>>My all-but-in-laws recently bought a new house, and since the TV
reception was so crappy at the new location, they finally broke down and
ordered a satellite TV package. Imagine my surprise when a channel
showing Free Speech TV was part of the package. We don't get Pacifica
out here in flyover country, so this is the first time I've actually
heard -- let alone seen -- Democracy Now in Pittsburgh. It was taped,
not live, but it was something.
Since when is Pittsburgh flyover country? Out here in the real flyover country (Kansas), we look at Pennsylvania as being part of the East Coast. Hell, Pennsylvania is never considered to be part of the Midwest, which pretty much disqualifies your area as being part of flyover country.
But out here in the true flyover country, we have access to Democracy Now and the other accoutrements of American dissident culture. Here in Kansas City (and in the region around KC) you can listen to Democracy Now each morning on 100,000 watt KKFI. While I haven't checked, I'm sure that Free Speech TV is available on cable and dish systems in the suburbs here.
Which brings me to a suggestion I heard during a media reform session at ALA two weeks ago. A woman in the audience recommended that people pressure their local cable access stations to carry FSTV programming. She said that the ratings for the stations that carry this programming go up, which helps preserve the existence of cable access. More importantly, she reported that the mere existence of radical programming on cable access had a ripple effect on local activism.
>>Unfortunately, the TV version is truly crappy; like a lot of the stuff on Free Speech TV from what I've seen so far, the production values were really low.
That's funny, I used to be more critical of DN until I started watching the show over the Internet. Granted I'm not watching is on a full screen TV, but I think the production values are pretty damn good. They do graphics and video with few rough edges. Amy and Juan look professional and competent. The studio looks professional. No, this isn't Fox News and World News Tonight, but it's pretty damn good.
>>It was basically Goodman and Gonzalez doing their radio show on TV, looking down at their papers a lot rather than looking into the camera, and so on.
Let's keep in mind that their primary focus is to produce a quality radio show. Yes, they do look down at their papers a lot, but if you watch the show enough this stops being so noticeable. Given the quality content of the show, I can live with this style.
>>No creative use of clips, sound effects, music, or graphics.
Did you really watch the show? They show plenty of clips, graphics, and they have music! Are you expecting something like national TV news or something on the level of local TV news?
>>Plus neither of them wore makeup, which like it or not is a requirement on TV.
By your standards.
>>I understand that the program probably doesn't have money for this kind of stuff, but if you're going to do a TV show, you should do a TV show -- not a radio show that ends up on film.
What kind of experience do you have in this area, Lacny? Democracy Now is a radio show being broadcast on TV, but in case you haven't heard, people accomodate different styles on TV these days. Have you ever watched the Howard Stern show on E! That has no special effects and is just video of radio people doing stuff in a studio. At least Democracy Now is making a good effort to look like a TV show.
>>As it stands, it was incredibly boring, and I watched it because I have the politics I have and for the novelty of it. But no one flipping through the channels would have had their attention grabbed by this.
Really? Perhaps it doesn't reflect your liberal politics, but Democracy Now is incredibly popular and enjoys a growing audience. It continues to add stations. Amy's book tour has been well-attended. And I hear that the PBS stations that show DN air it during pledge drives because it is so popular.
>>It's stuff like this that puts all the sectarian-left carping about Michael Moore in perspective. He makes audiovisual products with a progressive message that actually stimulate the curiousity of and even entertain large numbers of people.
It's pretty clear that you have little understanding of all the shit work that is required to make a good-looking media product. Michael Moore has millions of dollars at his disposal. Democracy Now is doing a bang up job with fewer dollars. As I said above, Democracy Now is popular and is growing in the numbers of people it reaches.
>>The purist progressives prefer something with a tighter and more elaborate message, but no kick -- stuff that's worthy and boring.
You mean like Z Magazine, which doesn't care about design or editing as its editor has admitted?
>>In this vein I notice that the ever-more-predictable CounterPunch has a recent article whining about Morgan Spurlock's "SuperSize Me":
>>http://www.counterpunch.org/williams07152004.html
Shit, Lacny, I thought this would be right up your alley. A class analysis of the liberal Whole Foods take on the obesity diet. I found this to be one of the better Counterpunch article of the week, which I promptly added to Infoshop News.
>>Personally, I found Spurlock's vegan girlfriend annoying, too, but other than that, these criticisms are for shit. What the CounterPunch critic really wants to say is, "A lot of people saw this movie, and I didn't make the movie, so something must be fatally wrong with it."
No, the critic was engaged in what critics are supposed to do: write criticism. Kind of like a more polished and solid version of your rants about Democracy Now. Heather Williams makes a bunch of solid arguments about why she thinks the film isn't radical enough. Capitalism and class are important factors in why Americans are so obese. As she points out, agribusiness and capitalism have created a society where working class people are pretty much forced to become fat. If we are working constantly, we don't have time to get exercise, cook food from scratch, and relax with our families. Capitalism has dictated how our cities are laid out, which forced people to drive everywhere. If we are being paid shit, we eat shit. Fast food is eaten because it is cheap to eat. Poor working class people eat crappy food because it is the cheapest available. This is what Williams is pointing out.
I want to see Supersize Me, but I'm much more skeptical these days of the Whole Food organic-eating liberal activism.
Chuck0