On a recent version of the SAT, there was an essay question about the implications and impact of Reality TV on American society. Ten years too late, SAT board - if I'd had that prompt, maybe I could have gotten into an Ivy, or (gasp!) Stanford.
Students have inevitably taken up arms against the question. I completely agree with their complaints: someone who watches Reality TV will have a much easier time responding. A student knowledgeable about the genre could provide, or at least have in mind, specific examples that would support their argument or even help them form a convincing response. (For instance, they could mention how awful it is that the cover of this week's People Magazine features Brad and Emily's rocky engagement while confining the tragedy in Japan to the sidebar, just above the discussion of Kate Middleton's bikini body). So yes, the question is unfair.
But too freakin' bad.
Reality TV does have an impact on our society, for better or worse, and as informed citizens, high school students should be able to discuss it. Not that they shouldn't also be informed about politics and the global economy (etc. etc. etc.) but that doesn't preclude an an awareness of television culture. In fact, pop culture is the easiest of any "subject" to learn - it's the most accessible (literally and intellectually) and takes the fewest brain cells to process (though probably kills the most). I'm not suggesting that sixteen-year-olds should be forced to watch Jersey Shore and America's Next Top Model, or that they need to know that first-ever Survivor winner, Richard Hatch, is back for another stint in prison. But they should absolutely be able to form a clear argument about one of the most important American cultural phenomena.
And really, now that the SAT is out of 2400, no one over the age of 18 really knows what your score means anyway.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Episode 611
Jury duty is second only to filing taxes on the list of Things Americans Hate to Do. I'm here to change that. Having spent the past two days at jury duty, I can say with confidence that it is one of the most entertaining things I have ever done (take that as you will). Why write about it here? Because I would like to propose that it becomes a new TV show: a spin-off of The Office and Parks and Recreation that documents the jury selection process in a suburban courthouse.
I don't know quite how to describe the absurdity that ensued (although everyone knows a version of it), so instead, I'll just list off a few things I learned - or that I knew, but were confirmed for me - observing the process.
1) All Americans are either pretentious, crazy, or stupid (or some combination of the three): I knew it would all be downhill when so many people couldn't follow instructions that the administrative assistant had to lecture a room full of functioning adults on how to fill out a form.
2) As a general rule, people are not good liars, especially when it comes to pretending to be prejudiced (which is surprising, given that most of us are, in fact, quite prejudiced).
3) People who like to schmooze should not be allowed to be judges: I could elaborate, but let's just say this Phil Dunphy of a character referred to every female in the room - ages 18 to 80 - as "young lady."
4) Conciseness is not a strong suit of most Americans. If you're going to BS your way out of serving, please do it immediately, and save everyone else the time. A fifteen-minute story about how you were pulled over by a police officer 23 years ago and how the experience has tainted your view of traffic violations really isn't in anyone's best interest. I have never thought the words "TMI" more in my life.
5) The sixth amendment should be further amended: in addition to "the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury," the defendant should have "the right to a private room and a television to watch all six seasons of LOST (or the equivalent) while the jury selection process is taking place." As if being on trial isn't enough.
In this new show (which will air in Two and Half Men's old time slot), the judge, clerk, bailiff, recorder, and attorneys would be recurring characters, while the defendant and potential jurors would change each time (but of course there would be the Dwight Schrute of the group who came un-summoned to every selection - with the hopes of being seated - just to be a good citizen).
Basically, Jury Duty will be like The Office, but with no windows and the risk of perjury.
I don't know quite how to describe the absurdity that ensued (although everyone knows a version of it), so instead, I'll just list off a few things I learned - or that I knew, but were confirmed for me - observing the process.
1) All Americans are either pretentious, crazy, or stupid (or some combination of the three): I knew it would all be downhill when so many people couldn't follow instructions that the administrative assistant had to lecture a room full of functioning adults on how to fill out a form.
2) As a general rule, people are not good liars, especially when it comes to pretending to be prejudiced (which is surprising, given that most of us are, in fact, quite prejudiced).
3) People who like to schmooze should not be allowed to be judges: I could elaborate, but let's just say this Phil Dunphy of a character referred to every female in the room - ages 18 to 80 - as "young lady."
4) Conciseness is not a strong suit of most Americans. If you're going to BS your way out of serving, please do it immediately, and save everyone else the time. A fifteen-minute story about how you were pulled over by a police officer 23 years ago and how the experience has tainted your view of traffic violations really isn't in anyone's best interest. I have never thought the words "TMI" more in my life.
5) The sixth amendment should be further amended: in addition to "the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury," the defendant should have "the right to a private room and a television to watch all six seasons of LOST (or the equivalent) while the jury selection process is taking place." As if being on trial isn't enough.
In this new show (which will air in Two and Half Men's old time slot), the judge, clerk, bailiff, recorder, and attorneys would be recurring characters, while the defendant and potential jurors would change each time (but of course there would be the Dwight Schrute of the group who came un-summoned to every selection - with the hopes of being seated - just to be a good citizen).
Basically, Jury Duty will be like The Office, but with no windows and the risk of perjury.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Episode 610
I assume Mel Gibson is sending Charlie Sheen some great, big thank-you flowers right about now. Charlie Sheen has created a mockery of himself more than I - or anyone else - could possibly do, so it's not really even worth trying to be witty about it. Lucky for me, someecards has already taken care of that and has captured, in seventeen distinct one-liners, how much America hates the beast and more importantly, Two and a Half Men.
Because Charlie Sheen has given TV a bad name, I want to propose an antidote: seven-year-old Riley Chandler. These four minutes and seven seconds redeem television (and humanity) from every ill He Who Shall Continue to Be Named (on Every News Outlet in America) has ever committed. This is almost better than baby pandas cuddling with their moms.
Because Charlie Sheen has given TV a bad name, I want to propose an antidote: seven-year-old Riley Chandler. These four minutes and seven seconds redeem television (and humanity) from every ill He Who Shall Continue to Be Named (on Every News Outlet in America) has ever committed. This is almost better than baby pandas cuddling with their moms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
