Tag Archives: television

You Won’t Have Mail!

Recently American Online (AOL) made a stunning announcement: they’re shutting down on September 30 – this year.  As in one month from now!  What had once been THE email service for many internet users has apparently run its course and – like most lifelong politicians – is no longer relevant.

Introduced in 1991, the screeching sound of AOL dial up served as the soundtrack of those early days of the cyber universe.  I definitely remember it!  AOL came with my first personal computer in March of 2000.  The “You’ve got mail” voice alert was exciting at the time. 

The influx of broadband remedied the nails-on-chalkboard tone that signaled a connection to the internet.  But, as with dial phones and 8-track tape players, AOL may have become a victim of technology.  It’s just what happens with technology and trends.

Despite my initial love for AOL, I had two major clashes with them; the second of which severed our relationship forever.  In February 2004, AOL published a piece on how Christopher Columbus allegedly used Leap Year Day of 1504 to trick the indigenous Taino people of Jamaica into providing food for him and his stranded crew.  In the comments section, someone posted a completely unrelated remark; something to the effect of “no one has suffered like the Jewish people.”

I have no idea what prompted it, except ethnocentric arrogance.  But I replied with a remark that included the term “politically correct bullshit”.   Apparently that hurt someone’s feelings, so they reported me to AOL who promptly deleted the verbiage and suspended me from commenting for a short period.  In other words, AOL did something that reeked of juvenile behavior – they put me on “probation”.

“Excuse me?”  It was bad enough I could hardly understand the customer service representative through her heavy accent.  Like several U.S. companies at the turn of the century, AOL had outsourced their technical support and customer service to India and other parts unknown.  But, when she told me about the probationary status due to my foul language, I retorted, “You don’t place me on probation!  I place you on probation!”  I was a paying customer, plus the U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled that foul language was protected speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Neither truth would change their cyber mind.

Seven years later I committed another more egregious act – in the minds of AOL leadership.  I emailed a nude image of myself to a close friend in a joke message.  This time it was AOL who got their feelings hurt and literally shut down my email address.  I had to scramble to find another service and settled on Gmail.  But I kept thinking – if everyone who used foul language or sent a nude photo got banned from the internet, well…you wouldn’t have an internet!

My father – who was born in 1933 – told me that, as a kid, he thought the voices he heard from the radio were from tiny people inside the device.  Radio was a popular form of technology in the 1930s and 40s.  Then television, then computers and now…well, who knows what will come up in the future.

Goodbye to AOL.  And life continues.  Like technology itself, it always does.

2 Comments

Filed under Essays

Right This

Protesters outside Netflix’s headquarters on May 3 demand better pay and no AI in the writers’ room. Photo: Maya Pontone/Hyperallergic)

On Monday, May 1, the Writers Guild of America went on strike.  It’s the first time professional television and film writers have revolted against the entertainment industry since 2007.  That particular walkout last more than three months and alone cost the state of California $2.1 billion.  Back then the dispute centered on the growing internet market and material being downloaded for very little, if not for free.  The entertainment world’s corporate elites had, of course, remained profitable.

The WGA is still fighting for the usual claims: higher wages, better healthcare benefits and pensions, and – as in 2007 – more compensation when their work shows up on streaming platforms, such as Amazon and Netflix.  According to an industry bulletin, writer pay has fallen, as corporate profits have risen.  Production companies are also hiring fewer writers to do more work.  (Sound familiar?)

But now the writers are also targeting a new entity: artificial intelligence (AI) and in particular the ChatGPT program, which has emerged as a writing tool.  Launched in November 2022 by OpenAI, ChatGPT is still in its development phase, but has curious (threatening?) implications for writing, computer programming and even every day conversations.  In recent years AI has been used to create realistic fake photos and videos.

Didn’t Isaac Asimov warn about things like this?

Dr. Geoffrey Hinton certainly has.  Considered the ‘Godfather of AI’, Hinton has expressed concerns about AI’s rapid expansion across the globe, dubbing it an “existential risk” to true human intelligence and ingenuity.  A decade ago Google brought Hinton on board to help develop its AI platform, and his endeavors ultimately led to the creation of ChatGPT.  Now, perhaps channeling Victor Frankenstein, Hinton declares, “I’ve come to the conclusion that the kind of intelligence we’re developing is very different from the intelligence we have.  So it’s as if you had 10,000 people and whenever one person learned something, everybody automatically knew it.  And that’s how these chatbots can know so much more than any one person.”

Television and film writers still struggle for respect and profitability.  Britanni Nichols, who writes for the popular ABC show “Abbott Elementary”, noted that she could live comfortably off the residuals she’d receive from the network between seasons, since she’d get half her original writing fee.  But now, when those episodes are sold to streaming services, she earns a paltry 5.5% of that fee.

“You’re getting checks for $3, $7, $10,” she explains.  “It’s not enough to put together any sort of consistent lifestyle.  It can really be a real shock. … sometimes you get a stack of checks for $0.07.”

Music artists experienced similar woes with the Spotify streaming service several years ago.  Singers and songwriters found they were earning, on average, less than one cent per day, as the site’s patronage downloaded a vast array of songs.  The animosity grew so intense that singer Taylor Swift pulled her entire song catalog in 2014.  Other artists followed suit, thus setting the stage for a major overhaul of the music streaming concept and business model.  It was dramatic and controversial, but it had to be done.

Other creatives found themselves expressing similar anxieties.  In 2021 artist Jens Haaning caused a stir when the Kunsten Museum of Modern Art in Aalborg, Denmark paid him the equivalent of USD 84,000 to create a modern art piece.  He responded with two blank canvases collectively titled “Take the Money and Run”.  It was his homage to (and protest of) the poor wages painters often receive for commissioned works.  “The work is that I have taken their money,” he said.  Like writing, painting and sculpting aren’t so easy to do.

Author Amy Joy once stated, “Anyone who says writing is easy isn’t doing it right.”  And I often recollect an old story involving the late actress Anne Bancroft and her husband, writer and filmmaker Mel Brooks.  After landing a movie role, Bancroft allegedly held up the script and lamented the amount of dialogue she had to memorize!” – whereupon Brooks replied by a holding up a blank sheet of paper and asked her to imagine putting all that dialogue down on it.

Several years ago, when LinkedIn was still somewhat relevant, I belonged to various writing and art groups.  In one the issue of financial compensation arose, and a handful of misguided souls had the audacity to question why writers – or any artists, for that matter – felt they had the right to be paid for their work.  “No one asked you to be a writer,” declared one visitor.  I pointed out that no one is asked to enter into any kind of profession, not including family and close friends.  (My parents wanted me to go into computer science, which I did when I started college, and quickly discovered how inept I was at it.)  The public doesn’t ask anyone to go into the creative arts – not directly.  But the average accountant, lawyer, architect, cashier or FedEx driver wants to be entertained in one way or another; try as they may, though, they don’t have the talent or discipline to create their own stories or compose their own songs.  Thus, in a subtle manner, they do ask for someone somewhere to do these things for them.  People like to read stories, listen to music and look at beautiful paintings.  Somebody is always ready to respond and create those pleasures.  Thus, they should be respected and be compensated for their endeavors.

All I can say to the WGA folks is to keep writing and keep fighting!  It’s worth the battle.  You and your work are worth the battle!

Bottom image: Dave Whamond

2 Comments

Filed under Essays

Book Less

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [‘hard-core pornography’], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 1964

You know the old puzzle: if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around, does it make a sound?  Using that logic, if a book is published, and no one finds its content offensive, is it obscene?

Obscenity seems to be subjective.  Right-wing extremists certainly feel that way, as they have (once again) assumed the role of moral overseer and decided they have the authority to determine what books are and are not appropriate for others to read.  To we writers and other artists, the term censorship is like holy water to a devil worshiper: it’s terrifying!  Whenever we learn that some people are challenging the presence of certain materials in a public venue, such as a library, we bristle.  But, instead of running and hiding, we’ve been known to stand and fight.

In the latest battle, the school board in McMinn County, Tennessee decided to ban the 1986 Art Spiegelman book “Maus: A Survivor’s Tale” from its library.  The illustrated tome is Spiegelman’s recounting of his parents’ experiences as prisoners of the Auschwitz Nazi death camp.  It won Spiegelman a Pulitzer Prize and, in 1992, the Museum of Modern Art mounted an exhibition displaying his original panels for the story“Maus” had been party of the school district’s lessons on the Nazi Holocaust.  The McMinn school board’s complaints about “Maus” are the usual gripes: language and nudity (animal nudity in this case).

It’s worth noting McMinn County, Tennessee is near the location of the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial, where the concept of evolution became intensely controversial.  In 1925 the state of Tennessee passed the Butler Act, a bill banning the teaching of evolution in its schools.  Evolution, declared legislators, contradicted the Christian Bible as the single standard of truth in public arenas, such as schools.  The move astonished – and frightened – many across the country.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) responded immediately by vowing to support any educator in the U.S. who dared to teach evolution.  A popular young high school teacher in – of all places, Tennessee – named John Scopes offered to be the defendant, if the state decided to make good on its promise.  They did.  On May 7, 1925, Tennessee authorities arrested Scopes and charged him with violating the Butler Act.

The ensuing legal battle made headlines across the country and the world.  The judge in the case showed his deference to the state by opening each session with a prayer and refusing to let Scopes’ defense call any scientific witnesses.  Ultimately Scopes was found guilty and fined $100.  The ACLU hoped the case would make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Tennessee State Supreme Court reversed the decision on a technicality.  Still, the repercussions were widespread.  The Butler Act was never enforced in Tennessee again, and similar measures in other parts of the U.S. met with failure.  But progressives realized they could never relax in the face of extremist ideology.

So, here we are in the third decade of the 21st century, where the U.S. has come out of two brutal Middle East wars and is now facing an onslaught of urban violence.  We experienced 36 mass shootings in the month of January, resulting in 101 injuries and 42 deaths.  That’s just in the month of January 2022 alone!

But, as usual, social and religious conservatives are more upset with books.  In October of 2021, Texas State Representative Matt Krause asked the Texas Education Agency for information about 850 books in school libraries.  He wanted to know how many copies of these books were in each library.  It didn’t surprise observers that the majority of the books are by women, non-Whites and/or LGBT authors.  The imperial Krause is concerned that taxpayers are funding the presence of these books in school libraries.  Yet, my tax dollars are wasted if those books are removed because he and other like-minded folks find them unacceptable.

Some disputes have become hostile.  Police in Leander, Texas got involved in a controversy over one book, “Lawn Boy” in 2021.  Author Jonathan Evison says he received death threats because of it.  Texas – where any restrictions on guns is considered anathema – isn’t the only state under siege by moral zealots.  Similar attempts at censorship and assaults on free speech have played out in Missouri, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

“If I had a statement, it would be ‘Read the book or sit down,’” says Evison. “I feel like these people are frightened because they’re losing the culture wars.”

Yeah!  Sit down and read – more than the Bible or the TV guide.

I will concede parents have the right to be concerned by what their children view and read.  But I feel banning books from a school library is just one step away from banning books in any library or elsewhere.  It’s truly not an unrealistic stretch to envision such a scenario.  The world has witnessed such activities in totalitarian societies, and the results are often sanguineous.

Once again, though, what is obscene?

The 1920s was a decade of both progress and excess, particularly for the growing film industry.  Although silent and in black-and-white, movies had begun to show a variety of mature content – mainly heavy alcohol consumption and sexual behavior.  Concern over the material became so intense that, in 1934, Will H. Hays – then head of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) – introduced his personally developed “Hays Code”, a standard production guide for what is and what is not acceptable content for motion pictures.  The code remained until 1968, when the MPAA introduced its film rating system: G (General Audiences), PG (Parental Guidance recommended), R (Restricted) and X (mainly for sex, but also for violence).

By the 1960s, films were presenting increasingly controversial subject matter – and headaches for the MPAA.  The 1966 film “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” shocked audiences with its blatant use of foul language and served as one catalyst for the rating system.  The 1968 film “Vixen” became the first movie branded with an X rating.  The following year John Schlesinger released “Midnight Cowboy” with Jon Voight in the titular role.  It, too, was branded with an X rating.  Despite that, it went on to win the 1969 Academy Award for Best Picture – the first and (to date) the only X-rated film to win such an honor.  Viewing both “Vixen” and “Midnight Cowboy” now might make somebody wonder what the fuss was all about.

The film rating system took an odd turn in 1983 when a remake of the classic film “Scarface” came out.  The MPAA initially granted the movie an X rating because of its excessive violence.  Director Brian DePalma reluctantly trimmed some of the footage, and the film was rebranded with an R.  If it had gone out with the X label, “Scarface” would have been the first movie released as such because of violence.

Another X controversy arose six years later with “The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover”.  The film’s gratuitous sexual content garnered an X rating from the MPAA.  As with DePalma and “Scarface”, director Peter Greenaway reluctantly agreed to edit out a small portion of the sexual matter – small as in some 5 minutes – and the film was upgraded to R.  The fiasco upset many in the entertainment community – not just in the U.S. but across the globe.  If the difference between an R and an X rating is a paltry 5 minutes, then how valid is a film rating system?

What is obscene?

In the 1950s, the Hays Code was applied to a growing new medium: television.  In motion pictures, the code, for example, dictated that people of the opposite sex could not be filmed in bed together, unless one of the duo (usually the man) had at least one foot on the floor.  In TV, however, even married couples couldn’t be shown in the same bed.  The rule went into effect after a 1947 episode of “Mary Kay and Johnny” showed the title characters hopping into the same bed.  But that taboo dissolved completely in 1969 with “The Brady Bunch”.  Bathrooms also were generally off-limits in television.  One exceptional first was a 1957 episode of “Leave It to Beaver”, when the boys tried to hide a pet alligator in the tank of a toilet.  An early episode of “All in the Family” produced another first: the sound of a toilet being flushed.

As mundane as all of these events are today, they each sparked a ruckus at the time.

Personally, I find excessive violence offensive.  I never laughed when I saw men and boys get struck in the groin in slap-stick comedy scenes in films and on television.  I grimace at bloody acts in similar venues, while others react as if nothing more than a sharp wind blew past them.  Conversely, many of these same individuals are horrified by the sight of blatant nudity, especially if the nudeness is that of a male.  It’s difficult to imagine now, but even as recently as the late 1960s words like pregnant and diarrhea were forbidden on television.

The word “bitch” is used frequently on TV today.  But, in 1983, a musical group called Laid Back released a song entitled “White Horse”, which features the line: ‘If you wanna be rich, you got to be a bitch.’  MTV played the video, but bleeped out the term “bitch”.  In 1994, Tom Petty released “You Don’t Know How It Feels”, which contains the line: ‘But let me get to the point, let’s roll another joint.’  Music video networks deemed the ‘roll another joint’ verbiage unacceptable and bleeped it out whenever they played the video.

In 1989, rap group 2 Live Crew released two versions of their song “Me So Horny”: what they dubbed the G-rated version and the R-rated version.  Radio stations played the G-rated version frequently, but the R-rated version generated the most strife.  At the start of 1990 a federal judge in the state of Florida considered the group and their music obscene and in violation of community standards – whatever that’s supposed to mean – and forbid local radio stations from playing any of their music.  Consequently, 2 Live Crew’s reputation and music sales skyrocketed.

I remember the controversy that erupted with the video to Madonna’s 1990 song “Justify My Love”.  Once again, music video networks assumed the role of moral protectorate and either refused to play the video or played it late at night, when children and other fragile souls – such as moral crusaders – were asleep.  Undeterred by the skirmish, Madonna packaged the video and sold it independently.

In 1965, The Rolling Stones made their debut appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show”, during which they performed a sanitized version of “Let’s Spend the Night Together”.  Producers convinced the group to sing ‘Let’s spend some time together’ instead.  Lead singer Mick Jagger leered at the camera – in the way only Mick Jagger can – when he spat out the words.

Two years later The Doors were presented with a similar option when they made their appearance on the show and performed their already popular and now seminal hit “Light My Fire”.  Sullivan’s son-in-law, Robert Precht, suggested they alter the line ‘Girl, we couldn’t get much higher’ to ‘Girl, we couldn’t get much better.  The group refused and performed the song as it was.  Their act of defiance resulted in their permanent ban from the show – a move I know upset them to no end.

I’ve noticed social conservatives haven’t raised concerns about inappropriate material in books like “The Anarchist Cookbook” and “The Turner Diaries”.  The latter served as a blueprint for Oklahoma City bomber (domestic terrorist) Timothy McVeigh.  If conservatives really want to ban books with sexual references and violence, they should start with the Christian Bible, which is rife with salacious and unsavory behavior.

Meanwhile, “Maus” has experienced a surge in sales as a result of the squabble surrounding it.  If there’s one way to ensure something’s popularity or success, it’s to try to ban it.  In other words, censorship always backfires.

Yet, censorship will always remain a threat to freedom of speech, expression and the press.  The war will never be won – by either side.  But those of us on the side of true freedom can win individual battles by standing up to self-righteous demagogues.

2 Comments

Filed under Essays

Oh, That Musky Scent!

Although I consider myself as American as apple pie, baseball and ravioli, I frequently watch foreign television networks; mainly as a matter of desire for knowledge of other cultures, but also in case I need to evade bill collector.  I was channel-surfing the other night and happened upon Univision where I saw a commercial a Mexican cologne for men – “Chorizo Splash.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Wolf Tales