Play Together! But Not Really, Please!

Please, allow me to geek out for a second.

When I was younger, I was a big video game guy. Some of my fondest memories, and long running in-jokes, revolve around me and my buddies huddled around a 32 inch TV at 4am trying to beat the impossibly hard, yet astromically entertaining, "Conflict: Vietnam." On weekends, one of our friends would bring over a few extra controllers for the PS2, and four or five of us could play college football, hockey, the aforemention Conflict games, and whatever else tickled the fancy of 16 year old us's.

We were stoked when PS3 and X-Box came out, even though those 4am gaming sessions wondering when the next Vietcong was going to scream "RPG!" have turned into occasionally plugging in a first person shooter late on a Saturday night after grabbing a few drinks.

With the near release of the soon to be mega-hit "Call of Duty: Black Ops," we actually got excited. We had heard that the game was going back to the roots of old, offering 4 player co-op (meaning four people could play the game in the same room). Even since PS3 and X-Box came out, the concept of co-op died. Every game is supposed to be played online via social networking and LAN sites. Naturally, this rumor was dragged out for months only to be eventually squashed, like has happened with basically every other game that even thought about going back to regular old co-op games.

To a bunch of almost mid-20's guys...this isn't the end of the world. We would have had an f'ing blast playing it like the old days, but oh well. What does upset me though is the hypocracy of "social" gaming.

What exactly is more social: sitting in an empty room talking s**t to complete strangers via a microphone, or sitting with three friends playing the game at one in the same room?

It's not like the technology doesn't exist...it did ten years ago. And it's also not an obvious cash grab for the PS3 people...their online network is free.

Maybe it's the World of Warcraft-ing of video gaming...but I think this all kind of sucks. I don't play games online and, even if I did, I'd sure as hell rather have the option to play with my friends in the same room without having to bring an extra three TV's and a Best Buy's worth of LAN cables. Considering gaming is evolving just as quickly as social networking and cell phones, it's amazing that none of the "Scream Into Space For Attention" parent groups aren't pissing and moaning over the promotion of solidarity that PS3 and X-Box are promoting. I'm sure once Rock Star Games comes out with a new role player where the main character does coke off of a dead hooker's stomach, we might get a few hits...but until then what? Just a bunch of kids sitting in dimly lit rooms with pouches of Capri Suns calling each other "noobs."

Call me a crotchety old man...but I liked it better before. I mean, at least then we could throw the empty Capri Suns at each other when we called each other noobs.

Political Jabronyism

I saw this video today whole floating around "teh interwebs" as a response video to the nasty political war being waged right now on the mean streets of Greenwich, CT in the race for U.S. Senate. Democrat Richard Blumenthal is running against Rep. Linda McMahon...who many of us who grew up in the early 2000's know simply as the former C.E.O. of World Wrestling Entertainment and the wife of controversial, uber-billionaire Vince McMahon. Along the political road, McMahon has pushed Blumenthal's buttons for being a fiscally irresponsible liberal. In the most mature move possible, Blumenthal of course referenced Linda being hit over the head with a steel chair on live television. Which I guess really isn't actuallythat bad, considering I remember a lot worse things being done to, or around, the former C.E.O. of WWE (then the WWF, before endangered pandas stole the company's name). For example, I remember Katie Vick. I wish I didn't...but I do.

Blumenthal has continued to promote McMahon's overseeing of the raunchy days of what the WWE now calls it's "Attitude Era." Earlier this week, Vinny Mac took it upon himself to defend his company, his wife, and his reputation by lauching this "Stand Up for WWE" promotion on every social network available, as well as WWE.com. It seems that in the past five years or so, the WWE has traded in it's Attitude Card for a pinwheel hat and a lollypop. WWE programming is now exclusively PG rated, features no swearing, sex or excessive violence (which I understand now to mean, no chair shots to the head. Just the back), has marketing deals with children's magazines, Mattel toys, and numerous other "family friendly" enterprises. Essentially, it's a throwback to the "Say your prayers, eat your vitamins!" 80's only with the guy from "The Marine" instead of Hulk Hogan.

Blumenthal points out that Linda oversaw a wildly controversial, weekly episodic TV show that routinely garnered mature ratings and more outrage from parent groups than Snooky being punched in the face by the South Park rendition Allah. There's video to prove all of this and enough Stone Cold Steve Austin middle fingers to probably fill the entire state of CT. On the flip side, the company is "clean" now, and Linda no longer has any affiliation with the WWE besides being married to The Boss. Of course, The Boss still being the original face of steroid abuse in sports in the United States, and a guy who once had human crap sprayed on him and his son in fron of 15 million people. I should probably mention the fact that too that, as a business practice, the WWE has seen a marketing boom throughout the last 15 years, even lasting through the latest recession with great numbers on Wall St. as a publically traded company (thank you, American Airlines in flight magazine article). Regardless of content: people just really like wrestling. It used to be kids, then it was adults, then it was teenagers, now we're back to kids again.

So is Blumenthal in the right for using such inflamatory video against McMahon in this race? Should he acknowledge that the company has gone the family friendly route and, despite it's raunchiness, the business was still a successful one and brought business to the state of CT during McMahon's tenure with the company? Should McMahon have to at least atone for her on-air sins during the "Attitude Era" and address them like a professional? Should she sling mud back? Should Vince McMahon have brainstormed this new "Stand Up for WWE" thing, which is going to cause great feedback from fans I assume, but horrible feedback from the democratic challenger?

There are a lot of relevant, ethical questions going on here and I think this election, not the stupid one in Delaware with the witch, is the best microcosm of national politics in the U.S.A: The practice of attack ads over issues. The relevance of one's past business practices versus their current day objectives. The dillusion of politics into entertainment, and vice versa. The overwhelming media obsession with "drama" over state issues, which I think everybody can agree should be the real talking points in the CT Senate race.

In my opinion...McMahon helped run a major corporation that, for years, promoted indecency because that's what got ratings and made money. That's not wholely ethical, but it at least proves she's a shrewd business woman who knew how to run what was, at the time, one of the biggest money making businesses in the entire country, something CT values. By constantly going back to the "look at this horrible video!" gimmic, I think Blumenthal is grasping at straws to stir up national controversy against his more famous opponent. We get it. Linda McMahon is/was into pro wrestling, which is violent, which once upon a time was like soft-core porn, which a lot of people didn't approve of. It also proved it WAS popular enough to be a major force in entertainment, and is still making more ad money than some professional sports organizations are (I'm looking at you, everybody but the NFL). To me, that's a one time shot you can take as a candidate...then you move on to attack her political ideas. Blumenthal's not going that route, which is why Vince and the WWE have their new promotion, Linda McMahon is still more famous than her challenger but now is a demi-villain, and the whole thing is like...well...some sort of scripted, poorly acted, smackdown of a drama.

And that's the bottom line.

Pre-Rolling the Dice

Every Friday for the past two years, I've heard the same question at work:

"How do we make more money off the website!?"

For two years, I've given the exact same answer:

"Get sponsors for the podcasts and the live stream features."

Technically, I'm the youngest person working in the radio station, but also ironically one of the longest tenured. It sometimes makes for a weird dynamic of "He' been here for a while, so maybe he knows what he's talking about...but then again, he grows facial hair like a twelve year old girl and doesn't remember Guns and Roses, so maybe we need another opinion." I'm guessing it's this confusion that's led to a stalemate over the whole web-marketing issue.

We're not the biggest radio station in the world (AM baby!), but at any given time we can get upwards of 15,000 listeners. That's pretty solid numbers. Our website is cheaper than a suit from Sears, but I've been trying to make due making it look like not-the-ugliest-girl at the prom for a while now. The important pointI keep raising to "The Powers That Be" is this: why would people go to a news/talk radio's website? To click on the advertising tiles on the left and right hand side? To see the profiles of the hosts? To read about the latest trends in eyebrow plucking?

No! They go to listen! Hear the interview they missed or listen live because they're stuck at work! Not to get all number-y...but the stream has been downloaded 10,000 times since the start of the new year. The podcasts get played over 160 times a week. And there's no advertisements on them. At all. To advertise on the air at my station, or one of a similar size and market, can cost thousands of dollars a month for the potential of maybe a few dozen commercials at best. If Sam's Bed and Taco Emporium were to advertise on the podcasts, for example, they'd be heard nearly 200 times a week, guaranteed. As anybody who watches videos of Hulu or downloads content from any news site...you can't skip those little pre-rolls.

That right there is a microcosm of modern advertising in the media. The traditional outlets like radio and print and even TV commercials are damn near impossible to pitch. People are using them less, and even when they do they aren't likely to stay dialed in for the commercials as much as they used to. It's a world of sliding in advertisments here and there, coming up with catchy hooks (and now the WB Mason Postgame show, anyone?) that become synonymous with the product. Sponsor the news, the weather updates, the interviews, the traffic...whatever you can possibly stick a name in front of that people cannot avoid. In other words, nail them when they go online, where everybody is aware that we can't avoid pre-roll commercials before downloadable content.

So...uh...that's how'd I'd like to see money get made off the website.

"The View" was right. Gross.

Ugh...I think I just whole-heartedly agreed with the ladies of "The View." Somebody bring on the Pepto, please.

Are there even any words anymore for entertainers who have turned to political controversy to make quick cash? They can't be stopped, they can't be shut up, and more and more people actually take their word as hard news by the day. What's worse is the potential "end-game" this gimmick is going to come down to: violence.

Who do you think is more likely to face the wrath of some psycho on the street who can't stand their political views anymore and decides to take matters into their own crazy hands....O'Reilly, or Obama?

Yeah...this isn't going to end well.

Show Biz 101

"We all know what I do out there...that's politics. What you do in here...that's entertainment. It ain't politics in here."

We're heading towards election day in November, which means the one month grace period where I didn't have a dozen politicians coming through my production door everday to cut a commercial has officially ended. Today, two candidates (State Rep. candidates, both) came in to do their next round of spots in the final drive to winning their seats. The utter lack of enthusiasm I felt for this wacky, busy stretch of time kind of disappointed me. I believe I've become jaded to political commercials and...dare I say...the politicans themselves.

The quote up there was what one of the guys running, perhaps the most genuinely nice people to ever run for anything, told me today. I'm producing two commercials for him: one using an announcer voice spliced with his, and other using his war veteran son and his young daughter singing his praises. He came to me for advice about how the spot should sound, I gave him some, and we had that exchange. Every politician that comes through here knows that to be true, but he actually said it...which was weird to hear outloud.

Do we really care about the issues or the way the politican presents themselves to us?

If JFK himself walked in to my studio and cut a commercial where he just said "Vote for me...I'm f'ing JOHN KENNEDY. I'm better, smarter, richer and more prepared for this job. Plus, I'm going to win anyway because of my last name," would we not vote for him? I mean...he's qualified. He'd be more qualified than anybody else, anyway. If a bad person comes in to make a political commercial, why do they try and act nicer? Why not just focus on the issues? Is it really because, deep down, not one of us would vote for the bad guy with the right take on the issues over the nice guy who's an idiot?

I've worked probably five different local elections now, and I have to say that I can't think of a time where that situation unraveled, and the bad guy won. Just in last month's primary, one of the candidates who became a local laughing stock because of his utter failure to answer a question in a debate won his race over his largely more qualified competitor based on one thing: his competitor came off like an arrogant jackass. It was a landslide.

When you hear a politician speak on a radio or TV ad...what are they really saying? Did they take the time to put real thought in, or did they have their staff piece it together and work with the producer (side note: this happens. A lot.) Are imcumbants just putting stuff out there so people won't accuse them of being lazy? Would a challenger ever just say 'screw it, I don't need to impress people with my charm...I'm flat a better candidate' in their ad? Most of all, how the hell can we blame our local officials for being incompetent, when we're the ones electing them based on horrible reasons?

Two years ago, Fall River elected a 29 year old to be mayor. It marked the youngest mayor ever in the city, and also the first time in Fall River's 100+ year history that the sitting mayor didn't come in first or second in the primary, thereby not qualifying for the final vote. Why? Well, the sitting mayor was an arrogant bastard who sounded like a mobster and the new guy had a goofy commercial where a Frank Sinatra impersonator sang his praises of "high hopes." Not to say the commercial won the election...but it's two years later and I'm still hearing from people that come through my radio station how much they loved that stupid thing.

I think what bothers me most about all this is the fact that there's no real way to just throw it all aside and "focus on the issues." How the hell can you do that when there's no forum? All we know are the personalities, not the drive or the motivation to do good by their seat everyday they hold it. The only issue we can focus on, is how much more likeable one candidate is over the other.

You know...come to think of it...this is that damned JFK's fault. Had he not been both the better candidate AND the more likeable candidate when he out debated the sweaty, greaseball posing as Nixon, we'd never be here right now. Eh...ok...we'd still probably be here right now.

The Not-So Beautiful People

I just finished watching the video of the Texas Rangers celebration in the clubhouse after they took down the Rays (and their six fans) in five games in the ALDS. In honor of their best player, the likely AL MVP, and former alcoholic and drug addict, Josh Hamilton...the team lambasted each other in ginger ale instead of the traditional champagne. Aside from the obvious question of how much does ginger ale in the eyes actually hurt, this was the coolest and classiest move I can remember a sports team doing in a while. Maybe the highest team approval rating move since the "Come Out Together" 2001 Super Bowl Patriots. Since his return to baseball, after flaming out to substance abuse as the best prospect baseball had seen in 20 years, Hamilton has been the biggest role model in the sport: a testiment to the American spirit of second chances and open arms. The fact that he has come all the way back to fulfill his potential a decade after he squandered it only enhances what should be the biggest story in sports right now.

Of course, barely anybody knows who the hell he is.

This got me to thinking about the celebrity of athletes in the media. Who are the most well known athletes and, more importantly, why are they so well known? Let's see....

MLB - Alex Rodriguez (steroids, had sex with Madonna, biggest contracts ever)

NFL - Peyton Manning (in lots of commercials, very talented, historical choke artist, sort of funny) or Chad Ochocinco (reality TV and Twitter star)

NBA - LeBron James (self promoter, hometown skipper, global a**hole) or Kobe Bryant (aggressiveness, rape)

NHL - Sidney Crosby (top-2 player in league, former champion, only hockey player allowed on TV commercials outside of "VS.")

Of the four major sports (screw off, NASCAR), only one of the biggest stars is actually only known for their talent. The fact that more people know who Chad Ochocinco is over Adrian Peterson is upsetting. Alex Rodriguez being more well known than Albert Pujols, who's only the best baseball player in the last 70 years, is the pinacle of "What The Hell Is Going On Here? Apparently, nobody remembers the most earth shattering, brain explodiest homer ever hit in the 05' Playoffs. Brad Lidge actually died he turned his neck around so fast. Don't look that up

Should this make us appreciate our actual star athletes more? The fact that, in the era of celebrity and controversy, some guys like Crosby, Pujols, Hamilton, Kevin Durant, etc...can actually succeed under the radar for an extended period of time is astounding. What's more astounding is that, if you woke up tomorrow to learn that Albert Pujols was found with PED's or Durant had beat up his girlfriend...you'd never stop hearing about them. Their names would be engrained in your head until the day you die, and the name association with "BAD!" will always linger.

That's why I say "cheers" to the guys and girls who actually succeed and perform as role models in their given sport while somehow avoiding the top story on Sportscenter. Now THAT'S a serious achievement.

I Think I'm Still Too Unpopular For Twitter

I have, at last check, 138 friends on Facebook. I know...that's kind of lame. But here's the thing: I'm not one of those people that, as soon as I meet somebody, I have to search them and friend them before they forget who I am. My palpabley lame friend total is actually all people that I either talk to on occasion, or at least people I used to talk to on a semi-regular basis. But I'm not here to defend my lack of popularity on Facebook...I'm here to say that this only proves that I have no business being on Twitter.

Considering my job title actually includes the words "New Media Specialist," I'm not un-aware of the social uprising Twitter's caused in the meida world in the past two years. My problem is, the entire nework is really just designed for famous (or at least moderately popular...) people or media outlets that need a quick way of spreading news.

I am neither of those things. If I were to Tweet something, maybe ten people would see it. At least if I post a Facebook status there's good chances that maybe a dozen people would notice. Basically, that's all these little status updates are for anyway: being noticed by somebody. I'm ok with that. It's a totally narcissistic thing to do, but hell...500 million people are on Facebook everyday, so me admitting narcissism isn't exactly groundbreaking.

Twitter just doesn't make sense. Facebook exists, so therefore Twitter shouldn't. Twitter is just the status update of Facebook, only meant for celebrities who have fans who actually care about what they're eating for lunch. It's like a company just creating a website where I can play Frontierville. Nothing else. Just Frontierville. And I'd have less friends helping me tend to my Frontier, too. Which is a huge, royal, pain in the ass. (Side note: I hate the fact that I know that.)

Anywho...Twitter should be roped off to the common man at this point. I'm sick of seeing TV ads or hear people talk about their Twitter pages. Just use Facebook. You're not popular enough for Twitter. Ashton Kutcher says so. Or, at least his 2 million fans do.

The NHL Is So Uncool, It's Cool.

After the 2004-05 lockout of the NHL, I was devestated to see seemingly the whole damn country turn it's collective back on one of the sports we used to call "The Big Four." At the time, ESPN and other outlets were in the ears of every "kind of" sports fan in the world trying to convince them that _______ was the next big sport. You can fill the blank yourself with NASCAR, Texas Hold Em', soccer, professional bocce, competitive eating, naked snowmobiling, etc...

ESPN used the lost season as an opportunity to phase out their nightly NHL show as well as any live coverage, a feat that still somehow stands today on a network in six different channels and frequently shows women's college vollyball. This was their window to six hours a day of NFL coverage, a much more bankable sport. The rest of the sports media moped that it was because the sports wasn't "American" enough anymore and the lockout just proved how stupid greedy athletes can be: they didn't even know that nobody would come back because they were fringe-popular in the first place.

Ok. That one's kind of hard to disagree with.

Eventually, all this really did was cost owners a crap ton of revenue and team exposure. It also easily weeded out whatever potential Pink Hat fans were on the bandwagon like Lil Wayne at a Justin Beiber concert. Now all that's left is a sport with the remnents of two black eyes, crazy dedicated fans, and absolutely no love from the sports media other than a roll of the eyes and a "Oh friggin' great, I have to say a foreign name with 40 consonants in it." In the past five years, the rules have changed to allow a more open, fan friendly game. The players have gotten younger and the European fad of the mid 90's is all but long gone. Once again, the league is dominanted by Canadians, Russians and Americans. The arenas are easier to access and the invention of HDTV seemed to be specifically made for the bright, white background of hockey. Expansion stopped, southern teams with no business having teams are awful again, and power has been restored to "real" hockey towns.

What I'm saying is that within five years, hockey has gone through more rehab than Lindsay Lohan, but has come out looking like Robert Downey Jr.:

1.) Influx of European talent and the New Jersey Devil's defensive trap kill popularity. League locks out. Martin Brodeur celebrates quietly. A**hole.

2.) Lock out ends, whatever fringe popularity the sport had is gone. ESPN has waved it's magic wand and relegated the NHL's popularity level akin to Saturday morning bowling or professional billiards trick shot competitions. Martin Brodeur is still to blame.

3.) Several years in financial and popularity purgatory as other sports see a boom in the HD/Sportscenter era. Hell, even international soccer is getting big play.

4.) Anti-popularity starts to sink in. Hockey becomes so uncool, it's cool. The phenomenon legit rivalry, thought dead in modern sports, pops up with the two best players in the league. Every team seems to have at least one young, recognizable superstar in the making. The high exposure and money of the NFL, the steroid era of baseball and the bore of the NBA leave wiggle room for the team first, balls out athleticism and grit of pro hockey. No frills, just hockey.

Suddenly, the NHL has a new image: the anti-American sport. And I f'ing love it.

Watching the NHL is now a throwback for sports fans, even young ones like me. There's no 24 media coverage or reality shows or stupidly nicknamed athletes. Hell, there's not even really a network where you can see full highlights from the night before (sorry, VS....nobody knows what channel your on. Work on that.). It's like the early days of fantasy baseball all over again. Want to know what happened the night before? Check the boxscore in the equally so-unpopular-it's-sorta-popular newspaper.

Best of all, the sport is reaching this new ideology at just the right time. The competition is outstandingly good. For the first time in 15 years, the players are all young and supremely talented across the board. While I am horrified that I'm finally old enough (24) that most of the best players in the league are officially younger than me, I'm still thrilled. Disappointed in myself for not being the starting shortstop for the Boston Red Sox by now. But thrilled none the less. The NHL is actual so good now that's there's even sub-storylines going on, like the rebirth of the MVP caliber defensemen in the mold of Bobby Orr and Ray Borque. For passive "I Like Football Because I Get to Wear a Jersey in Public!" fans, this means crap, obviously. But for those actually craving a little bit of a toned down sports world, it's perfect.

It's as if the NHL, through it's own stupidity and greed provoked by the ESPN age, has emerged as a counter culture in our own backyard. An escape from celebreathletes and highlight reels and "Decisions" and controversies and locker room drama and post game press conferences. It's emerged as the only sport in the country that allows the sport to do the entertaining. Despite years of me sitting at home at night longing for Barry Melrose's ridiculous hair to show me highlights of the night's games, I'm actually happier this way.

The sports world is now a sub-outlet of Entertainment Tonight. The NHL? That's re-emerged from the rubble as a prettier version of itself from the 1980's only with a few more teeth and some uglier jerseys. But HDTV. And HDTV cures all viewing woes. I wasn't around too long in the 1980's, but I do know this.

There sure as hell wasn't any reality TV then. And that's the way I like my hockey.

Student Media: Who's the Boss, Anyway?

Last Thursday, the four candidates running for Governor in MA made their way to UMass Dartmouth for a debate, presumably about the issues facing the southcoast of the state. As it would turn out, they really just answered five questions about state wide jobs, and I think at one point Tim Cahill started doodling a la Jackie Treehorn on his free pad of paper. It was a boring, pointless exhibition in political hackery with more useless questions than the first five minutes of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire."

Every local media outlet in the area, including my own radio station (1480 WSAR! Listen Live now on WSAR.com!) and every single solitary newspaper in the region covered the event live. Going through the provided means given to us lame, techy-like people, each of us were given a link to UMass Dartmouth's live video stream. Great. Fantastic. Outstanding. Problem is, the guy we were all dealing with who oversees both the student run radio and TV stations had no idea what he was doing. I mean that literally. If thrown into a lion pit and was told to defuse a bomb, I'd have a better chance.

In conversations with the guy, and from previous experience in college radio stations, I was fairly confident his only expertise was hitting the button that says "TALK." That'd be great if the poor guy didn't have to run the entire damn school media. Once I started throwing out "questions" and "technical words" and trying to address potential "issues" that could "f*** us out of thousands of dollars in sponsorships," he kind of got a little ornery to say the least. Our conversation ended with me asking if there was some sort of audio backup, should the video fail, and I got a one word email back.

No.

In the end, the experience was a disaster that cost the local papers a LOT of advertising dollars, and a whole hell of a lot of angry web viewers wondering why the video of the debate was terrible.

WARNING: TECH MOMENT: they just set up a camera with no feed into the candidates microphones, meaning it was akin to just shooting a debate from 150 feet away with a cell phone. Because the candidates used wireless microphones to speak, there was also bled over RF that caused the viewing and listening audience to hear a nearby oldies station. The debate sounded awful, but The Temptations have never sounded better. If you got any of that last paragraph, I both congratulate and pity you.

Luckily, because I didn't trust the set up, I created a back up plan that got us the audio feed from UMass' radio station online. The papers? Not so much luck.

The fact that such a person, and this goes well beyond the dreary greystone campus of UMass-D, has control over student media operations is a disservice to the actual students. There is no technical understading of the business, which means the students won't get any either. I'm positive that if anybody looked into it, the young man in charge probably has a degree in history and spent the last few years as a teaching understudy. But because student media is seen as a busy project at some schools, it's acceptable to throw them into this situation. The result was a disaster of a project, a complete lack of faith in an entire university's media department, and the loss of thousands of dollars. The stupidest part being this: had the governor's "people" opted to hold the debate down the road at the much less esteemed Bristol Community College auditorium, it would have gone off without a hitch. The theatre is nicer, bigger, and run by several people with technical experience in both audio and visual media.

I guess the community college setting wasn't up to par with the candidate's high standards.

It's generally upsetting to me to constantly have potential interns coming through my office every semester looking for experience, have several years of college radio under their belts, and absolutely no concept of how the operation even comes close to working. Student media shouldn't be mental fodder for kids with mohawks who love Arcade Fire; it should be a learning ground for a pretty fun business with a lot of different nooks and crannies that can find even the poor voiced (uh...me?) being usefull in the realm of the media. Instead...every intern I have either wants to talk about the Patriots or talk about how sick Buckethead is. They don't know how the on-air process works, they don't know anything technically works, and they don't care. And THAT is the fault of the colleges who put people like my UMass-Dartmouth friend in charge, then expect to still be looked at as credible.

Give me the guys at the community college.