This Could All Be Yours Tuesday

WARNING: The following is a really lame, congratulatory blog dedicated to a band that I have had an unhealthy obsession with for the past 11 years. This blog could cause eye bleeding, runny nose, gout, and in some cases severe "get off it, nobody wants to read about a stupid band you loser" disorder. Reader discretion is advised.

This Tuesday marks the release of the newest album from my favorite band, Guster. I'm really excited because it's been almost five years since their last album, even though they only briefly stopped touring just in time for everyone of them to have kids. I remember when their last album, "Ganging Up on the Sun" came out, I was a freshman in college and treked out to Providence with my best friend the day of the release to watch them perform live at Station Park. It was awesome. Although, the crowd only knew one track...the one that had been released on iTunes a week before and was currently playing on WBRU in between audio garbage such as Fall Out Boy and...well...Fall Out Boy. Naturally, I downloaded the track, "One Man Wrecking Machine," and played it 4000 times that week causing some sort of dementia with my friend, who went through phases of both love and hate for Guster not unlike a recovering alcoholic that week. I later apologized...but totally didn't mean it.

Don't criticize The Gusters. A**hole.

Anywho, the new album, "Easy Wonderful" has been in the works for like three years and it's finally done and produced and the hyper critical trio are done chopping songs for it. Several songs were left off because lead singer Ryan Miller didn't like them, one of the guys left the band (their jack of all trades "extra" guy, Joe) two weeks ago, and every song on the album is going to have a video for it.

I know all of this because of twitter, road journals, and most importantly, facebook.

The guys of Guster have a strange sense of humor, so I love the Twitter postings and the blogs. The video thing is actually more of a contest where they are taking any videos into consideration for their only currently undirected song "Bad, Bad World." They're doing this through facebook as well. Today, they released all the songs from the album on their facebook page and band website, and I've poured through a few of the tracks already. Yes, I'm at work. No, I'm apparently not professional enough to wait. They're just lucky I have the common courtesty to do it in my sound studio, and not on the air.

The point of all this (not really, I just wanted to blog about the album) is how dominant a promotional force social networking is now compared to just five years ago. I've known every step of the process in making the album and I've now heard all the tracks and seen several of the videos just on facebook alone. Guster is a band that's very close to their fans, and it seems like this social networking is a perfect storm of self promotion for them. Granted, it's not the greatest way to get new fans...but it's the best way to please the one's you already have, and that's all Guster seems to want to do with "Easy Wonderful." Through the blogs and the postings, fans already knew months ago that this was going to be a much more upbeat, uplifting album (again, they all had kids) then their last effort, which was sort of a melancholy reaction to the emotional misery of the beginning of the decade.

I've bobbed my head to "Do You Love Me?" and finger drummed to "This Could All Be Yours" and rewatched the stellar video for "Stay With Me Jesus" about 75 times in the past week. I've read about the song writing process and the different instruments Guster learned when they were trying to flesh out the album and not go back to "just bongos and acoustic guitars" like they were known for on college campuses in the early 90's. Hell, I actually heard some of the songs on the album six months ago when I saw them live in Worcester and they announced that some of the stuff they were playing was a "test run" to see if they'd want it on the album and, therefore, play it over and over at live shows. After the concert, there were a dozen photos on facebook tagging them in the songs that were new. On YouTube, the new songs being performed live sprouted up like weeds every time you searched the band's name.

Guster doesn't have YouTube take them down. They love that stuff. Most of the band's success was based on viral videos of their shows being passed from person to person in the 90's, and the brunt of the success in the early 2000's came from similar word of mouth and the sprouting of the internet.

So I guess none of this is surprising at all.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a song to listen to instead of a commercial to make...

Yes We Can (Blame FoxNews)

I voted for Barack Obama and, technically, I'm enlisted as a Democrat. That after years of being a registered "independent," which is code word for "hates both parties equally, but is not crazy enough to be green or libertarian." If I had the motivation, which I don't, I would go back to government center in Fall River and go back to the way I was. Not that Obama has done a bad job. Afterall, Bill Clinton was right when he told a full Taunton High School gym this week that it's unfair to expect even a democratic supermajority to fix eight years of financial scumbaggery in less than three years. At least give them the full four, then go from there.

Then again, Clinton was down in my neck of the woods supporting one of the guys with his finger still on the financial meltdown trigger, Barney Frank. So take that at face value.

So far, Barack has done a "meh" job. If his presidency were an ice cream flavor, it'd be French Vanilla. If he were an author, he'd be James Patterson. If he were a TV show, he'd be "Chuck." If this was a post-modern commentary on interpersonal relationships between genetically altered brothers, who happened to be giant, talking turtles, he'd be "Ninja Turtles III." Very few promises lived up to, which is mostly to blame on his self-imploding congress and house, which he is to blame for because he's supposed to lead and organize them into unity. Even W. managed that...even if it did cripple the nation for the next few decades.

Anywho, I've just been unimpressed with the whole thing and it's sucked the life out of what was supposed to be a "turnaround" presidency. Until today anyway. Today, Barack finally took a major swing at something that deserves to be in the spotlight. That deserves to be taken down a peg before it actually causes major damage.

And I'm talking about FoxNews.

As far as I can tell, FoxNews is the biggest source of calamity in the whole country. Why are people always angry at each other? Because Sean Hannity told some jackass housewife in Nebraska that Obama was going to pull the plug on her elderly mother while aborting an unborn fetus. She believes him. I mean...he's on TV! Why would he lie!? Bill O'Reilly is smugly interviewing another smug politician about how Barack Obama, after just two years, is the worst President in history. Which is nice, because it's a good segway to O'Reilly's latest book on how Barack Obama has ruined the country with his socialist ideals (side note: let's say Obama WAS a Socialist...his congress and house are so screwed up they still couldn't pass anything through).

Professional cartoon characters like O'Reilly, Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc... are now what most of America considers newsmen, when they're really just playing an absurdist role to make craptons of money praying on stupid people.

In return, Liberals hate FoxNews. And I mean haaaaaate. The kind of hate that caused Mathilda to try and off Detective Stansfield kind of hate. They hate the hosts and the smarmy, tongue in cheek "Fair and Balanced" catchphrase...but more importantly, they hate the people that actually buy into their dribble as news. They wind up so hatefull, that it's just easy fodder for conservatives to wonder why the liberal media doesn't give Fox a fair shake.

By becoming the first sitting President to actually come out and say what we're all thinking about FoxNews and their maddening agenda of unrest, I applaud Barack Obama louder than anything else he's done so far in office. In a just world, FoxNews WOULD fall victim to some sort of FCC debacle that discreditied the entire organization. Rupert Murdoch would fall off of his 900 foot yacht in the Hawaiian Islands and drown. Glenn Beck would be arrested for child porn, Sean Hannity would be caught red handed with a male prostitute and Bill O'Reilly would be found to be some sort of creepy, loofa loving pervert with a phone sex problem. Crazy, I know.

While it's all fun and games now being a not-so-secretly biased mega media outlet, this is going to be a lot less funny in 20 years and the next generation of people cannot formulate an opinion without consulting their nearest talking head. We're heading down a slippery road already where we are either democrat or republican. No in between. I have a hardcore conservative friend who literally laughed at the notion that "moderatism" doesn't exist anymore, and he was happy to see it die.

That person is a news reporter and relays information to the public every single day. He does his reports with The Drudge Report up every morning in one tab, and FoxNews.com in the other. He doesn't have opinions anymore that weren't premade for him the night before. He is a nice guy, but he sure as hell HATES democrats.

This is going to get real scary, real fast. So good looks to Obama for calling it as he sees it. And bring on the headlines from FoxNews: PREZ HATES FOX? TYPICAL SOCIALIST AGENDA.

Please Don't Screw This Up, SNL

It's been a while since I've watched Saturday Night Live with any sort of regularity. Partly because I'm not around on Saturday nights anymore, but mostly because a large part of me died when Tina Fey attempted to kill the show by bringing in the "Nobody Laughed" years (i.e. those years when every sketch became 15 minutes long, funny cast members fled, and we were left with really awkward silence during a live comedy show). I guess I sort of have come back in the past two years thanks to Andy Samberg's Digital Shorts, and his spot-on Scrooge McDuck, but that was always jammed in between the awful Amy Poehler mugging for the camera and Keenan Thompson ruining whatever good memories I had of youth, "Good Burger," and "All That."

On the heels of the mega-flop of the decade so far ("McGruber"), the Used-To-Be-Funny-But-Had-His-Soul-Sucked-Out-By-Years-Of-Background-Work-Because-He-Wasn't-In-Fey's-Girl's-Club Will Forte finally is exiting stage left. Which is too bad. I was checking out sites online to see if Forte had any interesting "Why He Left" stories like the awkward sexual harassment ones from years past, and stumbled across this guy:

Jay Pharoah.

He's only 22, African American, an impressionist and stand-up, and, apparently, he's replacing Forte.

A few videos later on YouTube, and I'm pretty sure this is the potentially the best cast member SNL has had in a decade. Seriously. An African American Darryl Hammond, but goofy as hell like the since un-replaced Tracy Morgan.

Is it too much to ask that the perennially lame writers SNL's been employing (not the "Lonely Island" guys. They're awesome...) to not bury this kid? I mean, can we maybe just immediately fire Fred Armisen and plug Pharoah in as Obama. Kick Keenan to the curb, maybe hire Kel...that's a possibility too...and give Pharoah a skit based on his Denzel impression? Just something! I don't want to see him just singing background for some actor's monologue where they do a tune.

C'mon breakout season for an SNL cast member. We could really use one.

Mark Zuckerberg: The Only Person Worse Than Jesse Eisenberg

I am a person of horribly inane, moral stands. Typically, these stands are baseless, formed irrationally amongst my small, equally absurd friends and last years. For example, I refuse to root for the Arkansas Razorbacks athletic program because in NCAA 2005 for PS2, they were ranked #26 in the country, meaning my friend Adam could pick them using our "You Can't Start a Dynasty With a Ranked School" Law. Granted, Adam was a dick for picking them, we couldn't argue since they were our rules. A moral grudge was much easier to uphold. Hell, I have a friend who refuses to step foot in a bowling ally because, one time, he finished in last place in six consecutive games at Holiday Lanes in Westport. Seriously. We actually went to a bowling ally with a large group two years later and he sat in the car like a frustrated puppy while we got our Lebowski on.

So anyway, I really hate Jesse Eisenberg and won't watch his movies. Or at least, I wouldn't go see his movies until the reviews for "The Social Network" started pouring in.

Quick background story here: yes, I am aware that everybody under the age of 70 loved "Zombieland." Yes, I know about the Bill Murray scene and, yes, I probably would have laughed. Yes, I'm also a huge Woody Harrelson fan which is why it killed me that I couldn't see the movie because of stupid Jesse Eisenberg.

And it's "Adventureland's" fault. I'm the kind of guy who sees a movie, loves or likes it, then learns to adore or hate it. I'm not very neutral about this sort of thing. I left "Adventureland" feeling like the day would have been better spent burning ten dollar bills in a bon fire. Between Greg Motolla basically making an autobiography about how lame he was as a youth, despite having girls all over him and smoking pot with the cool kids, to Eisenberg's pathetic excuse for a Woody Allen impression...I hated it. Not even the gangly kid from "Freaks and Geeks" could save it for me. Every time I saw Eisenberg's face, I thought of how contrived self congratulatory the whole thing was...and an inane moral stand was born.

When I first head about "The Social Network," I was pretty pumped. When I heard David Fincher was directing, I was downright giddy. When I found out Aaron Sorkin was directing I...well...I was satisfied. Being under the age of 40 makes me legally obligated to not like Sorkin as much as older folks loved "The West Wing." Hell, even when the first movie trailer came out using the creepiest variation of Radiohead's "Creep," I was feeling pretty good. I mean, it's not too often that a major movie gets made that's:

A.) Not a remake

B.) Made by awesome people about a cultural phenomenon that we haven't even fully understood yet.

Except for that a**hole, Eisenberg. Justin Timberlake, fine (the SNL Boston teen's skit when was improperly diddled, anyone?). But Eisenberg? What, was Michael Cera to busy playing a socially awkward teen with girl problems too, we couldn't cast him? Being so close to the release date, we're now starting to hear the reviews of "The Social Network" and they are, in a word, fantastic. Hyperbolic, attention starved lunatic movie reviewers have even gone so far as to compare it to "Citizen Kane" or "The Godfather" in the realm of films about people in positions of power who don't deserve it. Although, saying that is like comparing "Scott Pilgrim VS. The World" to "The Longest Day" because, at one point, somebody gets into a fight.

Today, the real life Mark Zuckerberg started an emergency PR campaign, that is being reported on by all the news networks, to repair his image before "The Social Network" comes out. He'll be appearing on Oprah donating $100 million to the New Jersey/New York school system. Apparently, Sorkin's screenplay borrows heavily from a biography about Zuckerberg in which the primary sourced used was an ousted investor. It seems that rather than focus on the social ramifications of Facebook..."The Social Network" is actually more about how much of a d-bag Zuckerberg is/was. How, as 19 year old Harvard student he stole ideas from hacked emails to create the website as a way to get laid, then stabbed everyone who helped him in the back. From all the reviews I've seen so far, this characterization never lets up. In the end, he's such a pathetic jerk that the audience is supposed to sympathize.

A d-bag? An underserving, socially inept loser whom everyone hates? A guy who's made millions riding the coattails of other people as a genuinely talented person but with no original ideas?

That's Jesse Eisenberg! Awesome!

Rooting against or for an actor is like pro wrestling storylines. Would I rather boo or cheer a super-duper popular good guy who just loves the crowd? No way. Screw that. Should the same guy turn around with the same gimmic, only taunt the crowd and generally act the way he should have from the get go...then I'm on board.

Jesse Eisenberg's given me really good reasons to hate him...now he's given me a good reason to take down my moral wall and pay money to see him: he's playing the person I'm pretty sure he is.

Which is why now, I'd like to be the first to announce my plans to start the "Jesse Eisenberg for Lex Luthor" message board on IMDB.com.

Troy and Abed in the Morning

I know the Emmy's were a few weeks ago, but with Fall TV set to reclaim its throne as "Thing That Makes Me Least Productive After 9pm" (replacing the current winner: Octoberfest), I've been thinking about the current state of TV. I read the other day from some entertainment site that they believe sitcom comedy hasn't been this good since Seinfeld went off the air in 1997. I guess I'm inclined to agree because, due to either my laziness or unwillingness to accept aging, I'm more and more ok with just plopping my ass down in front of my TV and watching something I DVR'd.

Then again, I'm picky as hell with this stuff. I'd by lying if I said that, when I saw "The Office" and "30 Rock" were nominated again, as were Steve Carell (where have you gone, Produce Pete...) and Tina Fey, I was horrifyed. Not shocked, because we're talking The Emmy's here. But not happy.

(Has "The Office" solicited one honest, memorable laugh out loud moment in two years? Wasn't this year's "30 Rock" just Tina Fey acting flustered around that weeks guest star?)

Yes, I've seen "Modern Family" and...ok...it's pretty funny. I'm not sure how groundbreaking it is, considering it just moved "The Office" format into a family, presented a gay couple with a baby, then put Al Bundy in a jumpsuit...but it's still pretty funny. Yes, I've also seen "Glee" and, well, "Glee" sucks. Hard. I honestly haven't gotten a fad that was this popular since JNCO jeans and frosted tips. And even then, at least I tried the jeans. I fell a lot. But I tried.

The other stuff, like "Big Bang Theory" and "How I Met Your Mother" isn't for me, but I see the appeal. Geeks are in and Bob Saget's voice is like a dog whistle for money. So the popularity for them makes sense.

So here's my only questions: Where the hell is the love for "Community?"

Hells yes I'm biased here. "Community" isn't only my favorite show on right now...it might be my favorite show ever. Pop culture references from left and right, an entire character (the hilariously played implied-Aspergers-student Dany Pudi) who's entire life is one big movie and TV reference because he can't relate to the real world, Chevy Chase playing opposite himself, the ridiculously funny Donald Glover, and Joel McHale's snarkiness. Creator Dan Harmon created the anti-sitcom: a world where every character is astutely aware that they are the characature of themselves, and the absurdity goes from there.

"Community" has blended everything that I've attached myself to in today's comedy world. It's modern, against the grain, revels in the viral, and practices in the absurd (see: Starburns). No show has elicited more laughs from me, and laud from critics, for originality in years.

But no Emmy nods. No mention of Troy and Abed's bromance. No hardware for Ken Jeong's "Senor Chang" character. Just occasional praise for the epic "Modern Warefare" episode which, to this day, is probably the best half hour of television ever. If you love action movies, anyway.

It would have been nice for such a great show to get a little attention, but I guess in a weird way it's for the best that people continue to adore "The Office" despite the lack of laughs. It's probably going to keep shows like "Community" fresher for longer. Like how Current TV is a great network with three great shows (Infomania, Rotten Tomatoes Show, Supernews) but nobody cares about it. Quick tangent about "The Office"...an actual conversation with my buddy Jarrod yesterday.

HIM - "When does 'Community' start again?"

ME - "The 28th, I think. 'The Office' starts that week, too."

HIM - (pause) "Do they still let Pam talk?"

ME - "They did last year, yah."

HIM - "Then I'll wait another year before I start watching again. Maybe it'll be funny."

I guess the best case scenerio for "Community" now is being like "Scrubs:" Underappreciated for a decade, constantly a threat to be cancelled despite a cult following, genuinely funny right to the end, and a killer way to kill an afternoon when reruns start popping up. Until then, hooray for Troy and Abed.

Darwinism, The Daily Show, and Produce Pete

Ten years ago, "The Daily Show" was a nightly comedy series on basic cable's Comedy Central featuring skewering of the nightly news format. Improv All Stars like Steve Carell and Stephen Colbert highlighted the show as dimwitted "correspondants" for pre-taped segments or "on-scene" interviews, then there was an interview with a movie star, and the show ended. It was a hilarious show, namely because of Carell and Colbert. That was a long time ago though, when host Jon Stewart was just the guy who played the pot dealer in "Half Baked" and Colbert and Carell were primarily known as the voices of SNL's awesome cartoon short, The Ambiguously Gay Duo. I mean, this was back when "Even Stephvens" and "Produce Pete" were an essential part of any night for me.

And then George W. got elected.

George W. Bush did for late night comedy what...well...Bill Clinton did for late night comedy three years earlier. Only, he had staying power. W. had the media intelligence of a ham sandwich and the self-awareness of my beagle (side note: my beagle will eat his own poop. Just for fun. Even when people are watching). We all remember Will Ferrel's spot on SNL impressions and the late shows taking nightly shots at W's less than quick wit. This would be around the time that "The Daily Show" got in at the ground level of political humor, I suppose. I'm guessing when they jumped on board, Stewart and company didn't expect to basically recraft the entire genre.

Slowly, Stewart began changing the format of "The Daily Show." The satire became more biting and the arrival of the 24 news network wars was the equivilant of giving David Lee Roth a pile of cocaine and a note that said "No Reprecussions." Then, 9/11 happened. Suddenly, Stewart (and more notably David Letterman) were news stories themselves for the emotional way they handled the attacks on the city they did business in.

And there's your tipping point. That's when "The Daily Show" became a phenomenon. As the nation moved into war and debt, Stewart dropped his comedy act and became deathly serious about the issues he was poking fun at. Nightly digs at W. and the Republican party became a rallying cry for the 18-34 demographic who didn't identify with the stern, lie-to-your-face approach of FoxNews and CNN. Carell moved on to TV and film and Colbert became more of a featured guest as the show centered, mostly, on Stewart. When W. secured his second term, the ratings skyrocketed even more. Stewart claimed to be the anti-pundit, taking shots at the news networks and such social hemorrhoids as Bill O'Reilly and (famously) the guys on "Crossfire." He appeared on political forums to discuss the deterioration of trust in the Bush administration. The jokes, eventually, just went away.

An example of a Jon Stewart joke circa 2007:

(several clips of W. spliced together to prove a previously prepared set up. Stewart grimly smirks at camera) "Yep. Our government is stupid."

(College crowd goes into "Woooo!" frenzy knowing he said something bad about W.)

That's not to say the points he was making weren't relevant. Of course they were. The point is that, after a while, "The Daily Show" was the Democratic version of Bill O'Reilly. It was a non-comedy show on Comedy Central. It might has well have been "The Golden Girls" on Spike TV. So I started tuning out. After close to nine years of "We Get It...You Don't Like George Bush" episodes, I gave up on the whole genre. That is, until Colbert was awarded his own show and went on to actually apply satire, comedy and poignency in on half hour block. Something Stewart flat gave up on trying to do.

He, ultimately, sacrificed comedy for the sake of being the most trusted newsman in the business. And he did it as a fake newsman. This whole thing came to a head when TIME Magazine asked the public who the most trusted newsman had been since the passing of Walter Cronkite to which the public announced....Jon Stewart.


Stewart capitalized on the sheer stupidty of FoxNews and corrupt politicians so easily, that the majority of the country saw him as their trusted face, not actual journalists. Looking back on it, that's like hearing that Richard Dawkins convinced the world that there is in fact no god, then was annointed Pope for his accomplishments. What the hell?

I generally assumed that once Barack Obama was elected, that was the end of "The Daily Show." Could they even go back to comedy at that point with a straight face? I came back and started watching the uncomfortable process of Stewart going back to comedy, while walking a fine line with politics. He stayed away from ridiculing his fellow Democrats, who now owned a Supermajority and could offically pass enough legislation to legally turn us into the Galactic Empire should they choose, and instead kept his focus on the still ludacrous FoxNews and evil manbaby Glenn Beck. That lasted about a year into the presidency, and now Stewart is willing to concede and take shots at the current President too.

Whew.

So is Jon Stewart still the most trusted man in news? I'd say no. In fact, I'd say if you asked that question today, most people would say "Glenn Beck." What can you do? People love to get fired up about how bad the current President is, no matter who it is. Still...that's one hell of a ten year evolution for one guy and a comedy lampoon of the news. From comedian, to anti-pundit, to self denial pundit, to face of the news, to success in aiding much needed national change in government, then to leveling out as a biting news satire with the ability to be funny AND serious.

Jon Stewart started the decade as a semi-popular comic known for smoking weed and being a fake newsman, and ended it as a demi-God to millions of people, a multi-time Emmy winner, the most trusted newsman on TV, and the face of an entire political ethos.

And people say television is a dying medium...

Romo Shrugged

For the past few weeks, I've been really trying to immerse myself into the FIBA World Basketball Championships. Not just as a welcome distraction to the Lohan-esque catastrophe that is the Red Sox, but because I genuinely care that this so called "B-Team" of non-superstar NBA players are going for gold, qualifying for the 2012 Olympics, and doing it all without the megastars that won the big prize in China two summers ago. I have very quietly applauded Jerry Colangelo and Coach K's work over the past five or six years to make playing for the U.S.A. something that NBA caliber players would want to do, and not just be pressured into doing by agents looking to secure a good public image for their clients. Also, after watching nearly all of the FIFA Eurocup last year, and then having explained to me what the hell it means to the sport after the fact, I appreciate global tournies a little more I guess.

I mean, over the past few weeks, I've heard several different analysts on ESPN tell me that the FIBA championship is actually more impressive than the Olympics, because there are no limits to which country's can compete. It actually means that, whoever wins, is the actual "global" champion.

So I found this whole concept pretty cool, coupled with the likeable team led by underrated powerhouse Kevin Durant, and started rooting. They demolished smaller country's by nearly double, even ran into the coolest non-story in history when Coach K tried to rekindle the Cold War after the Russian team president slammed the U.S. in the national press. This led to the USA getting to the gold medal game, wiping the floor with Turkey (not literally. That's not sanitary) and celebrating their first FIBA gold since '94.

Problem is, the game happened overseas and the same day as NFL Opening Sunday.

Obviously, the NFL's Opening Sunday is a big deal for this country as it's our new national passtime, and basically ESPN's Christmas/New Years/Birthday/Barmitzvah all in one, so I didn't really expect it to be bumped out of the news cycle by Kevin Durant dropping 30 on the Turks. What did shock me is that, when I woke up today, there was quite literally no mention of the gold medal game on Sportscenter, CNN, Sportsline...really, anywhere I normally would go to in the morning online. What I did see was the somber, backwards hatted face of Tony Romo, the name "ALEX BARRON" a whole lot, 75 reminders that Arian Foster totally killed my fantasy team this week, Calvin Johnson's "non-catch," and lots of white people complaining about Randy Moss's work ethic.

No gold medal game. No shots of confetti or raised arms. No shots of Durant, Derek Rose, Andre Iguadala and Chauncy Billups triumphantly raising their medals. Nothing at all. Apparently, if LeBron isn't the one doing the winning, then winning isn't worth promoting.

Which is slightly ironic considering the weekend started with every media outlet from here to California debating whether or not we were "patriotic" enough in the nine years since 9-11. On 9-12, the U.S.A. won a major, global sports competition and we didn't care because it lacked starpower. I think that pretty much answers that question.

Maybe I'm blowing it out of proportion, or maybe I'm just pissed because I know for a fact in two years at the 2012 Olympic games in London, we'll all be fawning over Durant and company as they push for another gold. Without going into another full fledged rant about The Worldwide Leader again, I'll just say this: while it's not the media's responsibility to "rank" the importance of their stories in how they present them, it is their responsibility to report on them. In terms of relevance, ESPN covering opening Sunday and not the FIBA championships is like the NBC Nightly News reporting on Kim Kardashian's Playboy feud and not Kim Jong Il's latest nuke.

And I promise...the next post won't be about ESPN. Probably.

ESPN: The Smartest People I've Ever Hated

In a just world, there would be a place for all of us sports guys to go to and have a cathartic experience about the way the media presents us our favorite guys in pads hitting each other or other smaller, non-human things. We could all sit around and complain to each other about how much we hate their never ending coverage of Brett Favre and LeBron James' "decisions." We could analyze why, discounting the gagillions of dollars in revenue they personally make, we have the NFL jammed down our throats 12 months a year while professional hockey gets as much attention as minor league LAX on Sportscenter. We could sit around in a circle and whine and complain about how they have bastardized pro sports, single handedly ushered in the "me first" athlete, and given homes and paychecks to the criminally insane Skip Bayless AND Woody Paige.

Also, it would be a nice place for "Versus" to hang out. Because nobody hates "them" more than Versus.

Them.

You know who "They" are, too. I didn't even have to write it out. "They" are like The Highlander: there can be only one. In a world torn apart by competition and "other choices," "They" stand alone as quite literally the only source of information about sports in the whole country that people pay attention to.

So in that aspect, I guess we should all really be proud of ESPN. Instead, it's bred a generation of sports fans that both need it and loathe it (like teenagers living at home with their parents). Trust me, there's nothing I like less than waking up and seeing Josh Elliott's smug, L.A. bred face smirking at me doing a really awful impression of Dan Patrick. I hate the fact that there's that little bar that goes along the lefthand side that tells me the next six stories about going to range from "Clayton on Favre" to "Kobe Speaks Out" to "Clayton on Favre: Favre Harder." I hate that Adam Schefter's torso is going to appear at some point and tell me he has no new information about anything, ever...then we'll throw it live back to the studio to Marcellus Wiley to confirm that...yes...there is nothing to confirm. We'll do that for 50 minutes, then it's ten top plays of dunks, dives and poorly constructed in-jokes from our anchors and we do it all over again.

I hate it all. And I also need it so desperately it makes my head hurt.

As a society, we are never actually sold the product; we're sold the brand. It's how modern marketing works. It's not the taste of Coca-Cola that makes it what I buy...it's the idea that Coke is the dominant force in the carbonated, caramelized soft drink market.

Instead of selling us adorable polar bears with Coke in their paws, ESPN sells us stories.

Unlike the other news media, or even the entertainment media, there is no check and balance on ESPN. When people hear 24/7 news, they think of competition. When people think music, movies, gossip, porn, whatever...you'll get ten different answers from ten different people. But if you asked those same ten people to play word association with "media" and "sports," not one person would say anything other than The Worldwide Leader.

So, as the brandname on the entire idea of sports themselves, ESPN has the luxury of controlling every story they report on. If they want the story of the day to be a squirrel who kicks a beachball...then it will be. Instead, we get much less interesting dribble about the aforementioned Favre/whoever is the constroversial person of the day. Therein lies the sick, evil genius of ESPN. If you are a sports fan, they can basically go Cris Angel on you and mess with your head. For all I know, Brett Favre is a nice guy who genuinely can't decide if his ankle can hold up to a full NFL season. Maybe Terrell Owens is a decent dude who just really likes driveway sit-ups. Maybe Barry Bonds never did use steroids and genuinely just hated the fact that Pedro Gomez was living in his bushes for three years.

The fact is I have have opinions on all those people. I have strong ones. By being a fan of sports, and having no place else to turn for extensive coverage, the onslaught of "drama" has been so forcefully beaten into my head that when someone says "Favre" I immediately feel compelled to discuss him. I shouldn't be like this! I shouldn't care that Matthew Berry is coming up to tell me I should start Drew Brees this week as a "sleeper!"

At first thought, this kind of upsets me. I mean, am I that easily manipulated that wanting to see highlights from baseball games the night before has forced me into physically wanting to harm LeBron James with a rusty steak knife? Perhaps. But the athletes themselves are the examples we can all point to when we say "How did this happen to us!?"

You don't think ESPN had an impact on, say, Mr. James? When he was a kid, Jordan dunking on people were highlights number 1-6 on Sportscenter with Stu Scott dropping generic hip-hop lingo behind it to see cooler than he really is. So, when ESPN comes calling and asks this 25 year old kid if he wants to make his super-important, life altering decision on live TV...he's going to say no? THEY'RE TELLING HIM HOW IMPORTANT HE IS 24 HOURS A DAY! Favre? Wouldn't you get an inflated sense of self worth if every two minutes your cell phone was ringing for another interview with NFL Live? Ochocino, T.O., A-Rod: you think they turned out the self-agrandizing fools they are just from their upbringing, or maybe because ESPN turned them into celebrities. Hell, they even gave them the stupid nicknames we know them by and helped turned them into characatures of themselves. See, they're no better than us when it comes to this brainwashing racket!

Of course, the beast is self-feeding too. ESPN.com message boards light up because people are sick of the same stories being rammed down our throats, then we turn around and discuss the same garbage when we see our friends. ESPN Senior Analysts and anchors will come on screen and ironically gloat about how "they can't believe we're still talking about this!" when they are, in fact, the only ones talking.

It's infuriating. It's shamefull. It's monopolistic (I assume that's a word. It looks like one). Frankly, the entire thing is just one really large carbon footprint for the next generation to see why we became such a narcissistic/me first culture.

They might be talking into space sometimes, creating their own controversies so they have something to discuss later, but I'll be listening.

Dammit. I'll be listening...

The Inner Workings (Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace Self-Pityism in the Media)

Full disclosure: I work in the media and have for the past four years. I worked as a news anchor and reporter for two years at 1480 WSAR-AM, and for the past two, have been the production director at the same place. I know, I know...I don't know how I got here either. Basically, I used to harrass politicians for comments on local issues (if you don't know what LNG is...congratulations. I know more than I'd like.) now, I write and produce commercials and promotional pieces. What my new(er) position has given me is a very unique front-seat view to the world of the media, it's inner workings, and maybe most interestingly, the way the rest of the world uses "us."

Unlike a lot of people, and I've worked with or around many of them, I'm actually pretty down the middle in terms of politics. In the end, we all wind up voting for politicians based on really stupid logic.

"I liked the way his wife wore her dress!"

"She said 'hi' to me at a fundraiser!"

"My uncle went to school with his cousin, and he said he was a good dude!"

Conversely, we also vote against people for the same stupid reasons.

"Sean Hannity told me he wants to kill my baby!"

"He voted with Bush. He must be a dumba**!"

"I heard she once went to school with a brown person!"

So what does any of this mean to the media? Well, in my experience, you'd be surprised how seriously the people you get your information from actually take themselves. 1480 WSAR services the greater Fall River area which, for the most part, is mostly consistent of elderly, conservative, Portuguese immigrants. We have our fair share of blue staters, of course, but we're really more red than a rare steak on most days. What local voters like is consistency. Which is to say, they'd vote for the same person for 50 years if they could just...well...because. They fear change.

Which is why it always amazes me when a Republican politican comes through my studio.


In this area, "liberals" are kind of quiet. Not in the "I'm better than you, I know what the words carte blanche mean" but in the "I'm probably outnumbered, I think I'll keep my mouth shut" kind of way. On the other side, when a Republican comes through they are typically quite impressed with their "guts" of being a conservative in Massachusetts. Maybe if we were in Brookline this would be true. But down here, your no more of an outsider than a Sox fan would be at a Bruins game.

Secretly, yes...most news media personalities (shock!) has political leanings. In fact, from what I've seen: they're the most extreme. Take for example the past two news directors I have worked with. Both were, and are, extremely dedicated and professional people who would go to the grave defending journalistic integrity. But stick them behind a microphone, and suddenly the word "moderate" becomes a linguistic version of the dodo bird. For one, journalism meant discovering the truth using pitbill-Democrat tactics. Which was fine, until the moment Barney Frank was the guy left with his pants down after the financial collapse. For the other, it's the ideal that Republican beliefs must be upheld because being amongst an imaginary sea of liberals was a noble, richeous stand to make.

On the air? It shows. It shows just like we all know it does. We know Sean Hannity is a Republican. We know Jon Stewart is a Democrat. We know most modern media personalities are not journalists but rather opinion boxes set up for our pleasure should we agree with their beliefs. No hardcore conservative is going to Jon Stewart or CNN for their news. For them, these outlets are biased, unfair and liberal. Just the same no liberal is going to FoxNews for information, because all the talent is right wing.

But don't we all know this? At this point, expecting political leanings and self-pity from those who think they're the lone sheep in a pack of wolves is par for the course. Maybe it's just time we uproot all the media like this into two divisions, which is how they like it anyway, and square them off in a opinion-news version of "WWF v. WCW" Monday Night Wars.

Then just round up all the honest, hard working, fair journalists left on TV and stick them on a network too.

Nah...nobody would watch that.

One for One

First blog. Making sure this works.