Well, boys and girls, its 6:AM somewhere and the voice of The IMAN is no more, at least not on the radio, live, on the radio. Years from now, many will remember ‘shock jock’ Don Imus with this thought ringing their head, ‘you can’t say that on the radio’, and they would be right for whatever that moment in time that it was, when a certain remark was heard, at some future time, well maybe you can say that on the radio, and it would be ok, just like, you can go home again, and you can say that on the radio, thanks to The IMAN, and other shock jocks of the past and future.

 

As with so many of my posts, its Wikipedia, that I rely upon to fully explain a phenomenon.

“A shock jock is a type of radio broadcaster or disc jockey who entertains listeners or attracts attention using humor and/or melodramatic exaggeration that some portion of the listening audience may find offensive. The term is usually used pejoratively to describe provocative or irreverent broadcasters whose mannerisms, statements and actions are typically offensive to many members of the community. It is a popular term, generally not used within the radio industry. A shock jock is considered to be the radio equivalent of the tabloid newspaper, for which entertaining readers is as important as, or more important than, providing factual information. Within the radio industry, a radio station that relies primarily on shock jocks for its programming is said to have a hot talk format”.

 

If it had not been invented suddenly, the shock jock, would have had to come about naturally, thru trial and error, as it eventually did, since radio was, most of the time, bland and boring, like Betty Crocker cooking, American, safe and sound, so 1950ish, if you well, as if the ingredients, hot and spicy, did not exist in the American culinary arts, but it did on the radio in the guise of the shock jock.

Entrepreneurship is the process of designing, launching and running a new business, which is often initially a small business. The people who create these businesses are called entrepreneurs. Thank you, Wikipedia…

For this post, lets just refer to them as founders.

I envision somewhere in some remote third world country, a tinker, with a great idea, but because of the environment of country, the future of inventions appears grim. Then somehow, this tinker arrives in the U.S.A., where even the destitute can find a level playing field among the most high and mighty. A product is invented, developed, a company founded, while this tinker labors in product improvement, the business starts to falter, it now seems clear that business management is not a strong suit, has not been learned. No matter how expressive and smart, appearing on talk shows, short comings are on display, a spokesperson is hired, to shine a pleasing descriptive light on the business, as well as new hires in business management. The lesson learned, a tinker, can invent, develop, but cannot necessarily run a business successfully.  

What if you received an email news feed from a source you consider to be a trusted informant, information compiled from a hidden, unknown, analytical organization, that children were being held in the back of a Pizza parlor for illegal purposes; would you, (1), research other news sources for accuracy, or (2), grab a weapon and launch a rescue party? If you were singled out to receive such a news feed, you probably have already been thought of as being gullible and may vote in an election one way or another based on just such information, more so if a candidate’s name were attached. Being unsuspecting can be used as a tool, to lure environmentalists to vote for certain candidates, or bigotry to vote for another, the lure is just a tool, a very convincing one. A lure is something that attracts for either good or ill, I offer this warning, watch your step or you may find yourself ankle deep in some foolish and deceitful %$@&…

It was not until 11p that I got to watch MSNBC’s coverage of the March for Our Lives, when their news crawl was taken down, which is normal for me, since that is the only time I get to watch anything on this network news crawl free. A condensed episode of Hard Ball kinda left me wanting, but that’s ok, I had my fill of the March in my search for a clean screen on some of the other networks, with local station coverage. About those other networks, I don’t think the network managers are paying close attention to the excessive dance hall, no make that, hooker type make-up on the faces of their female on air talent. Back to Hard Ball, there was no shortage of descriptive banners, stating the obvious, never letting the viewer discover anything on their own, like the subject being discussed, imagine the screen clutter with the addition of a news crawl along with all the banners this network likes to display on every program, taking annoyance and distraction to new heights. It was impossible to not realize that this broadcast was about the March for Our Lives, how do I know this? there were banners that repeatedly reminded both viewers and me.

As far as I can tell at this hour, MSNBC, is planning extensive live coverage of the, March For Our Lives tomorrow, I’ve already programed my DVR to capture a great deal of it, however, it must be noted, MSNBC, has this thing for  displaying an excessive amount of screen clutter, meaning unnecessary banners along with an annoying news crawl, so, in the event of the above predictions, I will be shopping for an alternative television network. I am one of those that still have a bitter vision in my head of NBC’s coverage of the 2018 Winter Olympics, as the South Koreans took great pains in the designing of beautiful displays with music, to having it spoiled by annoying over descriptive voice overs, instead of just letting the exhibits speak for themselves…as I watched just a little, it could be heard throughout my building, me shouting, please shut-up… Note, not every image on television has to be explained, some images can stand on their own merit, quite capable of presenting themselves, without a detailed explanation…something the current practitioners of television have yet to learn…

Anyone interested in how not to conduct a television interview, have only to do it in the, what I call the, ‘talking point’ style, that was demonstrated on CNBC with Facebooks COO, Sheryl Sandberg. The interview ran for about 10:47, with all sort of banners at the bottom of the screen, the annoyance began when the many talking points she voiced, I counted five different ones in total, that was repeatedly displayed on the screen, many of them remained on it for many minutes as she talked. Those that just listened to the audio would hear a smoothly run interview, but those of us that both watched and listened, found the talking points banners annoying, that begs the question as to why were they included, to be read over and over again, when hearing them once would have been more than enough for them to be sealed to memory and not have to repeatedly read them too. An abridged version of the interview later ran on Nightly Business Report, that was easer on the eyes, no banners…

Anyone interested in how not to conduct a television interview, have only to do it in the, what I call the, ‘talking point’ style, that was demonstrated on CNBC with Facebooks COO, Sheryl Sandberg. The interview ran for about 10:47, with all sort of banners at the bottom of the screen, the annoyance began when the many talking points she voiced, I counted five different ones in total, that was repeatedly displayed on the screen, many of them remained on it for many minutes as she talked. Those that just listened to the audio would hear a smoothly run interview, but those of us that both watched and listened, found the talking points banners annoying, that begs the question as to why were they included, to be read over and over again, when hearing them once would have been more than enough for them to be sealed to memory and not have to repeatedly read them too. An abridged version of the interview later ran on Nightly Business Report, that was easer on the eyes, no banners…

Anyone interested in how not to conduct a television interview, have only to do it in the, what I call the, ‘talking point’ style, that was demonstrated on CNBC with Facebooks COO, Sheryl Sandberg. The interview ran for about 10:47, with all sort of banners at the bottom of the screen, the annoyance began when the many talking points she voiced, I counted five different ones in total, that was repeatedly displayed on the screen, many of them remained on it for many minutes as she talked. Those that just listened to the audio would hear a smoothly run interview, but those of us that both watched and listened, found the talking points banners annoying, that begs the question as to why were they included, to be read over and over again, when hearing them once would have been more than enough for them to be sealed to memory and not have to repeatedly read them too. An abridged version of the interview later ran on Nightly Business Report, that was easer on the eyes, no banners…

I urge television producers to pay a closer attention to the product that is placed before the viewing public, not by watching it on studio monitors, but at home as a member of the viewing public, for its only at home will you be able to best judge its effectiveness or the lack of it. Yesterday, while watching Fox News, one of their staple of female news contributors delivered an opinion piece, that quickly got lost in the maze of her elaborate hair and make-up, that was so striking, that her face remained on the screen long after she departed, as for the opinion expressed, soon forgotten. Much later that same day, on channel 7 Eyewitness news, the female anchor’s dress had the appearance of transparency, with the illusion of nipple, which must have been noticed by someone other than myself, because her dress was changed in the next hour of that broadcast. So, my professional television producers, you can be so close to the broadcast as to not clearly see it, go home and watch the news just as if you were a consumer of news and not its producer…

The new cast of American Idol, 2018, all dye their hair, why? What is this message of appearance fakery that has become king in the market place, that we are sending to the next generation, if you are not part of the diversion, there is no place for you on television or even in the work place, or so it seems… What have we all become? Who knows…Considering selling pillows on television, better dye your hair first…I know that I’m just that annoying voice in the wilderness, but if I don’t write or say it, who will, you? In the future, genuine, will have no meaning, oh, I think we have lost it already…As your worth will be based on your hair, not the content of your performance, but the audience perception of you and your hair. In our society what is that glue that holds us together, kinship, and with that comes, sameness, of appearance, sameness of thought, sameness of personhood, we are more willing to fight for the team then for the individual, for a country, even  for an ideal, even it later proves to have splinters, kinda like, my country, right or wrong. I will be a blond head, until I die, and will never appear as the old gray head that I have become. In both short and long form, Wikipedia, has always in its presentation of so many subjects proven to have expressed it best, just as below, I call your attention to.

 

Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.

Personhood continues to be a topic of international debate and has been questioned critically during the abolition of human and nonhuman slavery, in theology, in debates about abortion and in fetal rights and/or reproductive rights, in animal rights activism, in theology and ontology, in ethical theory, and in debates about corporate personhood and the beginning of human personhood.

 

Now if that above does not say it all, can anyone of you explain it better? I’m waiting…