CommenTerry

The 20 Most Annoying TV Personalities

Television seems to be getting more annoying all the time. That's because, more and more, TV airtime is being filled with annoying people. Here is my list of the 20 most annoying TV personalities, in reverse order (with #1 being the most annoying):

20. Katie Couric

19. Mary Hart

18. Keith Olbermann

17. Oprah Winfrey

16. Montel Williams

15. Shaun Hannity

14. Stephen Colbert

13. Anderson Cooper

12. Nancy Grace

11. Glenn Beck

10. John Stewart

9. Jane Velez-Mitchell

8. Chris Hansen

7. Ellen DeGeneres

6. Maury Povich

5. Jerry Springer

4. Bill O'Reilly

3. Whoppi Goldberg

2. Rosie O'Donnell

and finally ...

1. Dr. Phil

Ten Things I Would Like to See on TV

Let’s face it – over the years, television has become more and more boring and redundant. I have been thinking about some things that would liven it up a little and provide a little change of pace for today’s jaded viewers. With this mind in, there at least ten things that I would like to see on TV (not that I really believe any of them will be happening any time soon). Anyway, I would like to see:

1) Someone tell Nancy Grace to shut the %@# up.

2) Someone pick up a newspaper and start reading it while being lectured by Judge Judy.

3) Someone tell Bill O’Reilly that Megan’s Law is overrated.

4) Someone inform Oprah Winfrey that she has no moral authority to make any kind of pontifications whatsoever.

5) A telethon in which people are encouraged to pledge money to be spent on creating more greenhouse gases.

6) The president spontaneously start praying (in Jesus’ name) during the State of the Union address.

7) A show in which the protagonist regularly back-talks authority figures like judges, the police, and his boss/commanding officer – and gets away with it.

8) A show in which the hapless always come out ahead of the cool and confident.

9) The supposed startup of new reality show that is abruptly aborted when the producers tell the participants and the would-be viewers that they are all idiots.

10) A guest on Larry King Live tell the venerable host that he is just another biased media liberal pretending to be impartial.

Why I'm Not a Fan of "Extreme Makeover"

Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, hosted by TV personality Ty Pennington, is one of the most popular shows on American television right now. However, don’t count me among its fans. I just disagree with its whole concept.

Each week on the show, some family that the show’s producers deem to be deserving gets their home pretty much rebuilt for free by people working for the show. In essence, each of these families is handed a gift valued at up to $300,000 or more, depending on the location. This is much different from game shows, where people utilize their skills to win cash and prizes. Here, people are handed a large gift without having to do anything to get it.

The first problem that comes to my mind is that there are likely to be people who are just as deserving of such a gift, or even more so, who will never be lucky enough to be a beneficiary of that show. There is enough injustice is the world already. To me, this show seems nothing more than an excuse to randomly create even more unfairness.

The second problem I see is that the spectacle it creates is certain to elicit jealousy. As I mentioned above, there are likely to be other deserving people who get left out. How are they are going to feel when they see this kind of thing on TV?

While some might be truly happy for the recipients, others are no doubt going to feel bad because no one is helping them. If Pennington and company feel compelled to give some families a free home makeover, they should do it as a private act without broadcasting it to the world.

The third problem is that all the effort, time, and resources spent on such large projects would be better spent helping even more people with smaller projects and giveaways. Random acts of kindness are fine, but not on the scale of what they are doing.

Obviously it’s done for TV ratings. A show about people handing out $20 bills to the homeless would likely not be a very big draw. Ratings or no ratings, though, I still think something like that would be a better use of the producers’ time and money. Of course, the catch-22 would be that, without the ratings, there would be no show, and without the show, there would be nothing to hand out. 

We Should Demand Cable Choice

Back in the days when I had one of those big satellite dishes, also known as a big ugly dish (BUD), I was allowed to select, on an a-la-carte basis, the channels that I wanted. I used an over-the-air antenna to receive my local channels, so I generally selected only the news and sports channels for my satellite subscription. These were the only channels I paid for. I wasn’t required to pay for any channel that I wasn’t interested in. That kept my TV viewing costs within a reasonable range.

With the demise of the BUD, we are now stuck with cable, the small dish (which I call “cable on a stick”), or telco TV if we want more TV channels than those available over the air. All three of these options have one thing in common: they demand that we select our basic channels in bundles or packages instead of allowing us to cherry-pick what we want.

Therefore, in order in get access to ESPN, for example, customers must both pay for and allow into their homes channels like MTV, VH1, Spike TV, FX, TNT, Bravo, and others that amount to nothing more than a cavalcade of eye-rolling and mind-numbing nonsense. And much of what these channels offer is stuff that many – including myself – find objectionable.

The cable companies, satellite operators, and telcos argue that allowing channel choice would be economically and technically unfeasible and that it would cause many basic channels to disappear. However, this argument seems disingenuous to me. After all, they do it with premium channels like HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax – and I don’t see any of them going out of business.

And if a TV channel can’t survive on its own merits, too bad. That’s the way capitalism is supposed to work. It’s survival of the fittest. Business entities that can’t generate enough interest from potential customers are supposed to fall by wayside. It seems to me like these pay-TV providers have set up some kind of social welfare system for TV channels, in which those that draw few viewers get rewarded along with those that draw many. Or perhaps it’s a union mentality that long ago put its stamp on the world of pay-TV.

We have all come to expect cable rates that go up on a yearly basis – and sometimes more often. Almost every rate increase is blamed on the rise in the costs of carrying all the popular channels. Unfortunately, much of it is for the rising costs of channels that I never watch. How fair is that? Then the greedy channel owners take the money I pay them for stuff I don’t watch and use it to produce more programs that I have no interest in. It's a vicious cycle!

Some people are trying to get the FCC involved in forcing pay-TV providers to offer their basic channels on an a-la-carte basis. I disagree with them. This is not something the government needs to be intervening in. Consumers should force the issue by demanding cable choice, backed up with the threat of returning to over-the-air TV – an option the digital conversion has rendered much more intriguing than it used to be.

When their subscriber base begins to shrink to the point where their bottom line starts to suffer, the pay-TV providers will suddenly find the a-la-carte channel alternative a lot more doable.

Must-Offend TV

You will rarely find nudity, explicit sex, or a certain four-letter word on network or basic cable TV in the U.S.  That’s because, of course, most viewers would find those things offensive. However, other things that are just as offensive to me (or, in some cases, even more so) seem to be fair game these days. Here is a partial list:

1) Advertisements for medications to treat erectile dysfunction in old men (do the rest of us really have to be exposed to this stuff?).

2) All kinds of cursing and foul language (there are more offensive words than just the f-word).

3) Sexual situations, often accompanied by overtly suggestive dialogue.

4) Kangaroo court shows presided over by attitude-wielding ‘judges’ who obviously lack proper judicial temperament.

5) Violence of all sorts (from fist-fighting to gun violence to bombings to graphic torture to bloody cadavers, and everything in between).

6) Homosexual actors and characters who demand acceptance of their lifestyle.

7) Unmarried heterosexual couples depicted as carrying on sexual relationships.

8) Outright hostility towards organized religion, especially Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

9) Veneration of rogue law enforcement officers and other vigilantes.

10) Unbridled lasciviousness, hedonism, and materialism.

11) Advertisements for hard liquor.

12) Celebrity worship (can you say idolatry?).

13) Lewd and suggestive dancing.

14) Talk shows glorifying and pandering to aberrant behavior of every kind, freakishness, fetishism, weird psychoses, uncertain paternities, and even absolute perversion.

15) Male/father bashing.

And material from the above list has become so ubiquitous that it is almost inescapable – airing 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I am a strong advocate of First Amendment rights, so I don’t believe the government should be in the business of censoring television. However, it would seem like the major networks and cable-casters would have the decency to restrict certain types of content to late-night hours, or at least not air that stuff in prime time.

Is There Anything Worthwhile on TV Anymore?

Is there any worthwhile programming on primetime TV anymore? It seems like 90% of it consists of mindless comedies, lurid crime/courtroom dramas, and inane "reality" shows. Even so-called "news" programs, instead of sticking with real news, often resort to sensationalism to appeal to the lowest common denominator. In addition, many of these programs devote large portions of their air time to trifling things such as celebrity lifestyles, gossip, makeovers, and interviews with psychics.

Syndication vs. Network Broadcasts

Local TV stations broadcast shows from three different categories: local origination, syndication, and network affiliate content. Most people recognize the local origination stuff when they see it. It consists mainly local news, weather, and sports, along local talk shows and the occasional community-oriented special program.

However, some people have trouble distinguishing between syndicated shows and those provided the by the network that the station is affiliated with, like ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox. The confusion is understandable because both types of shows are produced by the major studios and television networks. In addition, they both target national audiences. Adding further to the confusion is the fact that many shows originally run as network content and then their reruns air in syndication. Therefore, a  show can start out in one category then move  to the other. So how can you recognize the difference?

First, a show that is in syndication might air on different network affiliates, depending the market. For example, Wheel of Fortune might air on the ABC affiliate in New York, the CBS affiliate in Chicago, and the Fox affiliate in Los Angeles. Conversely, a show provided as network content would air on stations affiliated with same network in every market. For example, American Idol airs on the Fox affiliate in every market.

Second, a show that is in syndication might air at a different times in different markets, even within the same time zone. For example, Wheel of Fortune might air at 5:00 in Boston, 6:00 in New York, 7:00 in Philadelphia, and 7:30 in Washington, DC., even though all four of those cities are in the same time zone. A show provided as network content, on the other hand, will generally air at the same time within a given time zone. For example, American Idol might air at 8:00 every Tuesday night in all markets in the Eastern time zone.

Now, an example of a show that moved from network content to syndication would be Friends. This show started out in the mid-1990's as an NBC affiliate show. It aired only on NBC affiliate stations on Thursday nights. It would air at the same time within given time zones. However, once the show completed its run on NBC, it went into syndication. Now its reruns air mainly on weekdays on different network affiliates and at different times, depending on the market.

TV Shows I Wouldn't Watch, Even for Pay!

I would not watch any of the following TV shows, even if someone offered to pay me:

American Idol

Sex and the City

Will and Grace

Medium

Ellen

Dr. Phil

The Oprah Winfrey Show

The Simpsons

The Family Guy

Dancing with the Stars

The Apprentice

Satellite TV Must Change or Die

The satellite TV industry must change its strategy or die. Satellite's current model of settling for the role of "cable on a stick" is not going to work too much longer into the future. Cable has everything satellite is currently offering plus even more innovative things like video-on-demand and IPTV that the satellite providers will likely never be able to match.

Satellite operators seem bent on wasting their bandwidth on making all local channels available in HDTV. But that's like putting lipstick on a pig. Besides, cable can always provide stuff like that much easier and much better. Instead, the satellite TV should be using all that bandwidth to provide content that cable will never provide, i.e., lots of niche and international channels with programming not available anywhere else. Will they ever do this? Probably not until desperation sets in.

Is a Flood of TV Indecency about to Begin?

Conservative columnist and activist L. Brent Bozell and the Parents Television Council (PTC), an organization he founded, are upset about two recent appeals court rulings. One was made in June by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, which threw out an FCC fine against Fox Broadcasting for allowing some “fleeting expletives” to get through uncensored during two of its live Fox Billboard Awards broadcasts. The other was last week by Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, which struck down the FCC’s $550,000 fine against 27 TV stations owned by CBS over Janet Jackson’s now-infamous “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl halftime show in 2004.

In one of his latest columns, Bozell says the earlier decision “opens the door for F-bombs galore, any time, anywhere.” He also implies that the latter decision will likely do the same for nudity. He then sums up his disgust over these decisions by predicting that a flood of unrestrained indecency will soon begin on broadcast television. Oh really? I’ll take the other side of that bet.

I agree with Bozell that much of what passes for entertainment nowadays on broadcast television contains far too much objectionable material. This comes in the form of profanity, violence, suggestive dialogue, and sexual situations. However, I believe broadcasters would not cross certain lines, even without FCC regulation. Why do I say this? Because of the restraint that broadcasters practice during unregulated hours. From 10 p.m. until 6 a.m. every day, they are free to broadcast all the indecency they want. This includes the F-word, the S-word, explicit sexual suggestiveness, full frontal nudity, and even soft core porn. The only limit during those hours is that they can’t broadcast obscenity, i.e., hardcore pornography and the like. Now, when is the last time you’ve seen or heard any of this stuff during those hours? Be honest. You don’t hear or see it because they don’t broadcast it, even though they would have every right to do so and they could do it with impunity.

What Bozell conveniently ignores is the fact that broadcasters, along with basic cable stations, have to answer to their advertisers. Just about all of their programs are advertiser-supported. Most of those advertisers, for fear of repercussions from individual citizens and organizations like Bozell’s PTC, would pull their commercials from programs that go too far. Bozell knows this is the case because he’s encouraged this kind activity by using “shaming” tactics against various companies whose ads have appeared on shows (both broadcast and cable) that he considered objectionable. However, his argument was made more effective by not acknowledging that part of broadcast paradigm.