missing that pitch. FOX cut back to the correct angle in plenty of time to show the White House Press Corp carrying the president off the field.
-GM
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
I'm Pulling For You, ESPN... for my own sake
GM,
I was watching TV last night, and I saw a show that had a little of everything: emotion, shouting, awkward moments, a live studio audience, a rational and understanding host, and some black guy from Mississippi. At one point, the crowd starting chanting, “Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!” Of course, I was watching Homecoming, the new ESPN show hosted by Rick Reilly, and Jerry Rice was the guest of honor. Were you expecting something else?
I’m pretty sure ESPN has assembled an entire team dedicated to deciding how to fill programming after the NBA playoffs come to an end. Title Town USA, Who’s Now?, My Wish, 50 States in 50 Days—these are all gimmicks that ESPN uses to try to keep ratings high when baseball and poker are the only competitions that could possibly be worth watching. If I only knew the number of any of my channels besides ESPN, ESPN2, and Comedy Central, I’d give something else a try.
You would think that the world’s sports leader could come up with something better to get us through the two months of angst before football season. For us, however, the challenge is to think of something worse than the aforementioned snoozer segments.
How about Almost Relevant: an inside look at all the runners-up in unpopular sporting events who were devastatingly close to becoming a blurb on SportsCenter. “Have you heard of Marwa Moustafa? Didn’t think so. She was one solid hit away from clinching the Women’s World Golf Croquet championship in 2007, and her life has been heartache ever since.”
Personally, my biggest thrill would come from watching Cold Pizza/First Take lowlights consisting of one of those top-25 countdowns for “Dumbest interview questions asked by Dana Jacobson and Jay Crawford.” Considering her propensity to deeply offend Christians and his to allegedly sexually harass makeup artists, shouldn’t they have talent to offset the cons?!
Can you think of any killer segments?
-JW
JW,
How about This Week in Slow Motion (alternate title, Frame By Frame)? If we're aiming for the gutter, I can't think of a better starting point than the most loathsome development in sports since Joe Buck. Picture this: Erik Kuselias and Dan LeBatard attempting to fill air time while unforced tennis errors and wild pitches drag to forty-five seconds each.
Actually, I think I'd watch that.
Perhaps the bigger issue here is the coordination of the worst part of the sports calendar with the least tolerable months of the Southern year. It's one hundred degrees outside, the folds of my gut have created a suction effect, and the only thing on television is people talking about first-half baseball. If it weren't for the British Open this weekend, I'd be considering a crime spree.
Speaking of which, how about a segment devoted to Places in Sports You'd Rather Be Right Now? First we see the pastoral dunes of Turnberry, followed by the view from my living room window—Hiroshima circa 1945, but hotter. I love the idea of living vicariously through ESPN's camera crew, and as long as they're willing to turn on the sprinklers, any number of ballparks could be featured.
Just think: The final shot could be the lovely halls of 935 Middle St., Bristol, where athletes roam free like so many Serengeti antelopes, and the swimming pools are icy cold. What else could scratch that self-mythologizing itch that's so troubled ESPN lo these many years? What else could remind us that NL-only Fantasy Baseball coverage is over when they say it's over?
Come on, SportsNation. Let's demand it.
-GM
I was watching TV last night, and I saw a show that had a little of everything: emotion, shouting, awkward moments, a live studio audience, a rational and understanding host, and some black guy from Mississippi. At one point, the crowd starting chanting, “Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!” Of course, I was watching Homecoming, the new ESPN show hosted by Rick Reilly, and Jerry Rice was the guest of honor. Were you expecting something else?
I’m pretty sure ESPN has assembled an entire team dedicated to deciding how to fill programming after the NBA playoffs come to an end. Title Town USA, Who’s Now?, My Wish, 50 States in 50 Days—these are all gimmicks that ESPN uses to try to keep ratings high when baseball and poker are the only competitions that could possibly be worth watching. If I only knew the number of any of my channels besides ESPN, ESPN2, and Comedy Central, I’d give something else a try.
You would think that the world’s sports leader could come up with something better to get us through the two months of angst before football season. For us, however, the challenge is to think of something worse than the aforementioned snoozer segments.
How about Almost Relevant: an inside look at all the runners-up in unpopular sporting events who were devastatingly close to becoming a blurb on SportsCenter. “Have you heard of Marwa Moustafa? Didn’t think so. She was one solid hit away from clinching the Women’s World Golf Croquet championship in 2007, and her life has been heartache ever since.”
Personally, my biggest thrill would come from watching Cold Pizza/First Take lowlights consisting of one of those top-25 countdowns for “Dumbest interview questions asked by Dana Jacobson and Jay Crawford.” Considering her propensity to deeply offend Christians and his to allegedly sexually harass makeup artists, shouldn’t they have talent to offset the cons?!
Can you think of any killer segments?
-JW
JW,
How about This Week in Slow Motion (alternate title, Frame By Frame)? If we're aiming for the gutter, I can't think of a better starting point than the most loathsome development in sports since Joe Buck. Picture this: Erik Kuselias and Dan LeBatard attempting to fill air time while unforced tennis errors and wild pitches drag to forty-five seconds each.
Actually, I think I'd watch that.
Perhaps the bigger issue here is the coordination of the worst part of the sports calendar with the least tolerable months of the Southern year. It's one hundred degrees outside, the folds of my gut have created a suction effect, and the only thing on television is people talking about first-half baseball. If it weren't for the British Open this weekend, I'd be considering a crime spree.
Speaking of which, how about a segment devoted to Places in Sports You'd Rather Be Right Now? First we see the pastoral dunes of Turnberry, followed by the view from my living room window—Hiroshima circa 1945, but hotter. I love the idea of living vicariously through ESPN's camera crew, and as long as they're willing to turn on the sprinklers, any number of ballparks could be featured.
Just think: The final shot could be the lovely halls of 935 Middle St., Bristol, where athletes roam free like so many Serengeti antelopes, and the swimming pools are icy cold. What else could scratch that self-mythologizing itch that's so troubled ESPN lo these many years? What else could remind us that NL-only Fantasy Baseball coverage is over when they say it's over?
Come on, SportsNation. Let's demand it.
-GM
Monday, July 13, 2009
Trouble in the Aisles
JW,
I knew the Obama era of racial harmony was doomed when I saw an interracial fight in a Wal-Mart checkout line the day after the election. Woman A was complaining about Woman B’s speed behind the register when Woman B committed what can best be described as a linguistic violation of customer service. Voices were raised, managers were summoned, and Woman B was escorted out of the happily un-unionized aisles to which she had grown so accustomed. Today, my wife called from the same location to report that speakers all over the store were emitting a strange, high-frequency squeal, just above the threshold of audibility. Several shoppers, she said, had taken to pushing their carts with their elbows so that their hands could be used to stop up their ears. An older woman of frightening girth was clutching her husband and sobbing that she simply couldn’t take it anymore, and everywhere the vulgar strains of human misery sounded forth.
And yet no one seemed to be leaving. No one seemed opposed to the notion that discounts, ironically, must be bought at a price. And while I’ll admit that I’ve got to be the most sophisticated customer ever to set foot in a Wal-Mart (I’m listening to classical music and wearing slippers as I type this), I can’t be alone in thinking that the grocery shopping experience has gotten significantly worse since we were children.
So here’s my question. Forget union-busting and suburban sprawl. Can we abandon the fiction that liberals dislike Wal-Mart for anything other than aesthetic reasons?
-GM
GM,
It’s funny you should mention Wal-Mart. Last night, in dire need of a razor and even direr need of deodorant, I made my first visit there since seeing the documentary Wal-Mart: the High Cost of Low Price. (I was on the road for business, and the actual deodorant part of my deodorant stick was nowhere to be found. It hadn’t just run out; it had fallen out. So why in the hell would I have put an unfilled deodorant stick back into my shower kit???) Upon seeing the film, it occurred to me that a working person’s only possible social justification for shopping at Wal-Mart would be that he also collected his paycheck there while wearing a royal blue vest or navy blue shirt. Are they so cheap that they can’t update the uniforms all at once?!
I support the free market because simple economics (the only kind I’ve learned) prove it to bring about the greatest surplus of wealth. Within the free market, however, I would encourage anyone middle-class and above to investigate Wal-Mart’s disputed level of corruption to determine if its policies offend the social conscience. And don’t even begin to paint me liberal because I wish for Wal-Mart to fail if it doesn’t change. The liberal wants the government to shut down Wal-Mart; I want the more-powerful-than-ever consumer to do it—or at least inspire change. People don’t realize that Wal-Mart’s failure to take care of its employees costs taxpayers money. It’s the closest situation we’ve had in a while to coalminers working 16 hours a day for a dollar at the company store. Most of their paychecks go back to Wal-Mart! And with most Wal-Marts having a fast-food joint inside now, employees are likely to work, shop, and even take breaks at Wal-Mart! I almost died thinking about that life just now!
I’m sure the high-pitched hum over the intercom was simply market research. “We’ve already offended the other four senses; will they even leave if we torture them audibly?!” My best Wal-Mart experience may never be topped. I found a 4-pound ham in electronics and searched for about 10 minutes before I found an employee. “I found this in the wrong section, and I don’t know if it’s spoiled by now.” I grimaced as I handed the ham to the woman worker. She had a full goatee.
-JW
I knew the Obama era of racial harmony was doomed when I saw an interracial fight in a Wal-Mart checkout line the day after the election. Woman A was complaining about Woman B’s speed behind the register when Woman B committed what can best be described as a linguistic violation of customer service. Voices were raised, managers were summoned, and Woman B was escorted out of the happily un-unionized aisles to which she had grown so accustomed. Today, my wife called from the same location to report that speakers all over the store were emitting a strange, high-frequency squeal, just above the threshold of audibility. Several shoppers, she said, had taken to pushing their carts with their elbows so that their hands could be used to stop up their ears. An older woman of frightening girth was clutching her husband and sobbing that she simply couldn’t take it anymore, and everywhere the vulgar strains of human misery sounded forth.
And yet no one seemed to be leaving. No one seemed opposed to the notion that discounts, ironically, must be bought at a price. And while I’ll admit that I’ve got to be the most sophisticated customer ever to set foot in a Wal-Mart (I’m listening to classical music and wearing slippers as I type this), I can’t be alone in thinking that the grocery shopping experience has gotten significantly worse since we were children.
So here’s my question. Forget union-busting and suburban sprawl. Can we abandon the fiction that liberals dislike Wal-Mart for anything other than aesthetic reasons?
-GM
GM,
It’s funny you should mention Wal-Mart. Last night, in dire need of a razor and even direr need of deodorant, I made my first visit there since seeing the documentary Wal-Mart: the High Cost of Low Price. (I was on the road for business, and the actual deodorant part of my deodorant stick was nowhere to be found. It hadn’t just run out; it had fallen out. So why in the hell would I have put an unfilled deodorant stick back into my shower kit???) Upon seeing the film, it occurred to me that a working person’s only possible social justification for shopping at Wal-Mart would be that he also collected his paycheck there while wearing a royal blue vest or navy blue shirt. Are they so cheap that they can’t update the uniforms all at once?!
I support the free market because simple economics (the only kind I’ve learned) prove it to bring about the greatest surplus of wealth. Within the free market, however, I would encourage anyone middle-class and above to investigate Wal-Mart’s disputed level of corruption to determine if its policies offend the social conscience. And don’t even begin to paint me liberal because I wish for Wal-Mart to fail if it doesn’t change. The liberal wants the government to shut down Wal-Mart; I want the more-powerful-than-ever consumer to do it—or at least inspire change. People don’t realize that Wal-Mart’s failure to take care of its employees costs taxpayers money. It’s the closest situation we’ve had in a while to coalminers working 16 hours a day for a dollar at the company store. Most of their paychecks go back to Wal-Mart! And with most Wal-Marts having a fast-food joint inside now, employees are likely to work, shop, and even take breaks at Wal-Mart! I almost died thinking about that life just now!
I’m sure the high-pitched hum over the intercom was simply market research. “We’ve already offended the other four senses; will they even leave if we torture them audibly?!” My best Wal-Mart experience may never be topped. I found a 4-pound ham in electronics and searched for about 10 minutes before I found an employee. “I found this in the wrong section, and I don’t know if it’s spoiled by now.” I grimaced as I handed the ham to the woman worker. She had a full goatee.
-JW
Sunday, July 12, 2009
What I'm Ultimately Fighting...
JW,
As you know, I'm always upset when a fringe sport like soccer, fishing, or anything that involves driving a car attempts to break into the pantheon of the wholesome American Big Four of football, baseball, basketball, and hockey. You can imagine my dismay, then, at the ruckus being currently raised by UFC 100, an event just a bit too similar to the kind of thing I regularly saw from my living room window when I lived in Brooklyn. The way I see it, the sports fan who wishes not to fall outside the standards of decency may allot himself as much as he wants of the aforementioned four; somewhere in the neighborhood of eight days' annual interest in both golf and tennis; and exactly three days' annual interest in horse racing. And that's it. The success of Ultimate Fighting is one of those cultural warts akin to the Saw movies, top-40 radio, and the kind of contemporary art that consists largely of blank canvases. While I'm assuming that "100" is not the number of events that UFC has had (is it?), they've still had way too many.
Here's the thing. I'm not impressed by anything that I could do myself if I just got off my ass. Hitting a professionally-thrown baseball isn't one of them. Neither is returning Andy Roddick's serve or splitting the fairway at Bethpage Black. But Ultimate Fighting--well, the only reason I'm not their champion is that I'm just plain lazy! (The same goes for Cirque du Soleil--yeah, the human body is capable of some incredible things, but those guys have to spend a really long time stretching.) Give me athletic feats that require more than a ridiculous amount of time in the weightroom. Give me grace. Give me a competition that isn't almost totally composed of writhing.
Your thoughts?
-GM
GM,
Where do I begin? I view professional fighting in the same way I view soccer. I can’t possibly deny the athleticism or skill of the participants, only their judgment. (As for the spectators who appreciate these sickening displays of fruitless running and needless bludgeoning, I openly question--even sometimes deny--their intelligence. You, however, have decided to attribute their success to dedication alone, which, as we know, is no less than a forehanded insult. It’s like the NBA team that tries so hard during the regular season, wins 50 games, and gets swept out of the playoffs three years in a row because of a glaring talent deficiency. No one respects those teams--no one who still likes the NBA anyway.
Look, if natural ability is your standard for deciding who should make millions of dollars for activity that doesn’t even resemble work (and I don’t necessarily oppose such a stance), let me tell you a few things. First of all, different people have different body types with varying levels of strength potential. A 5'7", 130-pound World of Warcraft veteran could never benchpress 500 pounds even if he dedicated his whole life to the cause. So strength alone involves some natural ability. Secondly, the skill of fighting is a combination of quickness, toughness, and intelligence. These are all God-given qualities, although the last in the series is clearly less God-given than the others. Why would anyone decide to fight for a living?! Isn’t “winning” a fight simply losing by less than your opponent? If any of these guys aren’t doing it solely for the money, then they took too many blows to the head even before they chose that industry.
And if they want to help their chances of taking fewer blows by getting in shape and lifting weights for two hours a day, let’s not judge. After all, “Why should the race always be to the swift… or the jumble to the quick-witted?” – Montgomery Burns, The Simpsons
I know it’s not for us, but some Americans still appreciate hard work.
-JW
As you know, I'm always upset when a fringe sport like soccer, fishing, or anything that involves driving a car attempts to break into the pantheon of the wholesome American Big Four of football, baseball, basketball, and hockey. You can imagine my dismay, then, at the ruckus being currently raised by UFC 100, an event just a bit too similar to the kind of thing I regularly saw from my living room window when I lived in Brooklyn. The way I see it, the sports fan who wishes not to fall outside the standards of decency may allot himself as much as he wants of the aforementioned four; somewhere in the neighborhood of eight days' annual interest in both golf and tennis; and exactly three days' annual interest in horse racing. And that's it. The success of Ultimate Fighting is one of those cultural warts akin to the Saw movies, top-40 radio, and the kind of contemporary art that consists largely of blank canvases. While I'm assuming that "100" is not the number of events that UFC has had (is it?), they've still had way too many.
Here's the thing. I'm not impressed by anything that I could do myself if I just got off my ass. Hitting a professionally-thrown baseball isn't one of them. Neither is returning Andy Roddick's serve or splitting the fairway at Bethpage Black. But Ultimate Fighting--well, the only reason I'm not their champion is that I'm just plain lazy! (The same goes for Cirque du Soleil--yeah, the human body is capable of some incredible things, but those guys have to spend a really long time stretching.) Give me athletic feats that require more than a ridiculous amount of time in the weightroom. Give me grace. Give me a competition that isn't almost totally composed of writhing.
Your thoughts?
-GM
GM,
Where do I begin? I view professional fighting in the same way I view soccer. I can’t possibly deny the athleticism or skill of the participants, only their judgment. (As for the spectators who appreciate these sickening displays of fruitless running and needless bludgeoning, I openly question--even sometimes deny--their intelligence. You, however, have decided to attribute their success to dedication alone, which, as we know, is no less than a forehanded insult. It’s like the NBA team that tries so hard during the regular season, wins 50 games, and gets swept out of the playoffs three years in a row because of a glaring talent deficiency. No one respects those teams--no one who still likes the NBA anyway.
Look, if natural ability is your standard for deciding who should make millions of dollars for activity that doesn’t even resemble work (and I don’t necessarily oppose such a stance), let me tell you a few things. First of all, different people have different body types with varying levels of strength potential. A 5'7", 130-pound World of Warcraft veteran could never benchpress 500 pounds even if he dedicated his whole life to the cause. So strength alone involves some natural ability. Secondly, the skill of fighting is a combination of quickness, toughness, and intelligence. These are all God-given qualities, although the last in the series is clearly less God-given than the others. Why would anyone decide to fight for a living?! Isn’t “winning” a fight simply losing by less than your opponent? If any of these guys aren’t doing it solely for the money, then they took too many blows to the head even before they chose that industry.
And if they want to help their chances of taking fewer blows by getting in shape and lifting weights for two hours a day, let’s not judge. After all, “Why should the race always be to the swift… or the jumble to the quick-witted?” – Montgomery Burns, The Simpsons
I know it’s not for us, but some Americans still appreciate hard work.
-JW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
