I've never been one to watch much TV. Sure, I watched a few episodes of the Rough and Ready cartoon when I was 4 years old. And I enjoyed Bonanza once in a while, along with All In The Family, and Cheers. But as I said, once in a while. I never set a time to watch TV, and if I was busy with something else, that came first.

But one thing I always remember about TV is it's fakery. I thought it was awful stupid for them to bang on trash cans to make "thunder" while flashing lights to make "lightning". Obviously, they had methods they could use to record real thunder and lightning, but had to fake it instead. I remember the thunder and lightning always happening at the same time, which of course it never does, unless it's hitting within 10 feet or so.

I also recall at one time, the news, and perhaps the weather, being somewhat interesting. And I've even seen a few commercials that were at least a bit humorous. Of course, if you read the rest of my site, you know that advertising doesn't work on me. I'm not into fashions or trends, both of which I consider foolish. If I want something, I go out and buy it, period. If everyone else is buying it, then I probably don't want it!

But the 10 minutes a week that I happen to see a TV on nowadays, is too much.

The programming is all about sex, sex, sex. No matter what the show is about, there it is, all of a sudden they're nude. But I don't give a damn about sex, and if I was actually watching, I leave at that point. But I guess sex sells, so that's why a show about home repair has to include it.

Then there's the commercials. Dumb and dumber, that's all I can say about them. "Ask your doctor if Kilzyookwik is right for you". The whole commercial centers around a butterfly flying around a room while some broad is explaining some of the side effects of the drug. Of course they never tell you what the drug is used for.

Then the news "show" comes on. The most important part is the commercial at the beginning telling me where the news anchor's wardrobe was from. I really want to know that, so I can rush right out and buy one just like it! Then they give 31 seconds of "news" from the day before, I already read it in the newspaper. Then it's time for 5.5 minutes of commercials. Then another 31 seconds of "news". Usually nothing of any interest to me. I've concluded that the whole downtown could be on fire, and it wouldn't make the news, because the whole "news" was "produced" well in advance. Making any changes is not likely, because they could lose thousands of dollars if they missed a commercial!

I actually had a situation in the early 1990's where a TV news anchor was sitting in my living room to cover a story. But after the story was "produced" for TV, it was about 10% accurate. And in my opinion, all of the news on TV is like that, about 10% accurate!

Then comes the Weather. Another "production". I believe in weather forcasts as much as I believe that I own the Eiffel Tower. There's all the big fancy computer graphics with "doppler radar" telling me that the storm will be going past my house at 6:57 pm. I should "take cover immediately"! But there's not a cloud in the sky! Believe me, they can play with their little computers and make all those "virtual" storms you see on the radar bright red, or pink, purple or blue. So I just laugh it off and go about whatever I was planning on doing. But I did notice that most of the weather "show" focuses on what happened yesterday, and how that compares to what happened a year ago. I imagine there's at least a 50% chance of them getting that right!

Of course two days later, they'll be saying "it's a bright, beautiful sunny day" as a tornado is ripping through town 2 blocks away from the TV studio. Perhaps they should consider installing a window in the weather room! But I guess that would be too much like "real". Can't have that on TV!

One related matter: We also have the National Weather Service broadcasting, that you pick up on the little weather radios. Pretty much the same thing when it comes to accuracy. But to be "high-tech" and spend as many tax dollars as possible, it has a computer-synthesised voice. It's been there for several years now, and still can't pronounce half of the towns properly. I remember when they were putting in the new voice, the meteorologist commenting that it was much easier for him to type the information into a computer, than to speak it into a microphone. Perhaps that's why the forcast is always wrong. I think anyone who thinks it's easier to type than speak, has a few loose screws!

I've got more to add to this. Someday when I feel like adding it, I will!

Someday came!

In 2009, TV as you know it in 2007 will be gone. Instead of the old reliable "Analog" signal that always comes in, maybe a bit fuzzy once in a while, we'll have the Latest and Greatest Digital. With this technological wonder, you'll either have a perfect picture so you can count the whiskers in the newsman's mustache, on nothing at all. And for only a few thousand dollars, you can buy a TV to watch it on. And I'm sure that like most "digital" things today, you'll be assured of many
hours of service from it before you have to go out and by a new one! It might even be factory programmed to quit working after so many hours, because the manufacturer feels that it is time for you to buy a new one! That's great, because it really helps fill up those landfills fast with hazardous toxic waste! Of course the Government is mandating the phase-out of analog TV. One reason I'm sure is that because then they can collect sales tax on the new TV everyone has to buy, allowing the Government to have more money for all of the Absolutely Essential services they provide for you. The transmitters for the digital TV have to be several times more powerful than the old ones to get the same coverage. The electric bill can be many, many thousands of dollars per month for just one station. Presumably the Government rakes in sales tax on that too. The more power we can waste. the better, right?

So far, I've noticed that most programs I see on the "Widescreen" TV's, are not really meant to be shown that way. It makes everything wider than it really is. Circles become ovals, and everyone gets a fat head! But I imagine in the future, everything on TV will be new, not the old fashioned junk that some old geezer made 10 years ago. We gotta get rid of all that old stuff, those people had no idea what they were doing anyway. Today's generation has all the answers.

Speaking of widescreens, I'll bet you don't know why they are going to that format for TV. The reason is because you don't have one yet, so you'll go buy one, because your neighbor already did! Once everyone has one, then "narrowscreen" will be the latest and greatest, and it'll give you a chance to go out and buy one BEFORE your neighbor does this time!

Same goes for flat-screens. For ages, TV screens always had battle of the bulge. And until not too long ago, other electronic stuff like computers, stereos, and telephones had a practical, squared off professional appearance to them. But times have changed. If your telephone don't look like a shampoo bottle, or your stereo or computer doesn't have some kind of a big smoked-plastic dome with no real purpose sticking out of it, it's way out of style. But your TV better be perfectly flat and square, or it's out of style!

I'm goin' to bed, but you can click
here and stay up all night!