I've lately noticed at least two types of supercilious attitudes toward our modern TV here. I've decided to clarify matters a bit.
First, let me admit that back sometime in the 1960's, one of our network executives was widely quoted as saying that American network TV programming was aimed at the 8 year old mentality. So far as current network programming is concerned, that's still pretty much true. We have programs I find embarrassingly stupid. My only defense is the size and diversity of our market. With well over 300 million people from every country in the world, our common denominators are relatively low in comparison to some smaller countries. However, current programming goes far beyond the options of the 1960's. If all I could receive were local channels showing network shows I doubt that I would have a TV at all. I watch little to no network programs.
Cable and satellite dish have created a whole new world of in-home entertainment. There are channels for every conceivable interest. There are channels dedicated to up to the minute news, science, history, travel, classic movies, western movies, cooking, quilting, painting, languages, live legislation, autos and motorcycles, sporting events of every variety imaginable, jewelry shopping, country living, home remodeling, and home shopping just off the top of my head. There are also world-famous magazines with their own channels like National Geographic and Smithsonian.
Criticizing us for our dearth of UK entertainment is not only insulting but provincial. We don't live in the UK, nor do we agree that theirs is the best entertainment possible. We have our own version of the BBC in our own public television and radio. We even show some BBC programs here from time to time. We just go far beyond such narrow and restrictive interests.
Modern television here is truly 'the window on the world'. I pity anyone closing themselves off from it, and especially if they think they're above it. In fact, it reminds me of the difference between ignorance and stupidity.
<lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote: >I've lately noticed at least two types of supercilious attitudes toward our >modern TV here. I've decided to clarify matters a bit.
>First, let me admit that back sometime in the 1960's, one of our network >executives was widely quoted as saying that American network TV programming >was aimed at the 8 year old mentality. So far as current network >programming is concerned, that's still pretty much true. We have programs I >find embarrassingly stupid. My only defense is the size and diversity of >our market. With well over 300 million people from every country in the >world, our common denominators are relatively low in comparison to some >smaller countries. However, current programming goes far beyond the options >of the 1960's. If all I could receive were local channels showing network >shows I doubt that I would have a TV at all. I watch little to no network >programs.
>Cable and satellite dish have created a whole new world of in-home >entertainment. There are channels for every conceivable interest. There >are channels dedicated to up to the minute news, science, history, travel, >classic movies, western movies, cooking, quilting, painting, languages, live >legislation, autos and motorcycles, sporting events of every variety >imaginable, jewelry shopping, country living, home remodeling, and home >shopping just off the top of my head. There are also world-famous magazines >with their own channels like National Geographic and Smithsonian.
>Criticizing us for our dearth of UK entertainment is not only insulting but >provincial. We don't live in the UK, nor do we agree that theirs is the >best entertainment possible. We have our own version of the BBC in our own >public television and radio. We even show some BBC programs here from time >to time. We just go far beyond such narrow and restrictive interests.
>Modern television here is truly 'the window on the world'. I pity anyone >closing themselves off from it, and especially if they think they're above >it. In fact, it reminds me of the difference between ignorance and >stupidity.
Me thinks Seth has been taking some postings a little too seriously ;) Lanky
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:12:57 -0700, "Phxbrd" > <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I've lately noticed at least two types of supercilious attitudes toward >>our >>modern TV here. I've decided to clarify matters a bit.
>>First, let me admit that back sometime in the 1960's, one of our network >>executives was widely quoted as saying that American network TV >>programming >>was aimed at the 8 year old mentality. So far as current network >>programming is concerned, that's still pretty much true. We have programs >>I >>find embarrassingly stupid. My only defense is the size and diversity of >>our market. With well over 300 million people from every country in the >>world, our common denominators are relatively low in comparison to some >>smaller countries. However, current programming goes far beyond the >>options >>of the 1960's. If all I could receive were local channels showing network >>shows I doubt that I would have a TV at all. I watch little to no network >>programs.
>>Cable and satellite dish have created a whole new world of in-home >>entertainment. There are channels for every conceivable interest. There >>are channels dedicated to up to the minute news, science, history, travel, >>classic movies, western movies, cooking, quilting, painting, languages, >>live >>legislation, autos and motorcycles, sporting events of every variety >>imaginable, jewelry shopping, country living, home remodeling, and home >>shopping just off the top of my head. There are also world-famous >>magazines >>with their own channels like National Geographic and Smithsonian.
>>Criticizing us for our dearth of UK entertainment is not only insulting >>but >>provincial. We don't live in the UK, nor do we agree that theirs is the >>best entertainment possible. We have our own version of the BBC in our >>own >>public television and radio. We even show some BBC programs here from >>time >>to time. We just go far beyond such narrow and restrictive interests.
>>Modern television here is truly 'the window on the world'. I pity anyone >>closing themselves off from it, and especially if they think they're above >>it. In fact, it reminds me of the difference between ignorance and >>stupidity.
> Me thinks Seth has been taking some postings a little too seriously ;) > Lanky
"Phxbrd" <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > I've lately noticed at least two types of supercilious attitudes toward > our modern TV here. I've decided to clarify matters a bit.
Hold it right there!
IF you want to talk about US TV then define it by saying that you are writing about US TV.
This is an international newsgroup with posters from a number of countrys and it's arrogant, parochial and xenophobic to talk about 'our' TV as if it encompases the whole of the readership of this group who happen to be whatever you mean by 'here'. Is that 'here' as in this newsgroup which is the real 'here' or is it some other 'here' meaning the US?
> First, let me admit that back sometime in the 1960's, one of our network > executives was widely quoted as saying that American network TV > programming was aimed at the 8 year old mentality. So far as current > network programming is concerned, that's still pretty much true.
And yet you have a problem with adults of around the age of 60 being supercilious about being expected to watch TV designed for 8 year olds?
> We have programs I find embarrassingly stupid. My only defense is the > size and diversity of our market. With well over 300 million people from > every country in the world, our common denominators are relatively low in > comparison to some smaller countries.
False premise. Smaller countries do not necessarily have a less diverse population.
If smaller countries such as the UK, which also has an extremely diverse population can produce TV shows that find an audience of devoted fans and critical acclaim world wide because they appeal worldwide, then why can't the US do the same?
Sure US shows sell worldwide, but there is nowhere near the critical acclaim that is achieved by UK TV progs. Critical acclaim is about quality not just numbers of viewers.
However, current programming goes far beyond the options
> of the 1960's. If all I could receive were local channels showing network > shows I doubt that I would have a TV at all. I watch little to no network > programs.
> Cable and satellite dish have created a whole new world of in-home > entertainment. There are channels for every conceivable interest. There > are channels dedicated to up to the minute news, science, history, travel, > classic movies, western movies, cooking, quilting, painting, languages, > live > legislation, autos and motorcycles, sporting events of every > variety imaginable, jewelry shopping, country living, home remodeling, and > home shopping just off the top of my head. There are also world-famous > magazines with their own channels like National Geographic and > Smithsonian.
I don't think that explains all those jokes about 200 channels and still not a thing worth watching. Those jokes by the way are ones I've seen made on various US shows.
> Criticizing us for our dearth of UK entertainment is not only insulting > but provincial.
Exactly the same thing could be said about your comments that Gordon couldn't see The Wind that shakes the Barley because of censorship when quite cearly he just wasn't the least bit interested.
We don't live in the UK, nor do we agree that theirs is the
> best entertainment possible.
By 'we' you must mean Americans.
I always become quite irritated when I've seen your (immediate past) President talk about the safety of the western world and how 'we' must keep it free and safe. I find that use of the word 'we' to be quite offensive because it always assumes that 'we' know what is good for everyone. Quite arrogant really.
We have our own version of the BBC in our own
> public television and radio. We even show some BBC programs here from > time to time. We just go far beyond such narrow and restrictive > interests.
There is that 'we' again and that 'here' again.
> Modern television here is truly 'the window on the world'. I pity anyone > closing themselves off from it, and especially if they think they're above > it. In fact, it reminds me of the difference between ignorance and > stupidity.
IF you addressed the issue of critical acclaim rather than just a mass of shows produced for a huge internal audience then you may have raised some valid points.
I don't CHOOSE to watch shows of limited critical acclaim that are a 'window on the world' that are made to reflect the perspective of a nation that lets it's President talk about the world as if it alone is the arbiter of what is or is not reasonable or acceptable to other western nations. YMMV.
On Oct 26, 8:18 pm, "FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote:
> Sure US shows sell worldwide, but there is nowhere near the critical acclaim > that is achieved by UK TV progs. Critical acclaim is about quality not just > numbers of viewers.
In the US critical acclaim is irrelevant. Rating, audience size, is all. Our shows are funded by advertisers and they they don't give a hoot about critical acclaim if the audience ignores the productions. Once in a great while the two correspond but too often the best of the best do not have the ratings the bread and circus mentality the viewers want and wither on the vine.
"Bob G." <rlloydgeo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
On Oct 26, 8:18 pm, "FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote:
> Sure US shows sell worldwide, but there is nowhere near the critical > acclaim > that is achieved by UK TV progs. Critical acclaim is about quality not > just > numbers of viewers.
Bob: In the US critical acclaim is irrelevant. Rating, audience size, is all. Our shows are funded by advertisers and they they don't give a hoot about critical acclaim if the audience ignores the productions. Once in a great while the two correspond but too often the best of the best do not have the ratings the bread and circus mentality the viewers want and wither on the vine. ________________________________________ That 'commercial imperative' makes sense. What about PBS shows? Any you would recommend?
> "Bob G." <rlloydgeo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> On Oct 26, 8:18 pm, "FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote:
> > Sure US shows sell worldwide, but there is nowhere near the critical > > acclaim > > that is achieved by UK TV progs. Critical acclaim is about quality not > > just > > numbers of viewers.
> Bob: In the US critical acclaim is irrelevant. Rating, audience size, is > all. Our shows are funded by advertisers and they they don't give a > hoot about critical acclaim if the audience ignores the productions. > Once in a great while the two correspond but too often the best of the > best do not have the ratings the bread and circus mentality the > viewers want and wither on the vine. > ________________________________________ > That 'commercial imperative' makes sense. What about PBS shows? Any you > would recommend?
Sure. Washington Week in Review. Antiques Roadshow.
Unfortunately, our PBS doesn't produce much in the way of stictly- entertainment progamming. For that, they seem to rely on programming from the UK. Our National Public Radio is better in that respect. "Car Talk" and "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" are two of my guilty NPR pleasures, and thanks to the computer, I can listen to them any time I want to, and not just when they happen to be on.
I once spent a day up at the BBC, and was told by the folks who were showing me around that their shows need to make money too, although the pressure is clearly not as great as it is on the commercial networks.
Over the years, we've had some pretty good stuff from the networks, that are now in reruns. They are generally shown during those awful early morning hours when one has awakened and cannot go back to sleep. -- Q
> The message > <fd97f2dd-2d3b-4823-b39b-50d437795...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> > from Q <quond...@yahoo.com> contains these words:
>> On Oct 27, 12:07 am, "FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote: > _______________________________________ >> > That 'commercial imperative' makes sense. What about PBS shows? Any you >> > would recommend?
>> Sure. Washington Week in Review. Antiques Roadshow.
>> Unfortunately, our PBS doesn't produce much in the way of stictly- >> entertainment progamming. For that, they seem to rely on programming >> from the UK.
> PBS own "Antiques Roadshow" is a US spin off from the long > established BBC programme of the same name.
> Janet
Most of us can see both on our TV's, so you can stop now.
>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:12:57 -0700, "Phxbrd" ><lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I've lately noticed at least two types of supercilious attitudes toward our >>modern TV here. I've decided to clarify matters a bit.
>>First, let me admit that back sometime in the 1960's, one of our network >>executives was widely quoted as saying that American network TV programming >>was aimed at the 8 year old mentality. So far as current network >>programming is concerned, that's still pretty much true. We have programs I >>find embarrassingly stupid. My only defense is the size and diversity of >>our market. With well over 300 million people from every country in the >>world, our common denominators are relatively low in comparison to some >>smaller countries. However, current programming goes far beyond the options >>of the 1960's. If all I could receive were local channels showing network >>shows I doubt that I would have a TV at all. I watch little to no network >>programs.
>>Cable and satellite dish have created a whole new world of in-home >>entertainment. There are channels for every conceivable interest. There >>are channels dedicated to up to the minute news, science, history, travel, >>classic movies, western movies, cooking, quilting, painting, languages, live >>legislation, autos and motorcycles, sporting events of every variety >>imaginable, jewelry shopping, country living, home remodeling, and home >>shopping just off the top of my head. There are also world-famous magazines >>with their own channels like National Geographic and Smithsonian.
>>Criticizing us for our dearth of UK entertainment is not only insulting but >>provincial. We don't live in the UK, nor do we agree that theirs is the >>best entertainment possible. We have our own version of the BBC in our own >>public television and radio. We even show some BBC programs here from time >>to time. We just go far beyond such narrow and restrictive interests.
>>Modern television here is truly 'the window on the world'. I pity anyone >>closing themselves off from it, and especially if they think they're above >>it. In fact, it reminds me of the difference between ignorance and >>stupidity.
>Me thinks Seth has been taking some postings a little too seriously ;) >Lanky
So do I. I'd no idea he could be so sensitive.
<<<Manly Hugs>>>, Seth. -- Gordon H Remove "invalid" to reply
> In message <7q9ce51sec3h55g7731ucbnmunq113r...@4ax.com>, Lanky > <la...@10shun.co.uk> writes >>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:12:57 -0700, "Phxbrd" >><lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>I've lately noticed at least two types of supercilious attitudes toward >>>our >>>modern TV here. I've decided to clarify matters a bit.
>>>First, let me admit that back sometime in the 1960's, one of our network >>>executives was widely quoted as saying that American network TV >>>programming >>>was aimed at the 8 year old mentality. So far as current network >>>programming is concerned, that's still pretty much true. We have >>>programs I >>>find embarrassingly stupid. My only defense is the size and diversity of >>>our market. With well over 300 million people from every country in the >>>world, our common denominators are relatively low in comparison to some >>>smaller countries. However, current programming goes far beyond the >>>options >>>of the 1960's. If all I could receive were local channels showing >>>network >>>shows I doubt that I would have a TV at all. I watch little to no >>>network >>>programs.
>>>Cable and satellite dish have created a whole new world of in-home >>>entertainment. There are channels for every conceivable interest. There >>>are channels dedicated to up to the minute news, science, history, >>>travel, >>>classic movies, western movies, cooking, quilting, painting, languages, >>>live >>>legislation, autos and motorcycles, sporting events of every variety >>>imaginable, jewelry shopping, country living, home remodeling, and home >>>shopping just off the top of my head. There are also world-famous >>>magazines >>>with their own channels like National Geographic and Smithsonian.
>>>Criticizing us for our dearth of UK entertainment is not only insulting >>>but >>>provincial. We don't live in the UK, nor do we agree that theirs is the >>>best entertainment possible. We have our own version of the BBC in our >>>own >>>public television and radio. We even show some BBC programs here from >>>time >>>to time. We just go far beyond such narrow and restrictive interests.
>>>Modern television here is truly 'the window on the world'. I pity anyone >>>closing themselves off from it, and especially if they think they're >>>above >>>it. In fact, it reminds me of the difference between ignorance and >>>stupidity.
>>Me thinks Seth has been taking some postings a little too seriously ;) >>Lanky
> So do I. I'd no idea he could be so sensitive.
> <<<Manly Hugs>>>, Seth. > -- > Gordon H
No rubbing or patting allowed during those brief hugs.
Phxbrd wrote: > "Gordon H" <Gordon_N...@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message > news:4xawoIPAez5KFwu6@g3snx.demon.co.uk... >> In message <7q9ce51sec3h55g7731ucbnmunq113r...@4ax.com>, Lanky >> <la...@10shun.co.uk> writes >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:12:57 -0700, "Phxbrd" >>> <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> I've lately noticed at least two types of supercilious attitudes toward >>>> our >>>> modern TV here. I've decided to clarify matters a bit.
>>>> First, let me admit that back sometime in the 1960's, one of our network >>>> executives was widely quoted as saying that American network TV >>>> programming >>>> was aimed at the 8 year old mentality. So far as current network >>>> programming is concerned, that's still pretty much true. We have >>>> programs I >>>> find embarrassingly stupid. My only defense is the size and diversity of >>>> our market. With well over 300 million people from every country in the >>>> world, our common denominators are relatively low in comparison to some >>>> smaller countries. However, current programming goes far beyond the >>>> options >>>> of the 1960's. If all I could receive were local channels showing >>>> network >>>> shows I doubt that I would have a TV at all. I watch little to no >>>> network >>>> programs.
>>>> Cable and satellite dish have created a whole new world of in-home >>>> entertainment. There are channels for every conceivable interest. There >>>> are channels dedicated to up to the minute news, science, history, >>>> travel, >>>> classic movies, western movies, cooking, quilting, painting, languages, >>>> live >>>> legislation, autos and motorcycles, sporting events of every variety >>>> imaginable, jewelry shopping, country living, home remodeling, and home >>>> shopping just off the top of my head. There are also world-famous >>>> magazines >>>> with their own channels like National Geographic and Smithsonian.
>>>> Criticizing us for our dearth of UK entertainment is not only insulting >>>> but >>>> provincial. We don't live in the UK, nor do we agree that theirs is the >>>> best entertainment possible. We have our own version of the BBC in our >>>> own >>>> public television and radio. We even show some BBC programs here from >>>> time >>>> to time. We just go far beyond such narrow and restrictive interests.
>>>> Modern television here is truly 'the window on the world'. I pity anyone >>>> closing themselves off from it, and especially if they think they're >>>> above >>>> it. In fact, it reminds me of the difference between ignorance and >>>> stupidity.
>>> Me thinks Seth has been taking some postings a little too seriously ;) >>> Lanky >> So do I. I'd no idea he could be so sensitive.
>> <<<Manly Hugs>>>, Seth. >> -- >> Gordon H
> No rubbing or patting allowed during those brief hugs.
LOL...
That's better. Be friends. I have to say I wouldn't miss NCIS for anything.
> Phxbrd wrote: >> "Gordon H" <Gordon_N...@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message >> news:4xawoIPAez5KFwu6@g3snx.demon.co.uk... >>> In message <7q9ce51sec3h55g7731ucbnmunq113r...@4ax.com>, Lanky >>> <la...@10shun.co.uk> writes >>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:12:57 -0700, "Phxbrd" >>>> <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> I've lately noticed at least two types of supercilious attitudes >>>>> toward our >>>>> modern TV here. I've decided to clarify matters a bit.
>>>>> First, let me admit that back sometime in the 1960's, one of our >>>>> network >>>>> executives was widely quoted as saying that American network TV >>>>> programming >>>>> was aimed at the 8 year old mentality. So far as current network >>>>> programming is concerned, that's still pretty much true. We have >>>>> programs I >>>>> find embarrassingly stupid. My only defense is the size and diversity >>>>> of >>>>> our market. With well over 300 million people from every country in >>>>> the >>>>> world, our common denominators are relatively low in comparison to >>>>> some >>>>> smaller countries. However, current programming goes far beyond the >>>>> options >>>>> of the 1960's. If all I could receive were local channels showing >>>>> network >>>>> shows I doubt that I would have a TV at all. I watch little to no >>>>> network >>>>> programs.
>>>>> Cable and satellite dish have created a whole new world of in-home >>>>> entertainment. There are channels for every conceivable interest. >>>>> There >>>>> are channels dedicated to up to the minute news, science, history, >>>>> travel, >>>>> classic movies, western movies, cooking, quilting, painting, >>>>> languages, live >>>>> legislation, autos and motorcycles, sporting events of every variety >>>>> imaginable, jewelry shopping, country living, home remodeling, and >>>>> home >>>>> shopping just off the top of my head. There are also world-famous >>>>> magazines >>>>> with their own channels like National Geographic and Smithsonian.
>>>>> Criticizing us for our dearth of UK entertainment is not only >>>>> insulting but >>>>> provincial. We don't live in the UK, nor do we agree that theirs is >>>>> the >>>>> best entertainment possible. We have our own version of the BBC in >>>>> our own >>>>> public television and radio. We even show some BBC programs here from >>>>> time >>>>> to time. We just go far beyond such narrow and restrictive interests.
>>>>> Modern television here is truly 'the window on the world'. I pity >>>>> anyone >>>>> closing themselves off from it, and especially if they think they're >>>>> above >>>>> it. In fact, it reminds me of the difference between ignorance and >>>>> stupidity.
>>>> Me thinks Seth has been taking some postings a little too seriously ;) >>>> Lanky >>> So do I. I'd no idea he could be so sensitive.
>>> <<<Manly Hugs>>>, Seth. >>> -- >>> Gordon H
>> No rubbing or patting allowed during those brief hugs.
> LOL...
> That's better. Be friends. > I have to say I wouldn't miss NCIS for anything.
> Bobbie
Sweet Wife has watched that. The only weekly shows I've watched lately have both been cancelled. Burn Notice and Nurse Jackie were based upon interesting premises.
I have eclectic tastes so I watch a variety of specialty channels.
I'll give you lot credit for BBC World News. It's the ONLY world news show here on the telly. All our channels ever show is national, with a brief coverage of state and local. Most news seen here is about Obama.
>>>I've lately noticed at least two types of supercilious attitudes toward our >>>modern TV here. I've decided to clarify matters a bit.
>>>First, let me admit that back sometime in the 1960's, one of our network >>>executives was widely quoted as saying that American network TV programming >>>was aimed at the 8 year old mentality. So far as current network >>>programming is concerned, that's still pretty much true. We have programs I >>>find embarrassingly stupid. My only defense is the size and diversity of >>>our market. With well over 300 million people from every country in the >>>world, our common denominators are relatively low in comparison to some >>>smaller countries. However, current programming goes far beyond the options >>>of the 1960's. If all I could receive were local channels showing network >>>shows I doubt that I would have a TV at all. I watch little to no network >>>programs.
>>>Cable and satellite dish have created a whole new world of in-home >>>entertainment. There are channels for every conceivable interest. There >>>are channels dedicated to up to the minute news, science, history, travel, >>>classic movies, western movies, cooking, quilting, painting, languages, live >>>legislation, autos and motorcycles, sporting events of every variety >>>imaginable, jewelry shopping, country living, home remodeling, and home >>>shopping just off the top of my head. There are also world-famous magazines >>>with their own channels like National Geographic and Smithsonian.
>>>Criticizing us for our dearth of UK entertainment is not only insulting but >>>provincial. We don't live in the UK, nor do we agree that theirs is the >>>best entertainment possible. We have our own version of the BBC in our own >>>public television and radio. We even show some BBC programs here from time >>>to time. We just go far beyond such narrow and restrictive interests.
>>>Modern television here is truly 'the window on the world'. I pity anyone >>>closing themselves off from it, and especially if they think they're above >>>it. In fact, it reminds me of the difference between ignorance and >>>stupidity.
>>Me thinks Seth has been taking some postings a little too seriously ;) >>Lanky
>So do I. I'd no idea he could be so sensitive.
><<<Manly Hugs>>>, Seth.
I'll just pat him on the head and pop a peanut in his mouth ;-))
>>>>I've lately noticed at least two types of supercilious attitudes toward >>>>our >>>>modern TV here. I've decided to clarify matters a bit.
>>>>First, let me admit that back sometime in the 1960's, one of our network >>>>executives was widely quoted as saying that American network TV >>>>programming >>>>was aimed at the 8 year old mentality. So far as current network >>>>programming is concerned, that's still pretty much true. We have >>>>programs I >>>>find embarrassingly stupid. My only defense is the size and diversity >>>>of >>>>our market. With well over 300 million people from every country in the >>>>world, our common denominators are relatively low in comparison to some >>>>smaller countries. However, current programming goes far beyond the >>>>options >>>>of the 1960's. If all I could receive were local channels showing >>>>network >>>>shows I doubt that I would have a TV at all. I watch little to no >>>>network >>>>programs.
>>>>Cable and satellite dish have created a whole new world of in-home >>>>entertainment. There are channels for every conceivable interest. >>>>There >>>>are channels dedicated to up to the minute news, science, history, >>>>travel, >>>>classic movies, western movies, cooking, quilting, painting, languages, >>>>live >>>>legislation, autos and motorcycles, sporting events of every variety >>>>imaginable, jewelry shopping, country living, home remodeling, and home >>>>shopping just off the top of my head. There are also world-famous >>>>magazines >>>>with their own channels like National Geographic and Smithsonian.
>>>>Criticizing us for our dearth of UK entertainment is not only insulting >>>>but >>>>provincial. We don't live in the UK, nor do we agree that theirs is the >>>>best entertainment possible. We have our own version of the BBC in our >>>>own >>>>public television and radio. We even show some BBC programs here from >>>>time >>>>to time. We just go far beyond such narrow and restrictive interests.
>>>>Modern television here is truly 'the window on the world'. I pity >>>>anyone >>>>closing themselves off from it, and especially if they think they're >>>>above >>>>it. In fact, it reminds me of the difference between ignorance and >>>>stupidity.
>>>Me thinks Seth has been taking some postings a little too seriously ;) >>>Lanky
>>So do I. I'd no idea he could be so sensitive.
>><<<Manly Hugs>>>, Seth.
> I'll just pat him on the head and pop a peanut in his mouth ;-))
>>>>>I've lately noticed at least two types of supercilious attitudes toward >>>>>our >>>>>modern TV here. I've decided to clarify matters a bit.
>>>>>First, let me admit that back sometime in the 1960's, one of our network >>>>>executives was widely quoted as saying that American network TV >>>>>programming >>>>>was aimed at the 8 year old mentality. So far as current network >>>>>programming is concerned, that's still pretty much true. We have >>>>>programs I >>>>>find embarrassingly stupid. My only defense is the size and diversity >>>>>of >>>>>our market. With well over 300 million people from every country in the >>>>>world, our common denominators are relatively low in comparison to some >>>>>smaller countries. However, current programming goes far beyond the >>>>>options >>>>>of the 1960's. If all I could receive were local channels showing >>>>>network >>>>>shows I doubt that I would have a TV at all. I watch little to no >>>>>network >>>>>programs.
>>>>>Cable and satellite dish have created a whole new world of in-home >>>>>entertainment. There are channels for every conceivable interest. >>>>>There >>>>>are channels dedicated to up to the minute news, science, history, >>>>>travel, >>>>>classic movies, western movies, cooking, quilting, painting, languages, >>>>>live >>>>>legislation, autos and motorcycles, sporting events of every variety >>>>>imaginable, jewelry shopping, country living, home remodeling, and home >>>>>shopping just off the top of my head. There are also world-famous >>>>>magazines >>>>>with their own channels like National Geographic and Smithsonian.
>>>>>Criticizing us for our dearth of UK entertainment is not only insulting >>>>>but >>>>>provincial. We don't live in the UK, nor do we agree that theirs is the >>>>>best entertainment possible. We have our own version of the BBC in our >>>>>own >>>>>public television and radio. We even show some BBC programs here from >>>>>time >>>>>to time. We just go far beyond such narrow and restrictive interests.
>>>>>Modern television here is truly 'the window on the world'. I pity >>>>>anyone >>>>>closing themselves off from it, and especially if they think they're >>>>>above >>>>>it. In fact, it reminds me of the difference between ignorance and >>>>>stupidity.
>>>>Me thinks Seth has been taking some postings a little too seriously ;) >>>>Lanky
>>>So do I. I'd no idea he could be so sensitive.
>>><<<Manly Hugs>>>, Seth.
>> I'll just pat him on the head and pop a peanut in his mouth ;-))
>> Lanky
>Make it a pecan and you're on.
What sort of can is that? It doesn't sound very nice!
>>> I've lately noticed at least two types of supercilious attitudes toward >>> our >>> modern TV here. I've decided to clarify matters a bit.
>>> First, let me admit that back sometime in the 1960's, one of our network >>> executives was widely quoted as saying that American network TV >>> programming >>> was aimed at the 8 year old mentality. So far as current network >>> programming is concerned, that's still pretty much true. We have programs >>> I >>> find embarrassingly stupid. My only defense is the size and diversity of >>> our market. With well over 300 million people from every country in the >>> world, our common denominators are relatively low in comparison to some >>> smaller countries. However, current programming goes far beyond the >>> options >>> of the 1960's. If all I could receive were local channels showing network >>> shows I doubt that I would have a TV at all. I watch little to no network >>> programs.
>>> Cable and satellite dish have created a whole new world of in-home >>> entertainment. There are channels for every conceivable interest. There >>> are channels dedicated to up to the minute news, science, history, travel, >>> classic movies, western movies, cooking, quilting, painting, languages, >>> live >>> legislation, autos and motorcycles, sporting events of every variety >>> imaginable, jewelry shopping, country living, home remodeling, and home >>> shopping just off the top of my head. There are also world-famous >>> magazines >>> with their own channels like National Geographic and Smithsonian.
>>> Criticizing us for our dearth of UK entertainment is not only insulting >>> but >>> provincial. We don't live in the UK, nor do we agree that theirs is the >>> best entertainment possible. We have our own version of the BBC in our >>> own >>> public television and radio. We even show some BBC programs here from >>> time >>> to time. We just go far beyond such narrow and restrictive interests.
>>> Modern television here is truly 'the window on the world'. I pity anyone >>> closing themselves off from it, and especially if they think they're above >>> it. In fact, it reminds me of the difference between ignorance and >>> stupidity.
>> Me thinks Seth has been taking some postings a little too seriously ;) >> Lanky
> I wasn't aiming at you.
Well it wasn't me, 'cos I haven't commented (err I don't think). I am selective in what I view...a great deal from all countries (English speaking that is) is aimed at an 8 year old mentality - still! There are good and interesting programmes from all countries.....and 'bigger' does not mean 'better'...... jingles
>>>>>>I've lately noticed at least two types of supercilious attitudes >>>>>>toward >>>>>>our >>>>>>modern TV here. I've decided to clarify matters a bit.
>>>>>>First, let me admit that back sometime in the 1960's, one of our >>>>>>network >>>>>>executives was widely quoted as saying that American network TV >>>>>>programming >>>>>>was aimed at the 8 year old mentality. So far as current network >>>>>>programming is concerned, that's still pretty much true. We have >>>>>>programs I >>>>>>find embarrassingly stupid. My only defense is the size and diversity >>>>>>of >>>>>>our market. With well over 300 million people from every country in >>>>>>the >>>>>>world, our common denominators are relatively low in comparison to >>>>>>some >>>>>>smaller countries. However, current programming goes far beyond the >>>>>>options >>>>>>of the 1960's. If all I could receive were local channels showing >>>>>>network >>>>>>shows I doubt that I would have a TV at all. I watch little to no >>>>>>network >>>>>>programs.
>>>>>>Cable and satellite dish have created a whole new world of in-home >>>>>>entertainment. There are channels for every conceivable interest. >>>>>>There >>>>>>are channels dedicated to up to the minute news, science, history, >>>>>>travel, >>>>>>classic movies, western movies, cooking, quilting, painting, >>>>>>languages, >>>>>>live >>>>>>legislation, autos and motorcycles, sporting events of every variety >>>>>>imaginable, jewelry shopping, country living, home remodeling, and >>>>>>home >>>>>>shopping just off the top of my head. There are also world-famous >>>>>>magazines >>>>>>with their own channels like National Geographic and Smithsonian.
>>>>>>Criticizing us for our dearth of UK entertainment is not only >>>>>>insulting >>>>>>but >>>>>>provincial. We don't live in the UK, nor do we agree that theirs is >>>>>>the >>>>>>best entertainment possible. We have our own version of the BBC in >>>>>>our >>>>>>own >>>>>>public television and radio. We even show some BBC programs here from >>>>>>time >>>>>>to time. We just go far beyond such narrow and restrictive interests.
>>>>>>Modern television here is truly 'the window on the world'. I pity >>>>>>anyone >>>>>>closing themselves off from it, and especially if they think they're >>>>>>above >>>>>>it. In fact, it reminds me of the difference between ignorance and >>>>>>stupidity.
>>>>>Me thinks Seth has been taking some postings a little too seriously ;) >>>>>Lanky
>>>>So do I. I'd no idea he could be so sensitive.
>>>><<<Manly Hugs>>>, Seth.
>>> I'll just pat him on the head and pop a peanut in his mouth ;-))
>>> Lanky
>>Make it a pecan and you're on.
> What sort of can is that? It doesn't sound very nice!
"Bobbie" <weebitofe...@myhoose.co.uk> wrote in message > Phxbrd wrote: >> "Gordon H" <Gordon_N...@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message >> news:4xawoIPAez5KFwu6@g3snx.demon.co.uk... >>> In message <7q9ce51sec3h55g7731ucbnmunq113r...@4ax.com>, Lanky >>> <la...@10shun.co.uk> writes >>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:12:57 -0700, "Phxbrd" >>>> <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> I've lately noticed at least two types of supercilious attitudes >>>>> toward our >>>>> modern TV here. I've decided to clarify matters a bit.
>>>>> First, let me admit that back sometime in the 1960's, one of our >>>>> network >>>>> executives was widely quoted as saying that American network TV >>>>> programming >>>>> was aimed at the 8 year old mentality. So far as current network >>>>> programming is concerned, that's still pretty much true. We have >>>>> programs I >>>>> find embarrassingly stupid. My only defense is the size and diversity >>>>> of >>>>> our market. With well over 300 million people from every country in >>>>> the >>>>> world, our common denominators are relatively low in comparison to >>>>> some >>>>> smaller countries. However, current programming goes far beyond the >>>>> options >>>>> of the 1960's. If all I could receive were local channels showing >>>>> network >>>>> shows I doubt that I would have a TV at all. I watch little to no >>>>> network >>>>> programs.
>>>>> Cable and satellite dish have created a whole new world of in-home >>>>> entertainment. There are channels for every conceivable interest. >>>>> There >>>>> are channels dedicated to up to the minute news, science, history, >>>>> travel, >>>>> classic movies, western movies, cooking, quilting, painting, >>>>> languages, live >>>>> legislation, autos and motorcycles, sporting events of every variety >>>>> imaginable, jewelry shopping, country living, home remodeling, and >>>>> home >>>>> shopping just off the top of my head. There are also world-famous >>>>> magazines >>>>> with their own channels like National Geographic and Smithsonian.
>>>>> Criticizing us for our dearth of UK entertainment is not only >>>>> insulting but >>>>> provincial. We don't live in the UK, nor do we agree that theirs is >>>>> the >>>>> best entertainment possible. We have our own version of the BBC in >>>>> our own >>>>> public television and radio. We even show some BBC programs here from >>>>> time >>>>> to time. We just go far beyond such narrow and restrictive interests.
>>>>> Modern television here is truly 'the window on the world'. I pity >>>>> anyone >>>>> closing themselves off from it, and especially if they think they're >>>>> above >>>>> it. In fact, it reminds me of the difference between ignorance and >>>>> stupidity.
>>>> Me thinks Seth has been taking some postings a little too seriously ;) >>>> Lanky >>> So do I. I'd no idea he could be so sensitive.
>>> <<<Manly Hugs>>>, Seth. >>> -- >>> Gordon H
>> No rubbing or patting allowed during those brief hugs.
> LOL...
> That's better. Be friends. > I have to say I wouldn't miss NCIS for anything.
I'm not as enamoured of it as I used to be and I'm not sure what's changed. If they ever get rid of Pauley Perrette. I'll drop it entirely.
>>>>>>>I've lately noticed at least two types of supercilious attitudes >>>>>>>toward >>>>>>>our >>>>>>>modern TV here. I've decided to clarify matters a bit.
>>>>>>>First, let me admit that back sometime in the 1960's, one of our >>>>>>>network >>>>>>>executives was widely quoted as saying that American network TV >>>>>>>programming >>>>>>>was aimed at the 8 year old mentality. So far as current network >>>>>>>programming is concerned, that's still pretty much true. We have >>>>>>>programs I >>>>>>>find embarrassingly stupid. My only defense is the size and diversity >>>>>>>of >>>>>>>our market. With well over 300 million people from every country in >>>>>>>the >>>>>>>world, our common denominators are relatively low in comparison to >>>>>>>some >>>>>>>smaller countries. However, current programming goes far beyond the >>>>>>>options >>>>>>>of the 1960's. If all I could receive were local channels showing >>>>>>>network >>>>>>>shows I doubt that I would have a TV at all. I watch little to no >>>>>>>network >>>>>>>programs.
>>>>>>>Cable and satellite dish have created a whole new world of in-home >>>>>>>entertainment. There are channels for every conceivable interest. >>>>>>>There >>>>>>>are channels dedicated to up to the minute news, science, history, >>>>>>>travel, >>>>>>>classic movies, western movies, cooking, quilting, painting, >>>>>>>languages, >>>>>>>live >>>>>>>legislation, autos and motorcycles, sporting events of every variety >>>>>>>imaginable, jewelry shopping, country living, home remodeling, and >>>>>>>home >>>>>>>shopping just off the top of my head. There are also world-famous >>>>>>>magazines >>>>>>>with their own channels like National Geographic and Smithsonian.
>>>>>>>Criticizing us for our dearth of UK entertainment is not only >>>>>>>insulting >>>>>>>but >>>>>>>provincial. We don't live in the UK, nor do we agree that theirs is >>>>>>>the >>>>>>>best entertainment possible. We have our own version of the BBC in >>>>>>>our >>>>>>>own >>>>>>>public television and radio. We even show some BBC programs here from >>>>>>>time >>>>>>>to time. We just go far beyond such narrow and restrictive interests.
>>>>>>>Modern television here is truly 'the window on the world'. I pity >>>>>>>anyone >>>>>>>closing themselves off from it, and especially if they think they're >>>>>>>above >>>>>>>it. In fact, it reminds me of the difference between ignorance and >>>>>>>stupidity.
>>>>>>Me thinks Seth has been taking some postings a little too seriously ;) >>>>>>Lanky
>>>>>So do I. I'd no idea he could be so sensitive.
>>>>><<<Manly Hugs>>>, Seth.
>>>> I'll just pat him on the head and pop a peanut in his mouth ;-))
>>>> Lanky
>>>Make it a pecan and you're on.
>> What sort of can is that? It doesn't sound very nice!
>>>>>>>>I've lately noticed at least two types of supercilious attitudes >>>>>>>>toward >>>>>>>>our >>>>>>>>modern TV here. I've decided to clarify matters a bit.
>>>>>>>>First, let me admit that back sometime in the 1960's, one of our >>>>>>>>network >>>>>>>>executives was widely quoted as saying that American network TV >>>>>>>>programming >>>>>>>>was aimed at the 8 year old mentality. So far as current network >>>>>>>>programming is concerned, that's still pretty much true. We have >>>>>>>>programs I >>>>>>>>find embarrassingly stupid. My only defense is the size and >>>>>>>>diversity >>>>>>>>of >>>>>>>>our market. With well over 300 million people from every country in >>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>world, our common denominators are relatively low in comparison to >>>>>>>>some >>>>>>>>smaller countries. However, current programming goes far beyond the >>>>>>>>options >>>>>>>>of the 1960's. If all I could receive were local channels showing >>>>>>>>network >>>>>>>>shows I doubt that I would have a TV at all. I watch little to no >>>>>>>>network >>>>>>>>programs.
>>>>>>>>Cable and satellite dish have created a whole new world of in-home >>>>>>>>entertainment. There are channels for every conceivable interest. >>>>>>>>There >>>>>>>>are channels dedicated to up to the minute news, science, history, >>>>>>>>travel, >>>>>>>>classic movies, western movies, cooking, quilting, painting, >>>>>>>>languages, >>>>>>>>live >>>>>>>>legislation, autos and motorcycles, sporting events of every variety >>>>>>>>imaginable, jewelry shopping, country living, home remodeling, and >>>>>>>>home >>>>>>>>shopping just off the top of my head. There are also world-famous >>>>>>>>magazines >>>>>>>>with their own channels like National Geographic and Smithsonian.
>>>>>>>>Criticizing us for our dearth of UK entertainment is not only >>>>>>>>insulting >>>>>>>>but >>>>>>>>provincial. We don't live in the UK, nor do we agree that theirs is >>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>best entertainment possible. We have our own version of the BBC in >>>>>>>>our >>>>>>>>own >>>>>>>>public television and radio. We even show some BBC programs here >>>>>>>>from >>>>>>>>time >>>>>>>>to time. We just go far beyond such narrow and restrictive >>>>>>>>interests.
>>>>>>>>Modern television here is truly 'the window on the world'. I pity >>>>>>>>anyone >>>>>>>>closing themselves off from it, and especially if they think they're >>>>>>>>above >>>>>>>>it. In fact, it reminds me of the difference between ignorance and >>>>>>>>stupidity.
>>>>>>>Me thinks Seth has been taking some postings a little too seriously >>>>>>>;) >>>>>>>Lanky
>>>>>>So do I. I'd no idea he could be so sensitive.
>>>>>><<<Manly Hugs>>>, Seth.
>>>>> I'll just pat him on the head and pop a peanut in his mouth ;-))
>>>>> Lanky
>>>>Make it a pecan and you're on.
>>> What sort of can is that? It doesn't sound very nice!
Oh! I expected a cutting punch line ;-) I don't think we get those here unless they come under another name. Salted cashew are my favourite, but like everything else worth eating, there's a health problem attached.
> "Janet Baraclough" wrote ... >> The message >> from Q contains these words:
"FarmI" wrote: >> _______________________________________ >>> > That 'commercial imperative' makes sense. What about PBS shows? Any >>> > you >>> > would recommend?
>>> Sure. Washington Week in Review. Antiques Roadshow.
>>> Unfortunately, our PBS doesn't produce much in the way of stictly- >>> entertainment progamming. For that, they seem to rely on programming >>> from the UK.
>> PBS own "Antiques Roadshow" is a US spin off from the long >> established BBC programme of the same name.
> Most of us can see both on our TV's, so you can stop now.
But in the UK, we only see the original BBC version.
Janet Baraclough wrote: > The message > <fd97f2dd-2d3b-4823-b39b-50d437795...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> > from Q <quond...@yahoo.com> contains these words:
>> On Oct 27, 12:07 am, "FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote: > _______________________________________ >>> That 'commercial imperative' makes sense. What about PBS shows? Any you >>> would recommend?
>> Sure. Washington Week in Review. Antiques Roadshow.
>> Unfortunately, our PBS doesn't produce much in the way of stictly- >> entertainment progamming. For that, they seem to rely on programming >> from the UK.
> PBS own "Antiques Roadshow" is a US spin off from the long > established BBC programme of the same name.
> Janet
I had forgotten that. (I THINK I knew it at one point.) I used to watch that with my daughter when she was very young. Oddly enough, we BOTH became addicted to it.
|
