Your "go-to" channel

In the current television landscape, we have hundreds of channels, which include all kinds of specialty channels. There’s the “Golf Channel”, the “Do It Yourself” channel, the “Food Network”, “The Weather Channel” and so on.


Really, who’d have thought we’d have a whole channel devoted just to weather? And people   love that channel! How did we survive without it? How did we know what to wear every day?


With all these to choose from, what’s your ‘go-to’ channel? You know, the channel that you go to either immediately upon turning on the TV or that you go to when there’s ‘nothing’ else on on the other 500 channels.


My go-to channel used to be “Headline News” (HLN), and sometimes it still is. But when “The MLB (Major League Baseball) Channel” launched in 2009, that became my go-to channel. When baseball isn’t in season, ESPN News becomes my go to channel.

A female friend revealed that her go -o channels are “Lifetime” and “HLN”. A male friend listed the “Golf Channel” as his go-to, while several of my other female friends stated that they go to the “Food Network” and “HGTV” daily.

My parents go to channel is “American Movie Classics” (AMC). This has been their go to channel for years.


I think that your go to channel changes at various times in your life. I remember a time when “MTV” was my go to. Then it was “E!” for a while.

It seems that your go to channel can change because your taste changes, or maybe it’s because the content of that channel changes.   

As I said, for a while, I loved “E!”, but that was when the channel was all about behind-the-scenes of television and movies. Somewhere along the way, in my opinion, it became more about celebrity gossip. I often refer to it as “The Gossip Channel” and, I’m sorry to say, I no longer seem to be interested in anything on that channel.   


I suspect that my go to channel will change again at some time in the future, but I can’t deny that I’ll always have a go to channel.


A go to channel is a safe place. It’s a place where you know you’ll find something on that you want to see, if not for hours at least for a short time.


So sit back, grab the remote, and punch in that channel. Your go to channel will always be there for you and will never let you down; until it does, and then you’ll find another one.

When bloggers use a word that doesn't exist: Can you say unprofessional?

As I've mentioned before, I really do hate to pick on websites, and the people who contribute to that site, but this is the second time in less than a month that this website, the SportsNewser section of Mediabistro.com, has published a questionable article.

Here is a link to my last post about this site: http://akeaston.blogspot.com/2010/10/lets-define-quick-turnaround.html

Today, I point out the site because in a very short article, a mere 158 words, the writer actually used a word that doesn't exist.

And, that word is..... 'runnings'.

Here is the paragraph:

"The New York Times – gearing up for the New York City Marathon with On The Run (Look! Old guys running marathons!) – takes a look at runnings who can’t get insurance."

Here is a link to the full article: http://www.mediabistro.com/sportsnewser/run-marathons-just-dont-get-hurt_b2456

The very next line of the article is "Huh?", and I have to say that I agree.

Huh?

I checked more than one dictionary and 'runnings' is not a word. We all know that the word that is meant to be in that sentence is the word 'runners'.

It's a very stupid mistake. And a simple run of spell check would have caught it. In fact, When I ran spell check on this article, it caught it.

And, now I will ask what I always ask when I find a grammatical error on a website: Don't you have a proofreader there? And if you don't, you mean to tell me that the author of this article, couldn't, himself, proof a 158 word piece and get it right? Thank God it wasn't an 800 word piece. I shudder to think how many errors might have been made, and published, in that piece.

For the record, for this blog I do not have a proofreader and I work very hard to ensure my accuracy. If I've made an error, please let me know and I will fix it immediately.

I would love to have a proofreader!

And, in the interest of full disclosure, maybe there is a part of me that's a bit jealous of fully paid bloggers. I would love to be a fully paid blogger. I take my work very seriously. I check and re-check my work so that their are no errors.

It bugs me when someone, who is paid to do this, is careless. In my opinion, it's incredibly unprofessional. Especially when simply running spell check would have caught the error.

Love and hate in the dating world

I have a love hate relationship with “The Millionaire Matchmaker”.

If you're not familiar with this show, it's on Bravo and features Patti Stanger, who proudly proclaims that she comes from a long line of matchmakers.

In the first season of the show, the opening credits shouted that she had a 99% success rate. That figure has been deleted from the sequence and if you’ve ever watched the show you know why. More on that later.

First, let’s talk about the problems I have with this show.

As I have said before, ‘reality’ shows are not real.

And this show is no exception.

One constant with all reality shows is that there cameras are always present. How real can anyone be in front of a camera?

There is casting. Yes, casting. Casting for the ‘millionaires’ and casting for the dates. There are not people who simply signed up with the club. There is a casting company who solicits people to be on the show. And, if you read the fine print in the credits, the ‘millionaires’ do not pay for the services if they are on the show. The services are provided free of charge for them. Now I’m not saying that they aren’t real millionaires, but, as with virtually everything in life, if you get something for free rather than having to pay for it, don’t you act a little differently about it? And why aren’t these paying customers? Oh yeah, ‘cause the paying customers might not make for good TV so you have to go out and find those people that make for good TV.

Now, having said all of this about the production of the show, let’s talk a little about our hostess, Ms. Patti Stanger.

Stanger is a 49-year-old unmarried woman. She may come from a long line of matchmakers, but as an unmarried woman, I question her true ability to actually make real matches.

This is a little like me saying to Roger Federer, the man who holds the most tennis titles in history, ‘Hey Roger, I may not have won a tournament, but I play a little tennis so let me tell you how to win your next match.”

Ok, I can get past this issue, because I love some of the other things about Patti.

And I want to call her Patti because she seems like a friend. That kind of friend who tells it like it is, and you love her for that.

Patty is the woman who really seems to understand where men go wrong with dating. She’s right on track with just about all of her critiques. In fact, I can’t think of one instance in which I have disagreed with Patti’s assessment of a man and his dating problems.

And believe me, these men have problems.

Like the guy who had a stripper pole in his living room and couldn’t figure out why he couldn’t meet a nice girl. Or the guy who owned a trash hauling company and picked up his date with his trash truck and then made her go on a pick-up call!

Patti had some very choice words for these guys.

And Patti doesn’t save her opinion for just the guys. She’s just as stern with her female clients.

In my opinion, this is almost Must See TV for folks in the dating pool, especially men.

A very brave fellow that I worked with admitted that he watched the show religiously. Ok, he’s not so brave that he wanted me to use his name, but he told me that he learned a lot about women and dating from the show. He said that everything Patti says makes perfect sense to him.

Unfortunately, for many of the men on the show, they don’t listen to Patti at all or they listen too late. Most of the matches end after one, or sometimes, two dates. This is why the earlier mentioned season one claim of a 99% success rate may no longer be accurate.

So while I find the usual ‘reality’ show problems with “The Millionaire Matchmaker”, I won’t fault anyone for watching this series.

And while Patti Stanger may not herself be married, the woman is refreshingly honest and straightforward with her clients, trying her best to teach them the ways of the dating world.

In conclusion, I believe there’s no shame in watching “The Millionaire Matchmaker”.

Those ‘real housewives’ shows? Now that’s another story.

Let's define "Quick Turnaround"

On October 6, Philadelphia Phillies pitcher Roy Halladay made history when he threw a no-hitter in 2010 post season play against the Cincinnati Reds.

The feat was historical because it was only the second no-hitter thrown in post-season play ever.


Two days later, an article appeared on Mediabistro.com, from the SportsNewser section, about Major League Baseball quickly creating an ad about the event.


Here's a link to the  scant 108 word article: http://www.mediabistro.com/sportsnewser/

Wow. That's some news, huh?      


Amazing, isn't it? That MLB 'hurried' an ad on air to celebrate this? (You can watch the spot here: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=12775649


Really? What's so amazing about this? Did anyone really think they wouldn't do something? That they wouldn't somehow use this to promote the post-season? It's an amazing athletic feat, it should be the subject of many pieces.


The point of my post is to comment on the first line of the article, "Talk about quick turnaround."


The game ended on Wednesday night October 6th at approximately 7:45pm ET.


The spot was to begin airing on Friday at approximately 6pm ET/3pm PT.


This is almost a two day lag time.


In my opinion, and I'd venture to say, many other people's as well, that's not hurrying to crank out a spot.


When I worked at Fox Sports Net, if your assigned team was in the play-offs, you were turning around spots very quickly after every game of every series. You watched the game, made notes, and worked with an editor during the game to start piecing things together so that once the game was over you only had a few shots to add, or maybe graphics to insert, to finish the spot up and get it on air.


Two days would have be a luxury.


And, after watching this spot, I'd like to point out a few things. First, the backplate, or graphic at the end of the spot, was already built and there are no other graphics or special effects in the spot. The video is straight cuts from the game. This is one of the easiest types of spots to build.


Yes, there is voice over on the spot, so someone had to write the script and then the writer/producer had to get the voice guy to read it. But all that can be done in, at most, a day. If the voice over guy is using a phone line, it can be done as soon as you can e-mail him the script and get him on the phone with an audio connection.


As I mentioned, we used to do this all the time at Fox Sports Net without any trouble, usually in under a day. Many, many times in under a few hours.


So, while I don't like to bag on other journalists, that opening line, "Talk about quick turnaround", is really a very lazy, and quite inaccurate, line.


Did this writer, who writes about sports, ever work in sports? I checked his credentials and it said he worked as a runner during the NBC Olympics, so he should know something about sports production.


Really, he doesn't even need any specific sports knowledge to about turnaround time. News organizations often turn out packages within a matter of minutes of outside footage arriving in house for editing. All you have to do is watch a newscast of any kind to know this. CNN does it on a daily basis, 365 days a year.


So let's be careful about how we define 'quick turnaround' in the future. Let's try to reserve it for instances that truly represent a quick turnaround.


For example, if that spot had aired 15 minutes after the last pitch, now that would have been  what I consider an instance of truly quick turnaround.

A question of credibility

What a week it's been in the news biz.

Oh the irony that in the same week that CNN's Rick Sanchez gets fired for anti-semitic remarks, Eliott Spitzer debuts a new show on that very same network.

I agree that there is absolutely no room in journalism for bias, racism or prejudice of any kind, thus the firing of Sanchez, in my personal opinion, is more than appropriate. As one talking head on CNN said this week, "He lost his credibility and as a journalist, credibility is everything.

Is that so? Then let's talk about the same network debuting a show this week with one of its hosts being a man who's publicly known for frequenting prostitutes.

Isn't that illegal?! Why was this man not arrested? Oh yeah, because he's Eliott Spitzer, a politician.

And now he has a show on CNN.

What about his credibility? The man is a known lawbreaker!! In fact, it's believed that he spent about $80,000 on prostitutes, while he was Attorney General and Governor of the state of New York! 

Don't some men get arrested for visiting $50 hookers? Oh yeah, he's a politician. He's clearly more important than the average man.

This guy was earning a salary paid for by taxpayers and spending it on illegal activities.

I just don't think you can convince me that this man has any credibility, let alone enough to host a political show. 

I will not watch Spitzer's show, and, again, in my personal opinion, CNN has now lost some of its credibility by making this deal with him.

Let's discuss.

Vote for something good

After my last two posts, which were about my displeasure with  a new show on E! in which brides compete for plastic surgery and KFC's advertising on young women's backsides, I thought I should post something positive.

So here's something good.

Now is the time to check CNN's Top Ten Heroes for 2010. These people will inspire you and might even renew your faith in human kindness.

And, you can vote for the Hero of the Year. For the last few years, CNN has broadcast the "CNN Heroes: An All Star Tribute" on Thanksgiving night.

In my opinion, this show is a great way to end the Holiday. If you haven't seen it, you should definitely check it out. It is inspiring and more. Yes, some of the Heroes you've heard of, but some are ordinary folks who've done extraordinary things.

A few years ago, one of the Heroes was a single dad who was at a New York train station with his young daughters. He saw a man fall on the train tracks and have a seizure. With a train approaching, the dad jumped onto the tracks and held the ill man down as the train ran right over them. The train stopped just above them. The dad yelled up to the platform for someone to watch his girls.

On the broadcast when he was given his award, a camera cut away to his two daughters in the audience. One was sleeping (it was late) and the other was beaming.

That's the kind of show this is. It makes you feel all kinds of emotions.

You are reminded that good work is being done, that people are helping people, and that there are positive things going on in the world.

So check out the Heroes, cast your vote, then watch the broadcast and be moved.

Go to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cnn.heroes/?iref=allsearch to cast your vote.