How did the U.S. become so pathetic that a sitcom is a topic of national conversation?

[Pogo]

I turned up the volume on the news to hear a segment about the new version of the Roseanne sitcom. Some people don't want to watch it, and that they don't is the topic of conversation. Seriously?

If someone asks you or asks me about it, sure, that either of us watches, or doesn't, enjoys, or doesn't, the show is banal enough banter....maybe at lunch or for a moment at the water cooler. On national TV, though? For what?


Now, don't get me wrong. My beef has nothing to do with Roseanne's content. I know the show has a political bent, and I presume it favors Trump since Trump was touting it, but what be the content of a TV show is of mon import to me. I "grew up" with "Archie Bunker," I can handle "Roseanne," even though I suspect the Roseanne character anachronistically channels "Archie Bunker," but I'd have to watch to say for sure. [1]


One thing I'll be curious to observe is what liberals and conservatives periodically have to say about the writing for Roseanne.

• Conservatives routinely enough say of comedians something like, "Do your comedy. Leave your politics out of it."
  • Will they adopt that posture re: Roseanne?
  • If chided about not maintaining that posture re: Roseanne, will they resort to a hackneyed tu quoque retort?
• Will liberals embrace the "do your comedy. Leave your politics out of it" stance or will they just watch the show and laugh, or just not watch the show?
  • If chided about adopting that posture re: Roseanne, will they resort to a hackneyed tu quoque retort?

Note:

1. I think the Roseanne character is anachronistic because of this.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   (Note: National annual average unemployment rate in 2012 was 8.1%)

Liberal loons are terrified that it could be so successful because it shows that people are sick of the normal left leaning shows and want something different or something they can relate to.

The left refuse to accept the fact that most of the middle and lower class have felt abandoned by our politicians over the last several decades as they shipped jobs overseas. This is a rejection of the Dems and RINO GOP’s globalist Agenda. That is why the left have instead chosen to believe Fake News stories like “Russian collusion” and blame Facebook memes for losing the election.

And once AGAIN --- whether a TV program "succeeds" or not means whether it achieves the ratings expected. And what the ratings mean is how many eyeballs are watching. Nothing in the world to do with "how the owners of those eyeballs FEEL about it". That's not measured, cannot practically be measured, and would be of little if any use if it could.

Ratings measure attention, not any kind of "approval". Those two measures have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Ratings have one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to make the case to an advertiser that "we can deliver X number of eyeballs for your commercial". *HOW* those eyeballs are ensnared and delivered has zero to do with whether anyone "approves" of the fucking thing.

 

[Pogo]

What is one to say about that?

Anyone can stand next to a tall-enough tree and see its leaves. Similarly, one can fly over a green area, know it's covered with plant life and still not know whether it's trees or grass one sees.

The fact that you didn't see politics in the dialogue on M*A*S*H doesn't mean it wasn't there. I am, however, willing to accept that the politics in it didn't obtain your notice.

So you can't defend your characterization, and would bury that inability-to-defend in a morass of aimless verbiage? All righty then.....

 

[usmbguest5318]

This was a devious way to shoehorn YET-ANOTHER profitmongeing station in despite the FCC having long ago designated all FM frequencies below 92 to be strictly noncommercial.

Okay, then gripe about the existence of a "loophole" and advocate for its closure, but don't sit there asserting/implying something does not happen/exist when in fact it does. Surely you aren't asserting that the loophole's mere existence be the reason extant stations/broadcasters don't lease more "space," stronger signals, etc. than they do. I submit that they don't/didn't because they didn't have either the money or the will/need to do so.

(Would be) broadcasters can't "lease more space, stronger signals, etc". Those stronger avenues have all been scarfed up decades ago. That's why the itty bitty puddle of public broadcasting that made up some but not all of your list, are confined to the sloppy seconds left over.

The prime space is already in the hands of giant corporations, and has been for generations. Even though they all regularly have to re-apply for license renewal, which is virtually automatic. And as long as it is automatic it effectively shuts out anyone else from access.

The prime space is already in the hands of giant corporations, and has been for generations. Even though they all regularly have to re-apply for license renewal, which is virtually automatic. And as long as it is automatic it effectively shuts out anyone else from access.

So now, your gripe is that people who've had the property rights to a given space in the EMS get their lease renewed.

Consider this:

I have a building that has a limited quantity of units. Some units are small 600 sq. foot efficiencies, some are one bedroom units of 1200 sq. ft., some are large multi floor units, others occupy whole or major portions of single floors, and so on. My tenants who've leased the largest units have renewed their leases, adequately maintained the space they occupy, and paid the requisite fees for as long as the building has been there.

Following the implications of your gripe, I should not automatically accept their lease renewal and instead I should either reject it or reduce the size of the unit or quantity of floors they occupy to admit someone else who wants to obtain a place in the building.​

While I respect your right to think that's what I should do, I can assure you it's not what I'd ever do.
​

I'm not sure how your conception of property rights goes, but the normative model you're suggesting doesn't at all align with the U.S.' notion or implementation of the property rights concept.

Quite frankly, I'm glad it does not, but I'm equally glad that you and others like you have the freedom to feel it should. Furthermore, I think it great that you can advocate to the fullest of your ability for change in America's implementation of property rights concepts. Make no mistake, however. Were I to sense that the model you've describe had a snowball's chance in hell of coming to fruition, bantering in opposition to you and about it on USMB is not the nature of conversation I'd be having about it.

Apparently you either missed, or are intentionally ignoring, the adjective public in the term "public property".

The airwaves, by which we mean the use thereof, is literally the domain of We the Public. Thus spake the FCC when it was formed. That means we own that potential. It also means it's up to us who uses it and for what purpose, and for how long they do so. And yes Virginia, that means CBS doesn't own them and ClearChannel doesn't own them and "Power 99" doesn't own them --- WE do, and we permit CBS and ClearChannel and Power99 and everybody else, to use OUR airwaves.

That's a basic fact that can't be ignored. It's the starting point.

Apparently you either missed, or are intentionally ignoring, the adjective public in the term "public property".

The airwaves, by which we mean the use thereof, is literally the domain of We the Public. Thus spake the FCC when it was formed. That means we own that potential. It also means it's up to us who uses it and for what purpose, and for how long they do so. And yes Virginia, that means CBS doesn't own them and ClearChannel doesn't own them and "Power 99" doesn't own them --- WE do, and we permit CBS and ClearChannel and Power99 and everybody else, to use OUR airwaves.

I can't believe you wrote that drivel. Alas, you did, so I've in turn gotten a "big blue crayon" so I can use it to spell out for you what I mistakenly presumed you'd be able to discern on your own. The only difference in the "consider this" remarks below and those I presented earlier and to which the above quoted remarks are your reply are the blue bits and the fact that I shifted the personal pronouns from the first person singular to the third person plural and I added an appositive for the first person nominative case pronoun. In short, no I didn't overlook the "public" in "public property." You didn't actually think carefully about what I wrote.

Consider this:

"We, the people," own a building that has a limited quantity of units. Some units are small 600 sq. foot efficiencies, some are one bedroom units of 1200 sq. ft., some are large multi floor units, others occupy whole or major portions of single floors, and so on. Our tenants who've leased the largest units have renewed their leases, adequately maintained the space they occupy, and paid the requisite fees for as long as the building has been there.

Following the implications of your gripe, "We, the people," should not automatically accept their lease renewal and instead "We, the people," should either reject it or reduce the size of the unit or quantity of floors they occupy to admit someone else who wants to obtain a place in the building.

While I respect your right to think that's what "We, the people," should do, I can assure you it's not what I'd ever our doing so.

Analogical Verisimilitudes:

• "Building" --> The EMS
• "Units in the building" -> Frequencies of the EMS, with larger units corresponding to larger segments of the EMS.
• "The view" from any given unit" --> Transmission strength at which a broadcaster is authorized to transmit its signals
• Lease agreement any lessors sign --> License to occupy/use a specific portion of the EMS
• Size of the unit a lessor occupies in the building --> Amount/strength of the EMS signal any given licensee licenses.

"We, the people" have delegated to the FCC the authority for managing the use/occupation of the EMS. One element of the FCC's raison d'etre, that is, why "We, the people" have made the delegation, is to manage the EMS so that users of it don't "step on" each other, as it were, to keep the use of the EMS orderly rather than chaotic, which is precisely what it'd be were there not some means of apportioning the EMS to the various individuals and users who want to use it. The licenses the FCC grants/auctions are the means of establishing and maintaining the orderly use of the EMS.

Now, essentially, your beef is that some users of the EMS generations ago leased the "biggest and best" portions of the EMS and won't relinquish them and the FCC doesn't pare down or reject their license renewals. That argument is tantamount to any and all of the following:

"Woe is me." "I, a would-be lessor of EMS space" wasn't around to lease a "bigger and better" unit when they were first offered.
"Woe is me." "They, current lessors of the 'biggest and best units' of EMS" aren't willing to relinquish any of it.​

As I implied before, that is just crying over spilt milk, as far as I'm concerned. It is because my notion of property says that once a person or entity has obtained (by purchase or lease) the right to use a given piece of property, so long as the buyer/lessor complies with the obligations of ownership/leasehold they should not be removed from that property.

Now there is a concept called "eminent domain," and, in essence, what you're arguing is that the eminent domain concept be applied to the EMS "property" held by extant commercial licensees. [1] Though in the abstract, sure, that is something the FCC can do, pragmatically doing so is untenable. It is do because eminent domain may not be used to single out specific or a specific class of property holders and deny them of their right to the property they've acquired and rights attendant to that property and their occupancy/possession of it. Eminent domain must confiscate the property without regard to who be its occupant(s), owner(s), or user(s), thus to implement your notion, all occupants of the EMS would have to their licenses "reclaimed" and the bidding process for those portions would have to recur on some periodic basis. (Surely, you see how impractical and absurd such a process would be?)


Note:

It's important to not that I wrote "concept." Literally, eminent domain does not apply. The part of the eminent domain concept that resembles what you're suggesting happen is that of redistributing possession a portion of the EMS. That's it.​

 

[usmbguest5318]

What is one to say about that?

Anyone can stand next to a tall-enough tree and see its leaves. Similarly, one can fly over a green area, know it's covered with plant life and still not know whether it's trees or grass one sees.

The fact that you didn't see politics in the dialogue on M*A*S*H doesn't mean it wasn't there. I am, however, willing to accept that the politics in it didn't obtain your notice.

So you can't defend your characterization, and would bury that inability-to-defend in a morass of aimless verbiage? All righty then.....

What is anyone to say to defend a claim you make about yourself? What did you write to which my response is "what is one to say about that? This:

I don't see how. I've seen many an episode of M*A*S*H as it was a favorite of my mother. Never saw politics in it.

Quite simply, if one attests to what they have or have not seen or heard, barring existential impossibility, I will accept one's word that they have not seen what they say they have not. Proverbially, were the political themes addressed in M*A*S*H snakes, insofar as you didn't see them, they'd have bitten you.

The fact that you didn't see politics in the dialogue on M*A*S*H doesn't mean it wasn't there. I am, however, willing to accept that the politics in it didn't obtain your notice