Two hours in hell
Last night, still dealing with the flu-like symptoms that have sidelined me for the last three days, I did something I never do: I watched cable television. For an hour, maybe two. (It was a friend’s tv; I only have the minimum cable service myself.) It was indescribably awful, a toxic experience. How can anyone stand it?
I had on Hannity and Colmes on the Fox channel, and it was nothing but Anna Nicole Smith. I kept turning away from that station then coming back, thinking they would get into some real politics, which is what Hannity and Colmes is supposed to be about, right? But the ANS thing just went on and on, with endlessly repeated clips of the Howard K. Stern guy and the blond guy on the witness stand, as though these were objects of the greatest fascination. And the other “news” stations I tried escaping to were also All ANS, All The Time. Also, all these “news” shows including the “conservative” Fox seem to find as their “guest commentators” generic long-haired blond bimbos, though the bimbo/commentators are identified by professional descriptions such as “former prosecutor” and such like. Basically, Anna Nicole was a desperate whore, and the guests, male and female, talking about her on these cable shows seem like desperate whores themselves. So it all fits.
Again, why does anyone care about her? Why are people interested? The woman was a freak. She wasn’t even attractive, desperately dolled up as she was all the time. A woman friend said to me that ANS is like Marilyn Monroe, and I went, wha? Leaving aside the issue of her freakiness and desperateness, and just looking at her as a female “icon,” Anna Nicole Smith, to paraphrase Shakespeare, was no more like Marilyn Monroe than I to Hercules.
Apart from the dreadful content, the medium of cable tv is unwatchable. For example, how can anyone stand the Fox channel, with that continuously running text at the bottom of the screen? Instead of being able to settle into watching a show, you’re constantly being distracted by this other thing happening on screen that has nothing to do with the show you’re actually watching. I don’t know how people can put up with it. It’s seems to be a medium aimed at people who are comfortable with endless quantities of visible overstimulation and distraction. Yet aren’t we told that the viewers of the cable news shows are a tiny elite, only about a million out of the whole U.S.? God help us.
- end of initial entry -
Larry G. writes:
“God help us.”
My thoughts exactly. Fox News seems to have descended into tabloidism. I turned off all that c__p years ago. I recently turned off “conservative” talk radio as well and returned to classical music. I sometimes watch the Discovery Channel when they have a week of programs on various ways the earth might be destroyed. (It gives me hope. ;-) )But most of the programming isn’t worth the electricity to run the TV. It says a lot about the character and quality of the American people that watching programs like this is the way they choose to occupy their time, and none of what it says is good.
Alan Roebuck writes:
As for your VFR post “Two hours in hell,” I am reminded that Dennis Prager has described TV news as “giving a proctologist’s view of America.” He urges people not to watch TV, especially the news.
I too feel sick when I watch most TV shows. I generally try to restrict what I watch to game shows and old sitcoms, which provide light amusement for me, my wife and my three-year-old son. It is the “serious” stuff on TV that is generally the worst, although some of the PBS documentaries are good.
Mark A. writes:
I understand exactly what you mean. I shut off my cable completely in 1999. After two weeks, I didn’t miss it. The only thing connected to my television is a VCR/DVD player. Thus, only I decide what comes on the TV. Television has become mental rape. (And yes, I know people will respond that it’s not rape because it isn’t forced, but come on—virtually everything on television is c__p.)
What’s more interesting is how fast we have thrown the written word out of the window in favor of the icon (now in the form of a television). I hardly know anyone who reads books in their spare time. (And I work with “educated” white collar professionals!) Little did Andrew Carnegie know that 90 years after he had the good grace and charity to build public libraries, no one would bother going to them. Contrast this with Bill Gates who spends his money on leftist charities and wants to make sure that every child has a computer. “God help us” is right.
Gintas J. writes:
Speaking of people not reading anymore, it’s really bad on airplane flights. I have managed, in all the business flights I’ve taken, to read War and Peace and Les Miserables, among many others. Just recently I read The Virginian and Ivanhoe. Only once do I recall seeing anyone else reading something of a classic, he was reading something by Alexandre Dumas. Mostly people listen to music, watch movies, or read wothless pulp (“page turners”) or trendy management books.
This is what the death of the West looks like.
Vivek G. writes:
It’s the same in this part of the world as well. I don’t want to sound like a cospiracy-theorist, but I do believe that there are hidden motives behind all this “c**p propaganda.” The left-liberals, over a period of time, gain complete control over all mass-communication. Once they control what the populace sees, hears, reads, and perceives, they can easily engineer what the public conclude and believes. Interspersed with what you have rightly termed as “ … endless quantities of visual overstimulation and distraction … ,” there will be popular slogans like “We must save the honour and freedom of oppressed women,” “strive for the emancipation of the poor,” or “Let’s save our planet for our children,” and so on. And finally what you have is a mass of confused populace whose opinion is easily swayed. Mr. Noam Chomsky accuses the U.S. govt. of “manufacturing consent,” but that’s what his commie-cousins have been doing all along. The mass media is turning out to be a left-liberal madrassa. I fondly recollect a funny quote—“Do you know why television is a medium? “Because it is neither rare, nor well done.”
It might be worth-while if you (and those of similar ilk) could post your video lectures/programs/interviews on www.YouTube.com. Then in due course it could become an alternative to the tv, exactly as “blogs” have become an alternative to “print mass-media.”
Laura W. writes:
What fascinates me is the advent of the big screen. I know many people who have plunked down thousands of dollars for screens that nearly take up an entire wall or for “screening rooms.” Now it’s one thing to watch utter junk on a small screen, but to view it on a five-foot screen makes it more than just junk. Magnified in this way, it becomes mesmerizing and awe-inspiring, an object of some weird form of religious worship. Yes, these screens seem altars. What is projected on them is almost beside the point. I sense what it must be to work as an anthropologist studying an alien culture. I try to put myself into the world of these people. What do they see? What are they longing for? Are they awake or asleep?
KPA writes from Canada:
With all due respect, I think I have to disagree with your for one of those few times.
I think the problem with traditionalists is that they (we) tend to be elitists.
This puts us in a secluded enclave where it seems contact with the masses becomes a painful affair.
I agree with the mediocrity of Anna Nicole Smith – she wasn’t that attractive, she wasn’t a good actress (which Marilyn Monroe certainly was), and she probably was desperate.
But, in her own way, she resembles some of the tragedies of which the greatest plays were made. I think Tennessee Williams could have made her into one of his (iconic?) characters.
To be a little more mundane, her life was a “made for TV” scenario. Almost every single part of it – from her “unloved” youth, her search for the big life, her seduction of an old rich man (but everyone is susceptible to their own seduction, I would think), her son’s death, her own, and her mother’s denunciation of her on the Larry King.
I’m not condoning her behavior, but like I said, some of the best tragedies came out of the sordid realities of life. From which we could all learn.
As for reading books, I am one of those who does so, at any opportunity. But, doesn’t anyone realize how hard it is after a full day’s work, with family etc… to take care of?
My role model in many ways is Shakespeare (and Mozart, and the Beatles), who were never elitist, and who always managed to put in the ordinary with the extraordinary.
I think that is the fascination, and yes, I would call it the tragedy, of ANS.
FOX is only going by some deep-level intuition. Sometimes, the public is more in control than one thinks.
LA replies:
I “sort of” know in general terms what KPA is getting at, but in the case of ANS, I just don’t see it. ANS is too trashy to be tragic.
However, in this connection, I’m reminded of Maynard Mack’s great Introduction to Antony and Cleopatra in the Pelican Shakespeare series. Mack asked: are Antony and Cleopatra two trashy Hollywood stars, or are they genuinely tragic lovers? And he answers: they are both, and that is the genius of the play.
Mark E. writes:
Why would you expect to see anything of substance on a show like Hannity and Colmes? I can save you a lot of trouble next time: except for video footage of major news events, there are NO worthwhile political or news shows on TV, except perhaps on PBS. (Charlie Rose is a lickspittle but he has intelligent guests, speaks in a conversational tone, and allows them to speak at length.)
However, you draw the wrong conclusions about cable TV in general.
I am writing to correct this misapprehension, shared by too many people, that cable TV is a wasteland of cultural garbage. This is not true; and you are apparently missing a lot of good shows. For one thing, you might find it heartening, as I do, in an often-disheartening world, to see how many people are producing quality programs with substantial educational content.
There are a lot of good programs on cable TV, more than on the networks. Programs I would actually recommend that people should watch.
The History Channel(s), and other documentary channels, animal channels, Ovation, TMC, IFC (sometimes).
The History Channel is still unfairly referred to by some as “The WWII Channel”; but that describes perhaps what it used to be some time ago, and is simply false for quite some time now.
One of the best shows on TV, for so many reasons, is Modern Marvels. Let him who would behold the wonder that is Man’s mind and his labor, watch this show. It is an unabashed celebration of technology and material progress the likes of which we don’t hear or see much anymore—including from corporations themselves. I think it would be Ayn Rand’s favorite program.
(BTW—In social conversation, I have found that “working class”/”redneck” kinds of people often love this show and can discuss many episodes of it; whilst many of the suburban white collar “educated” classes have not even heard of it, but they can tell you all about the dumb sitcoms on network TV. I find this revealing of a lot of things.)
The History Channel and the National Geographic Channel have many shows about the Bible—stories, text, scholarship, archaeology, re-enactments, CGI of Solomon’s Temple, etc., and about Christianity and religion in general—and all with a more-than-respectful treatment—some of them easily could be shown on the Pat Robertson channel. And of course all the other great historical docus they have they have. Many about the classical world—Egypt, Greece, Rome—all which use a lot of references and quotations of classical writers (who people don’t read in high school or college anymore).
Ovation, the arts channel, has programs about art and music—concerts of classical, jazz, pop, Irish—as well as some excellent films—you would probably like the one about Shostakovitch (sp?), with Ben Kingsley. There is an excellent series, Portrait of a Masterpiece, each about a specific work of art. That is worth renting on DVD if it is out there.
There are also many good made-for-TV movies on cable, that are much better, IMO, than most theater releases. One that comes to mind immediately is the movie about Ernest Shackleton starring Kenneth Branagh.
So, I think people can learn a lot from all these excellent, educational shows on cable TV, and much more than they are going to learn from most of the other things they spend their brains on these days. (How many Harry Potter books, or Ann Coulter/Michael Moore books does one really need to read?)
The real problem with cable is that people can’t just order only those channels they want, so they either have to let the trash in, or keep the good stuff out.
Finally, one more cable program in particular I recommend to you highly is The Dog Whisperer on National Geographic Channel. (I have found out recently that this man Cesar Milan came here from Mexico as an illegal alien. No, I don’t approve of that, but I raise it only to urge you to put that matter aside in your mind when you watch the show.)
I don’t know if you care about dogs (I don’t), but it doesn’t matter. The Dog Whisperer is as much about Nature, instinct, roles, dominance and submission as natural balance in relationships, and other forbidden truths. Cesar Milan preaches frankly what seems elsewhere in our culture barred from ever being suggested.
Here is what this man says, and demostrates by his re-training of the dogs and the human owners, week after week: Nature is about unchangeable identity, roles, instincts, patterns. A dog is a dog. It has a dog-nature. It is not a person. It is below us. We do not change that by acting like it isn’t so, by treating our dog as our equal and calling it our “baby.” Dogs want a pack leader. Human must be boss of dog. Kids want a pack leader. Parent must be boss of kid. Dog is not a kid, is not a human. Parent must value kid over dog. Women’s nature is to want a man and to want a child (or else she transfers her affections to her dog and treat it like a person). Etc. A dog is made “unhappy”—misbehaves—when the owner does not treat it in accord with its dog-nature. To train the dog, you don’t need to yell at it or hit it; indeed this makes things worse; rather you train a dog by exploiting its dog-nature, which first you must recognize, understand, and accept.
LA replies:
I appreciate Mark E.’s comments about all the good things that are on cable tv. I would also add Court TV. A friend recently recounted to me several dramatized documentaries on Court TV about murder cases, amazing stories about real-life evil.
Paul K. writes:
I would agree with you that Fox News specials on Anna Nichol Smith would probably be among the entertainment offerings in hell. However, like Mark E., I find that there is a great deal of worthwhile programming on cable. I work at home and used to listen to talk radio for company. Since the medium has become an asylum for neo-con ranters, I now listen to the History Channel. Its calm, measured tone makes it perfect as background audio and most of the programs are interesting and informative. During the afternoons they will often run four episodes of a series back to back, and when the topic is something of interest, like a biography of Stalin, I learn a good deal. Granted the television is no substitute for a book, but I am often doing other things when the TV is on that would prevent me from reading anyway. I time my visits to the gym so I can watch Lou Dobbs while I’m on the elliptical machine and it motivates me to put in the full hour.
Actually, I’m surprised that you would single out cable tv for condemnation. In my opinion the only worthwhile things on tv are on cable—I never watch the networks anymore. A few weeks ago I got to the gym late and a popular CBS show, “Two and a Half Men,” was playing. I’m probably not as strait-laced as most VFR readers but I found this program incredibly vulgar and repugnant, worse than anything you would see on basic cable.
David H. writes:
Laura W. writes about television screens almost the size of a wall, and the fact that a thing that size becomes “…mesmerizing and awe-inspiring, an object of some weird form of religious worship…” This instantly reminded me of the fireman Guy Montag’s home in Fahrenheit 451. One hopes the consequences will not eventually be the same, but I believe there is much validity to Vivek’s musings.
As for television, I renounced it (mostly) over a decade ago. Aside from programs like Meerkat Manor on Animal Planet, as well as one-time documentaries, my appropriately small television is a good place for a piggy bank and my watch. Even the internet takes second seat to a good book.
David B. writes:
I used to watch the political shows on cable every night, plus Capital Gang on weekends. When I got a computer in the Summer of 2000, I stopped. You can keep up with everything even better on the Internet. Occasionally, I have looked at some of the cable shows and now can’t stand them. The guests are invariably fawning over the most repulsive politicians, and the so-called “conservatives” meekly agree.
I started watching Court TV about the time I got a computer. Their prime time shows are excellent, as one of your correspondents said. I sometimes watch the trials during the day, while allowing for the inane commentary by the flock of female hosts.
I agree that the History Channel has a lot of worth-while programming. I buy a lot of DVDs of classic films. I enjoy the film noirs of the 1940s and ‘50s. They are supposed to have a “dark” view of the world, and they do in a way, but usually have a rather moral outlook by today’s standards. Many of them were filmed on location in Los Angeles and sometimes New York. It’s fascinating to see what those places looked like 50-60 years ago.
LA replies:
I happen to have seen several late 1940s film noirs in the last few months that I had never seen before. It’s a genre I like. The darkness, the archetypal (as distinct from psychological) aspect of the characters, the tough, grown-up quality of the male-female relationships, and the moral framework are all things I like about them. Film noir is a unique art form and I wonder what was going on in our culture that gave birth to it.
Bruce B. writes:
I’m sorry but this is a pet peeve of mine.
Aaron Wolf says it all:
“There is an invader in your home, and it sits like a god in your living room, in the place of the family hearth. It may hurt your vision, cause brain cells to die, and even keep you from reading a good book. But the worse thing about it is that it is an ambassador for the Culture of Death, a “big, bright, green pleasure machine” whose goal is to introduce you and keep you attached to the world which hated Christ and against which Judgment is coming. It is impossible to shield yourself or your children from all evil (since we are born with Original Sin) but that does not mean that we should leave a 26-inch window into Hell open in the living room. The dog will return to his vomit, but we will not be tempted to watch him gorge, unless we allow ourselves the option. And no PBS-History Channel-Fox News excuse is good enough—not in the age of Madonna and Britney—to allow the intruder space in the house. Not anymore.”
We got rid of cable shortly after we had kids and never looked back. When we visit my parents we get to see what we’re missing. It’s absolute puke, much worse than even five years ago. I can’t see how a traditionalist or a Christian could have cable at least without blocking 90 percent of the channels. Please folks, if you have children get rid of it. And don’t buy an antenna, broadcast is just as bad. Moral content aside, the lowbrow stupidity and spastic buffoonery of so many shows is reason enough to pull the plug. Your kids won’t read Edith Hamilton’s Mythology at 12 if they can watch the Cartoon channel.
The Animal Channel seems pretty silly. How many times can you watch a bunch of zebras or a biologist (not the one who died) who runs around molesting reptiles while acting like a spastic12-year old (making noises and faces that no adult should make in private, let alone public)?? Yes I miss History and the occasional Discovery special, but if there’s something you really want to see that bad, you can order the DVD from their website. If you’re not willing to spend the 9.95, you probably don’t want to see it that bad and are just killing time watching it. Or have the library order it (many will). Speaking of which, our library carrries tons of pop-culture crud and only a few educational DVDs. Their selection resembles a video store. I guess library patrons order this crud and since we live in a non-judgemental society, the librarians don’t say “this is innapropriate for a library” or just plain “no!”
We’ve also talked about getting rid of the internet when the kids get older and just using it at the library. At the very least, kids should not have unsupervised access to it. The internet has a lot of great things (VFR!!) but I suspect it’s worse in some ways than TV.
I guess maybe I should go join the Amish.
A reader writes:
I think you said that there are a million or so subscribers to cable. I think that’s wrong. There have got to be more to support all that’s on. What I’ve heard from a fan of the cable news shows is that the political shows are lucky if they get a million or so watchers. You could probably look up how many households have cable, a different statistic.
Mark N. writes:
Those who don’t wish to subscribe to cable, and even those who do, should look into renting DVDs online through Netflix. The selection is much, much better than that of any video rental store. Beyond movies, there’s a great selection of TV series on DVD, both classic series and newer shows. I imagine documentaries from history channel, discovery channel, Nova are all on there. I’m sure their selection of family and religious programming is also good, but I haven’t looked into it.
Beyond that, you can watch a show when it’s convenient for you rather than having to organize your life around a TV network’s schedule (this is an advantage of DVRs as well).
The only thing cable gives you that Netflix doesn’t is news.
Hopefully TV on demand will soon progress to a point where you can order individual news shows a la carte. Most cable newschannel fare is dreck but there are a few shows I wouldn’t mind having access to, but no way am I going to spring for an extended cable package.
Also, those fed up with talk radio might find some audio content they like through podcasts, available for free through iTunes.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 22, 2007 06:07 PM | Send