tv shows and not "real life", but I can enjoy the drama and plot.
Lately, I've been watching some of those cheesy Hallmark movies... I started watching them around Christmas time when normal shows and what not were on "holiday", and because our family likes to watch Christmas movies around the holidays. And while they are very fictional, feature many "B" do "D" rated actors/actresses, and seem to tie up a happy "love" and Christmas time spirit into a Happy Ending in the last 10 minutes of the movie, they are cute, fluffy, and extremely positive... And there isn't a bunch of gratuitous sex, violence, or swearing scenes throughout the movie. Its just a nice, positive simple, happy message. (Lifetime used to be better at having these types of movies, but really has lost its way with too many "real life" dramas (like Casey Anthony or a teacher/ student plot that kills the teacher's husband) as well as a lot of sexual or violent attacks against women or women perpetrating these attacks... So, I stopped watching that channel when the cheesy, happy, sappy was replaced more often with more shocking types of "dramas"... So, finding the Hallmark channel running its Christmas line-up of "feel good" movies was a good thing... And something our entire family could watch together without worry of something inappropriate popping up for the kid. And now this month, on Saturdays, they feature a movie that is a cheesy plot with cheesy characters and a Happily Ever After ending. And I've really enjoyed them as a gentle Saturday evening escape from reality. I find my dreams and sleep are so peaceful after watching the syrupy, sappy movie.
As for "news watching", I used to be a hard corp, watch Olberman, Maddow, Ed, and yell at Tweety when he was being a nincompoop... especially back in the dark days of Bush.. Having truth and honest reporting and information being televised was so darned wonderful when most of "news" that was broadcast was lies, disinfo, and people yelling at each other in bluster, while accomplishing nothing (like a Jerry Springer show, but supposedly with "smart pundits" who were supposed to make a point). As this election came roaring around, I was just as disgusted with the "truth tellers" as I was with Faux Noise. How many times did Ed or Rachel have to come on and tell people to "fear the lies" or "the race is neck and neck". I knew it wasn't true. The Republicans literally ran a bunch of crazy candidates, and then ended up with Mittens (who was the very idea of the 1% against the 99% of this country). I didn't believe that there were that many people who would stay at home and allow Mitt and Queen Ann to ascend to the "thrown". He was such a typical idea that most of us have of the super wealthy. And the more he spoke and his inability to feel comfortable around average American citizens was a showing of how and what the rest of us think that the powerful and wealthy are really like. Along with his terribly run campaign, pandering campaigning, weird mannerisms and his "Father Knows Best" type of mentality about gender rolls, the rest of his party was holding the country hostage, refused to work with Dems, attacked Unions/ workers, attacked access to affordable healthcare, and attacked women and minorities like they were an enemy to be feared and pushed back.
So, the only "news" that I really try to watch a little of now is "Up with Chris Hayes" and MHP after that. Normally, its background while I'm working on Sunday. The discussions are in depth, informative, and an actual discussion. There's no shouting matches, people are informed and interesting, and issues are covered in more than 5 minute bursts of soundbites. Some of the Repubs he has on the show still try to get away with soundbite talking points, but they are called out on their idiotic statements when other's around the table actually question the person using the republicans talking points of the day/ week to actually explain what their facts are and what do they mean when they say "job creator" or "small business" or why do we continue tax subsidies on oil which is still the most lucrative, profit making business worldwide, hands down... Point being, I often see them "blush" once caught, and he typically finds people to represent the "right" that are intelligent; so they actually do know better, they just never get called on their rhetoric when on other shows or when speaking to people. Also, Chris has this energy that is fun, loving, and engaging. He seems to want to learn as much as he wants to have a discussion with differing opinions and different perspectives, while also trying to provide the audience with the discussion and facts for the audience to make choices or decisions in their own lives. And the round table/ "kitchen table" feel of his set is absolutely terrific for the production of his show. No one person is "ahead"; everyone is "equal" at the round table.
I think MHP show would come off better if her set didn't look like she was just borrowing Rachel's set design in the AM.. I would have loved to see her set with book cases in the background, and plush University Setting types of seating around "coffee table".. And when she goes to do her "stand alone" letter segments or "instructing" moments, to go to a Professors desk. I don't know why the production team and set designers didn't think to her set look and feel like the inside of a Professor's office. The harsher lighting, clear glass, sharp edged set isn't "weekend friendly" to the types of conversations and people that she brings onto her show. I was very disappointed with that aspect of the show, and its distracting to have her set up like someone who is hosting a 1hr "news" block with 1 interviewee at a time as the "go to" informed guest to highlight the "block". She normally has 3 or 4 guests on at a time and the set isn't conducive to a good conversational flow; even Tweety, who normally puts 2 people against one another for a "right" view and "left view" is sitting at a table
But in general, I like the idea that most people know a little bit about what they are discussing. People are all over Facebook and different "news" sites/ blogs. Shared articles and info about life and issues is something many are aware of. To take a position, one has to know a bit about what they are talking about. And while the Tea-Baggers get onto different articles and sites and FaceBook wars, they are normally called out on their illogical views or bullying tactics by more and more people (often done with sarcasm and humor - like the Daily Show or Colbert show does). People respond to Up, for the most part, with positive reviews because the discussions and topics are trying to round out ideas and possible solutions for the issues. People aren't yelling at one another. Its similar to the types of conversations that we have with family, friends, neighbors, and strangers on a plane perhaps. We all have good ideas of what living a happy, positive life should look and feel like. And perhaps, we would have a chance to make things work better for all people if we had the right types of people representing most people's consensus in positions of power and ability to affect change from within and from the outside.
Sorry for a long ramble.
= new reply since forum marked as read
