Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Rocco's gonna be angry

So today comes word that Tiger Woods -- you know, the best athlete in the universe if golf is in the equation -- will miss the rest of the season because he needs reconstructive ACL surgery after his marathon playoff-win at the US Open, which itself came after months of downtime following arthroscopic surgery on his left knee in April.
I think this changes the script.
Before, Woods was a courageous warrior, fighting through pain following the April operation to once again beat the field in amazing fashion.
Now, some will paint him as a selfish star who risked his long-term health, who threw caution as carelessly into the air as if he were watching tiny blades of grass to gauge the wind during a Pro-Am. And others will say he robbed the 45-year-old Rocco Mediate of his last, best chance to win a Major (Don't worry; he's also a decent poker player and the World Series of Poker Main Event is just around the corner).
Maybe Tiger cares; maybe he's devastated by this turn of events and absolutely regrets risking the entire season to make one tournament.
But does he have to? Should Tiger care? He could have retired years ago and lived quite comfortably on his winnings and endorsement money. Tiger isn't competing against the current crop of PGA talent; and I don't even think he's competing against history -- if he stays healthy, he will shatter every record in the book for tournament wins, Major wins, etc.
History is not Tiger's opponent -- his own human frailties are. He probably has a number in his head of how many times he can win in his career, and today it must seem far more difficult in his mind to reach that magic number while faced with the prospect of being on the mend for the rest of this season.
But as Kevin Garnett said, "anything's possible."

UPDATE: Here's a key point I was pondering at the time but failed to type. From the ESPN message boards:
"The PGA, USGA, Nike, and Buick just crapped their pants. Golf (viewership) will be down 50% or more for the rest of the year. Whatever stations paid big bucks for The Open Championship, the PGA Championship, and The Ryder Cup, are sobbing right now."

Read more...

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Much ado about much a-done


It's fun being a media critic.
Maybe I'm biased as a member of the media, but if I were to take potshots at very easy targets, my shortlist would include the Bush administration, journalists and the New England Patriots.
And while Jack Schafer of Slate.com is one of the more even-handed media critics, it seems unnecessary to take NBC News to task for over-covering the death of "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert (and Schafer almost admits as much at the end of the column, so keep the venom to a minimum).
If Russert had been a major network anchor, this question over overdoing the coverage of his death would be a non-issue.
As it were, I think most would agree that Russert was the closest thing you can get to being a star in the world of broadcast news without being an anchor. No, he wasn't Brokaw, Jennings, Rather, Anderson Cooper or Wolf Blitzer — but he was pretty darn close.
Furthermore, just about all the praise heaped on Russert by the likes of Brokaw, Mike Barnicle and other fellow colleagues rings true to me as a viewer who did not know the man personally.
And to top it all off, Russert came off as just as humble about his own work as he seemed knowledgeable. Maybe he knew no shame in his support for his beloved Buffalo, N.Y., sports teams, but his approach to news, politics, journalism and people in general was as genuine in its earnestness and honesty as anyone could ever imagine.
Is it news? Maybe not. But will we ask that question the next time some cable news channel runs more than 30 seconds of its newscast on Amy Winehouse, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton or the like.
The better question to ask: Is it merited? I'd say so.

Read more...

Monday, June 16, 2008

The censor through time


Between 578 and 535 BC (thereabouts), a guy by the name of Servius Tullius (who may or may not have been born a slave) rose to become the sixth King of ancient Rome. Far more likely is that Servius was a soldier, possibly a mercenary, who surreptitiously ascended the throne as the second Etruscan to do so. (That's Servius there in the middle, about to be murdered by his son-in-law, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, at the behest of his daughter).
Anywho, among Servius' many contributions to Rome -- reforming the army, overhauling Rome's "constitution" and better defining social classes and tribal divisions -- was that he instituted the first census.
Now, he didn't walk door to door asking how many children you had; the Roman census was far more thorough -- it was more like a mini-inquisition into the personal lives and finances of anyone who is anyone in Rome. Senators were expected to have a certain standing in the community when it came to money -- if it were deemed they did not meet the criteria, it was likely they could soon find themselves out of power.
The census derives its name from the verb "censere" -- "to judge."
Can you see where I'm going with this?
Hop in the time machine with me about 2,500 into the future, to right around the present day. The Roman Empire is the stuff of history books and HBO series -- some blame the Christians (Thanks in large part to Edward Gibbon, author of one of the most overread Roman histories of all time). But I digress.
All this was inspired by a post by my old friend Logan C. Adams at Area Voices. His paper was inundated with the same letters to the editor I was as of late, all from seemingly upset people about a new TV show on CBS called "Swingtown" [Which coincidentally (not ironically) has been directed by Alan Poul, who helped direct HBO's "Rome."]
Many people who loudly proclaim their faith and values say that "Swingtown" violates their local community standards and should be taken off the air. For full disclosure, the show does appear to be about couples who engage in the swinging lifestyle.
A lot of people I've heard talk about this outcry against "Swingtown" are apt to say some pretty mean things about the groups trying to take "Swingtown" off the air, regardless of whether the show has any artistic merit ("It's there, on the air, get used to it!").
But I take exception when the "family values" crowd gets labeled with the word "censors." At least in the modern sense, the media censor prevents you from ever seeing something. There was a time in American history, not too long ago, that The Powers That Be were far more able and apt to never let anything objectionable reach the broadcast airwaves. That is not the case here.
I also hear a lot of people decrying the power that religious groups have over the arts, that we're living in a theocracy. That just goes too far for my taste; if that were really the case, why was "Swingtown" on the air in the first place? The traditional religious powers in America, while still commanding a powerful voice among the faithful, do not wield the same persuasive weapons they once did.
Simply put: When a major letter-writing campaign is initiated by a certain religious or moral authority to America's community newspaper to denounce a television show, it means said religious or moral authority did not have the muscle to do it alone.
If you want a true censor, you'd do well to look no further than your local newspaper editorial board. In the true sense of the word, we judge and estimate on a daily basis what is most important to our audience and what does not merit a place in our paper, in our e-mail updates and on our website.
Each day is an exercise in censorship for myself, as I have a finite space with which to present you, the reader, with the best mix of news, features, sports, entertainment info interspersed with photos, graphics and headlines. Quite a paradox: The people who bring you the news are all-too-often the people who keep other news from you.
But that's the nature of the beast -- by CBS bringing you "Swingtown," another show is sitting unseen (or at least relegated to a station with a smaller audience). Maybe you'll put together the analogy that CBS (Rome) has become too decadent and depraved ("Swingtown"), and just like Mr. Gibbon suggested, its downfall will come at the hands of Christianity.
Is history repeating itself? Only if you buy into Gibbon's take on things, it could be. Personally, I believe Rome fell in large part due to economic problems, and if "Swingtown" is doomed for the pop culture trash bin, my money is on the cause being money, i.e. ad revenues and ratings.

Read more...

About This Blog

The once and future savage outpost for my semi-meaningful thoughts and monologues that are too long for Twitter and not good enough to be sprawled across the front page of every major metropolitan newspaper in America with 120-pt. headlines. Also, the occasional diversion via YouTube.

Meditate On This

Most of the great artists never live to see their work truly appreciated on a global scale... Vincent van Gogh. Johann Sebastian Bach. Keyboard Cat.

  © Blogger template Coozie by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP