I’m trying to watch the celebration in NY – the Yankees going down the Canyon of Heroes amid a couple million fans and a lot of shredded paper – and this is the most unsatisfying experience. Why? Because television broadcasters -and apparently whoever is directing them- have gone completely hyperactive. I want to see the parade. That’s all I want to see. I don’t want to see silly female reporters screaming into their microphones about “the love and positive energy” or boorish male reporters scaring little kids by shoving mics in their faces and demanding a performance.
Even worse, though, are the banners. There are so many banners on the television screen, that I feel like I am peering through a fence, hoping to get a glimpse of the Yankees. There are bright banners near the bottom announcing THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE WATCHING and THIS IS WHERE YOU ARE WATCHING IT and LIVE! in HD! And then near the top on another side LIVE COPTER!! Then a picture-in-picture, with another brain dead reporter who has run out of things to say and decided to simply shove his mic into the faces of two women who emit ear-piercing, tribal screams.
I flip through the channels, one after another, and it’s frustrating. Every channel has an overabundance of banners, bellowing reporters talking and talking about what they see…but we’re not allowed to see it! I am watching the parade, but I cannot SEE it! I can’t hear the crowd; I only hear the mediafolk.
Right now: a graphic of lower Manhattan with three pics-in-pics…”there’s Nick Swisher!” says a reporter. What I can see is a sea of arms raised to take a picture, nowhere near the float.
I’m just gobsmacked. Technology offers too many options to those news folk in their vans, and they are unable to just train their cameras on the parade route and shut the hell up. Awful.
“I love the parades,” says a reporter. “I am an American and I love the parade and the bands!” Not that we can see any of that.
I am struck by how utterly inarticulate the newsfolk are. One would assume that these people, who make their livings by using words, would have more of them at their disposal, besides, “awesome,” and “exciting,” and “amazing.”
Is there a more overused word in the English language, currently, than “amazing”?
My son watched me flipping, impatiently, through the channels and he asked, “it’s the same graphics-heavy stuff on every channel; what is it you want?”
I want coherence. I want a presentation linear enough to tell its own story. I want a highly paid media-specialist who is capable of talking about something more than whether or not he alone -amid a sea of people- is being noticed by the Yankee players floating by.
I want someone with a microphone to try to say something thoughtful or even mildly profound; he doesn’t have to succeed at it, but if someone would just make the attempt to mark the moment with a word picture, or a memorable insight about the mysterious tribal alchemy of teams and cities; about how they lift each other up. It is worth dwelling for a moment on how an event like this builds small-town community in the midst of big-city anonymity, and how these bonding moments nourish the spirit metropolitan, so that when sorrow or catastrophe comes, it may be borne in strength, and with a sense of commonality, hopefulness and trust.
Television is a wonderful tool; it’s rendered unwatchable, and therefore useless, by the folks who know all about how to work the gadgetry but haven’t a clue about balance, or moderation.
Just now, the screen erupted into FOUR screens! As if anyone can actually see anything when EVERYTHING is being shoved in front of your eyes! Ack! Now they pull back and we’re watching…we’re watching reporters sitting in chairs, talking about what they’re seeing in their monitors!
Can we see the parade? Can we see the highschool kids playing New York, New York? Can we see the cops in kilts, playing their bagpipes? Can we see the damn parade, and the floats, and the YANKEES, and not the reporters?
Can we hear the damn crowd, and not the endlessly yakking gasbags who have nothing to say? Please?
No?
Apparently, the answer is no.
“It’s exciting to watch the floats go by,” says a reporter.
Well, how nice that you got to see them.
November 6th, 2009 | 2:20 pm | #1
My Dear Anchoress,
I feel much the same way about baseball coverage. I grew up watching Harry Jones call the Indians’ games on WJW with two black and white cameras-it was almost as good as being there (actually, our living room was probably more crowded than old Municipal Stadium in those days!). These days, a key situation comes up, and they don’t show the defensive alignment, but instead show the sweat dripping off the nose of yesterday’s starter, or the nose hairs of the batter, and drone on about some inane statistic that means nothing. There is so much more to the came than is shown on TV, including the game itself; 8 o’clock starts are getting too late for ME, so having the kids stay up is out of the question.
Thanx for the opportunity to rant. Have a Blessed Day!
oddball
November 6th, 2009 | 2:21 pm | #2
Information control. If they control it they think that they can also control our way of thinking. Unfortunately, this is all too true for most folks. [SIGH!]
When the Ft. Hood shootings broke ………. I turned off the TV. I came back many hours later … to Fox and saw the same repeating loops of Greta Van Susteren that I had seen almost 8 hours previously.
One commenter at another blog, maybe channeling too much conspiracy, said that this mans handlers set him loose because of the coming votes in DC on…. the HealthScare monstrosity (Goodbye, Freedom!) and the Babs Boxer violations of all that is honorable Cap’N Tax bill coming out of committee in violation of Congressional rules. You know, sometimes we wish to say, “Oh, no way could they be THAT evil!”, but in truth, are they capable of such? In the darkest recesses ……. I say….. ‘Well, maybe….”
Pray for those who have lost their lives in Texas recently.
November 6th, 2009 | 2:24 pm | #3
I want coherence. I want a presentation linear enough to tell its own story. I want a highly paid media-specialist who is capable of talking about something more than whether or not he alone -amid a sea of people- is being noticed by the Yankee players floating by.
I want the Phillies to be champs.
*sigh*
November 6th, 2009 | 2:32 pm | #4
The only television that’s not worthless is Monk. Neat and tidy…
Better to just plug your ears, close your eyes, pinch your nose, and hang on.
November 6th, 2009 | 2:37 pm | #5
Sorry, Archoress, but I’m with Gary Keith Chesterton, I also want the Phillies to be champs. I’m sure Archbishop Dolan will enjoy the Tasykakes.
November 6th, 2009 | 2:54 pm | #6
Oddball – I too grew up watching those sublime Indians broadcasts. In fact, I’m so doggone old that I actually sat in a seat behind the Indians dugout during one of the World Series games in 1948 (which the Indians won if memory serves). Baseball was appreciated in those days much more than in these overhyped overpaid athlete days. Congratulations to the Yankees and their fans – from a deeply disgruntled (yet loyal) Indians fan who has had her heart broken every year since 1948!
November 6th, 2009 | 3:44 pm | #7
There is a reason it is called the “idiot box.”
Turn it off and reread Neil Postman.
November 6th, 2009 | 5:12 pm | #8
That’s how I feel when watching the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade and the Rose Parade. I want to hear the bands, especially of the kids from small towns who washed cars and sold candy and raised the money to play and to march.
HGTV has the right idea–they show the Rose Parade “commercial free” (meaning you can still see the parade and hear it while they announce the sponsor’s name). They still have hosts who chatter, but it’s usually about the flowers on the floats. I wish they would show the Thanksgiving Day Parade as well.
The worst sportscasters, IMHO, are those for college football, who can’t get the downs and the yards right!
November 6th, 2009 | 5:23 pm | #9
What I want to know is . . .
Did they precede the parade with a shout-out to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow?
Some things take priority, you know.
November 6th, 2009 | 5:29 pm | #10
I quit watching the Olympics for that reason. The announcers would not SHUT UP! I quit watching the Macy’s and Rose parade years ago for the same reason.
November 6th, 2009 | 5:30 pm | #11
Bender you are droll beyond comprehension. Have a great weekend. You’ve brightened my day in full measure!
(By the way – I get very annoyed when they don’t show the Ohio State halftime show. I adore “Script Ohio” and it makes me cry, every single time I see it!)
November 6th, 2009 | 5:32 pm | #12
I think the same way about coverage of the Pope’s Christmas Eve midnight Mass — too much “commentary” and voice-over translation! Just give us the picture and sound from St Peter’s, and put the translation in subtitles.
November 6th, 2009 | 6:21 pm | #13
Well, baseball is better on the radio than on TV if you ask me, and the master of radio announcing of Baseball was Vin Scully, he broadcasted the Dodgers for years. He put you right there. Just close your eyes. I remember listening to the last game of the season and turning off the radio after the last out and thinking right then how long it would be to spring. Click.
[I don't know if I agree that baseball is "better" on radio, but I know there is nothing quite LIKE listening to a game on the radio -crack of the bat, roar of the crowd- especially if you happen to walk into a small store in the spring, and you hear a game in the background...it's all promise of summer. And I had the joy of hearing Vin Scully when I was a kid. Great. Great. -admin]
November 6th, 2009 | 7:12 pm | #14
Joe Odegaard makes a good point. Especially when you consider radio announcers back before every team could be seen on TV. Their greatest gift, I think, was their ability to fill in the gaps not just with statistics or commentary on the game at hand, but with wonderful anecdotes about players present and also past.
About 30 or so years ago my father was sitting with a group of men in a hotel bar in Dallas and they began talking about different sports announcers. One fellow brought up old Packers and CBS announcer Ray Scott, and claimed that in the 1967 NFL championship on that frozen field, that Scott handled the drama perfectly. I don’t know whether he was remembering correctly, but he claimed that when Bart Starr sneaked into the end zone and the officials signaled the winning touchdown, that Ray Scott said nothing. Realized that he didn’t need to. The cameras and microphones told viewers everything that they needed to know.
At that point in the story, amazingly, a short middle-aged man left his place at the bar and shuffled over to introduce himself: “Excuse me, but I thought I heard one of you mention my name. I’m Ray Scott.” He was in town for the next day’s Dallas Cowboys’ game.
November 6th, 2009 | 8:26 pm | #15
Joe Odegaard makes a good point.
No he doesn’t.
Everyone knows that the master of radio announcing of baseball was Ernie Harwell.
Sadly, a few weeks ago he announced that he has inoperable cancer. “Whatever happens, I’m ready to face it,” he said. “I have a great faith in God and Jesus.”
November 6th, 2009 | 10:17 pm | #16
The “crawl” or banners that news channels run at the bottom of the screen are one of the most annoying legacies of 9/11, second only to the color coded terrorism alerts
. There was simply too much news to keep up with that day so CNN, MSNBC, et al. resorted to using the crawl — and they never stopped!
November 6th, 2009 | 11:22 pm | #17
I sympathize heartily, Anchoress. It sounds just maddening. And I’m annoyed by the overuse of “amazing” too. It’s used to mean “really really good,” but I can think of plenty of amazing things that are really really bad.
November 6th, 2009 | 11:31 pm | #18
And you’re still a Yankees fan, Dear Anchoress. Tut tut.
November 6th, 2009 | 11:46 pm | #19
Oh YES. I hate the people who cover parades and the Olympics. We’re not watching to see them! We want to see what’s happening. And somehow this message has not gotten to the television folks (except maybe HGTV, as mentioned above, but I don’t get that channel). I developed my hatred of Katie Couric and Bob Costas over their inane Olympic coverage (I distinctly remember KC mocking some Third World country’s outfits at an opening ceremony parade — talk about lack of class). As far as sports go, our local radio announcers are much better than the television folks. I think television people are enamored of themselves (or, in the case of producers, etc., their “talent”).
November 6th, 2009 | 11:48 pm | #20
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by The Anchoress, The Anchoress and Flo Johnson, Jayvie Canono. Jayvie Canono said: RT @TheAnchoress: hyperactive live tv is useless http://bit.ly/328Ljv <– Not all events have to be curated, just delivered. [...]
November 7th, 2009 | 12:35 am | #21
The ultimate in “SHUT THE HELL UP” television events was the funeral Mass for John Paul II (santo subito), and the next was for the TV coverage of Benedict’s visit to the U.S.
I had EWTN at the time of B16’s visit and, as much as I loved the founder of First Things, Father Neuhaus and Raymond Arroyo would simply not shut up! They just rammered and rammered and rammered. The same thing when Benedict was elected. They were so busy blabbing, that they were oblivious to whether the smoke was white or black.
And as much as I prefer Fox, for big-time breaking news events, they too often have dropped the ball. Instead of showing footage, yesterday Fox spent enormous amounts of time on talking heads.
Less talking, more shutting up, more visuals, less chyrons taking up 80 percent of the screen, is more.
November 7th, 2009 | 12:40 am | #22
Is “rammered” even a word?
Oh, you shut your yapper too.
You know what I mean.
November 7th, 2009 | 12:45 am | #23
Those of you who have given up watching the Olympics due to inane announcers who don’t know when to shut up… I hear you there.
How different from classic announcers like ABC’s Jim McKay, best known for his coverage of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre.
I remember reading a magazine interview of McKay, in which he said that what he thought about most throughout that tragic day was a couple from Ohio whose son was one of the kidnapped Israeli athletes. “I knew I would have to be the one to tell them whether their son was alive or dead,” he said.
I don’t see many talking heads nowadays with that kind of compassion or sensitivity…
November 7th, 2009 | 5:04 am | #24
Such is the legacy of Murdoch & his pals. They’ve got us where they want us.
November 7th, 2009 | 8:06 am | #25
>>> I want coherence. I want a presentation linear enough to tell its own story.
> I want the Phillies to be champs.
Unfortunately, the latter will probably come long before the former…
>>> bellowing reporters talking and talking about what they see
Media narcissism at its finest.
It’s all about… *ME* !!!
They are liberals. Nothing of any importance in the universe exists excepting as how its light shines on the libtards.
November 7th, 2009 | 8:11 am | #26
BTW — I missed it, quite intentionally, I’d note — WTH are they putting on chyrons regarding a parade? Esp. that actually needs to run constantly?
November 7th, 2009 | 8:53 am | #27
Rupert Murdoch is right-wing. But would anyone really call him a bastion of standards in the media world? I certainly wouldn’t.
It baffles me how people associate “dumbing down” with the political left. Aren’t unbridled consumerism & radical individualism things which are owned by the right? You can hardly complain when they turn out in ways that social cons don’t like.
November 7th, 2009 | 9:33 am | #28
Yes! This is exactly what’s wrong with dance shows and dance movies, too. It’s not the banners here, but rather that camera work: no single shot is more than 2 seconds long. For Pete’s sake, I want to see the dancers move! But the cameras cut back and forth so rapidly that you can hardly see a single turn in one, smooth stroke. Yuck.
I watched an old Gene Kelly movie the other day and was so happy to see him dance. The cameras only switch ever 30-45 seconds, so you can actually appreciate his talent!
November 7th, 2009 | 9:56 am | #29
Is “rammered” even a word?
ram> verb To roughly force something into place
hammer> verb 1) Inculcate something forcefully or repeatedly; 2) Attack or criticize forcefully or relentlessly
ram + hammer
Rammer
A word is born
November 7th, 2009 | 12:36 pm | #30
My father had the best solution to what he called the blithering and the blathering. Turn the sound down to a slight murmur. Don’t “mute” it. You need to hear the rise in voice inflection if something important happens so you can pull your attention away from that book you’re reading.
Try it. It does give your nerves a rest.
November 7th, 2009 | 12:37 pm | #31
I too grew up listening to Tiger games and Ernie Harwell. At my house we’d watch the game on tv…and turn off the sound, instead listening to Ernie’s word-pictures on WJR radio.
Saw Ernie on tv last month…announcing his impending death…..a life-long Christian, Ernie would lead clubhouse meetings for Christians of both teams visiting Tiger Stadium on Sundays before the game. He couldn’t stand the thought that good Christians needed to miss services to make their living.
As he announced his own end last month, he was honored by all the Detroit sports teams…and he appeared happy and glowing at his impending meeting with the Lord.
He’s lived a wonderful life…committed…and near as anybody can tell…as close to sinless as a modern can get today.
Ernie…I will miss you. Go to your glory and pray for us.
November 7th, 2009 | 2:04 pm | #32
You could always try not bothering to have a TV, how about that?
I haven’t got one. I go to my mum’s every week to watch the only programme I bother with, University Challenge (quiz show in which students from competing universities have to answer questions, leading to one university eventually winning the competition).
I generally do fairly well on the questions, though there are weeks during which I fail badly. But that is why they have 4 people per team, to get as broad a range of general knowledge as possible.
November 7th, 2009 | 3:07 pm | #33
EXCELLENT POST!! Thank you so much! I can’t stand the personalities or the hyperactivity.
If only there were one channel you could count on, this household would get cable and start watching TV again. Currently our TV is used only to play DVDs.
November 7th, 2009 | 3:13 pm | #34
Bishops endorse the bill
November 7th, 2009 | 4:04 pm | #35
I sometimes watch the Detroit Thanksgiving parade; the local broadcasters do a pre-parade program about the construction of floats, featured bands, etc. During the last Olympics, I switched to Canadian broadcasts because the CBC often features retired athletes doing commentary – and they know when to hush.
I never watch baseball on TV and only sometimes watch other sports. I watched TV on Tuesday (the election news) and before that, I watched it in September (the weather). I listen to baseball and football on the radio and, frankly, get some work done around the house
November 7th, 2009 | 4:13 pm | #36
Oh, I forgot to add: I don’t think that not watching TV is a virtue in and of itself. Most of the self-proclaimed non-TV watchers around me are Netflix junkies, on-line addicts, game-players, etc. They just switched their info-tainment of choice.
November 7th, 2009 | 4:21 pm | #37
I think the info-crawl at the bottom of the page began with the Americans held hostage in Iran (Day130). Maybe that was just the beginning of Nightline. I am getting older and my attention is more fragmented than is good for me. I mean, there’s a WHOLE ISLE at the grocery store for just condiments: ketchup, mustard and the like. How many choices do you really need?
November 7th, 2009 | 8:13 pm | #38
Steve P and Bender hit on an angle of this topic that sends my wife off doing her own “commentary.” Be it Raymond Arroya on EWTN or the senseless announcers on Vatican Radio. When the Pope is delivering a talk/sermon or leading the Liturgy, they seem to feel the need to talk nonstop. Raymond will not shut his trap and even the Vatican announcer feels the need to give us a “play by play”. JUST SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO THE HOLY FATHER!!!
This was even more annoying than usual when a recent service included Eastern Orthodox clergy and prayers given in their language. My wife, who was brought up with Slavonic as the languge of the Divine Liturgy, was intently listening to those prayers. But the announcer thought their description was far more important than allowing people to listen to the prayers themselves.
Symphonic concerts on television usually do not include a voice telling us “the oboe is going to play now” or “the first chair violinist is about to build up the tempo.” Yet we show far less respect when the Pope is talking or praying.
November 7th, 2009 | 8:47 pm | #39
” I want a presentation linear enough to tell its own story. I want a highly paid media-specialist who is capable of talking about something more than whether or not he alone -amid a sea of people- is being noticed by the Yankee players floating by.”
You are yearning for TV as it once was, reported by reporters who were educated, and learned to talk BEFORE TV. Reporters who actually had to learn to write in a way that would be understood on the radio, or even for print.
Now it seems that their reason for being — raison d’etre for those of you on the River Charles — is to BE SEEN, rather than to SHOW, much less to tell.
November 8th, 2009 | 2:09 am | #40
Let me just say this with respect to all the non-stop blather, even from those who should know better.
If there is such a thing as a “saint” of television coverage of events, the greatest of them all is Brian Lamb.
He towers above everyone else and is by far the fairest, most decent, most commonsensical, wisest person ever to be involved in television news events. (And I once bumped into him at the Borders at Pentagon City mall, and he seemed just as good and decent in person.)
November 8th, 2009 | 11:55 am | #41
This is the norm, now, for parade coverage. Used to be I could watch the Rose Parade, or the Mummers Parade. But the talking heads took over, with silly interviews with celebs, and such.
I don’t watch parades anymore.
The coverage is precisely why.
November 8th, 2009 | 12:45 pm | #42
I watched it on the YES network. I thought it was good there (I live in MA, thank God for DirecTV!). However, when Jeter, Posada and Pettite were on Letterman the night after the World Series, Jeter said he wasn’t engaged?! What’s up with that?!
[Jeter is pretty private, I think. But the fact that he had Minka Kelly on the float with him speaks volumes. -admin]
November 8th, 2009 | 4:44 pm | #43
Its amazing technology. That costs amazing amounts of money. Amazing! And, to justify the amazing layouts of money, they have to give it amazing amounts of air time. Otherwise, it would just be an amazing waste.
Enough? Amazing!
Sarah
November 9th, 2009 | 10:46 am | #44
Well, I heartily agree with the sentiment in the OP, though I don’t really watch TV programming (just movies on the TV).
BTW, Bender? How can you mention anything approaching a ’saint’ of popular media without Bishop Fulton Sheen? I mean, sheesh…
November 9th, 2009 | 1:22 pm | #45
I would question the value of even attempting to watch a parade (any parade) on television to begin with and why anyone would want to do so. Parades are an experience: you really have to be on the street, in the cold, for hours and hours, while bands and floats and locally-famous people you’ve never heard of coast by. Trying to watch that on television, no matter how it’s presented, is akin to handing your kid a DVD of “The World’s Most Amazing Rollercoasters!” and then expecting that to keep them from bugging you about going to Cedar Point. But in a world where pornography is a multi-bazillion-dollar industry, I guess I can’t be surprised that there are people who want to watch parades on TV.
November 9th, 2009 | 1:34 pm | #46
This has been interesting reading…from the original article, all the way through the coments. Being an Ohioan, I especially relate to the Script Ohio comment, and my hubby is a life-long and long-suffering Indians fan!
Since we are airing pet peeves with news coverage, my complaint is with the hosts of new shows who have guests, yet won’t let the guest get a word in edge-wise! This is especially a problem with Hannity. It’s so annoying that I have stopped watching him. Same goes for his radio call-in show. I catch O’Reilly doing it, too, but I understand he does it to keep guests on topic. It’s his no-spin trademark, so I give him credit for that.
On both of these shows, though, the clutter on the screen is incredible, as Anchoress so eloquently describes.
The narcissism of game commentators drives me crazy. Brent Musberger and Kirk Herbstreit (a Buckeye!) just can’t get enough of themselves! It’s boorish.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact