Broadcast News

You ever think about how much cable news has changed over the past couple decades?
Turn on your TV and look for the news networks (they'll usually be grouped together). It's amazing how little of their time is devoted to actual news REPORTING lately. You know what I'm referring to, right? I'm talking about shows where the TV tells us about stuff that's happened.

(Lot of Dogs. Now, that's good old fashioned news reporting.)

That's what we used to be able to count on when we flipped to channels like CNN -- there'd be a newscaster sitting at a desk, READING US THE FRIGGIN' NEWS. Simple. Satisfying. Informative. Nowadays, though, it seems like all we get are these "analysis" programs, which focus on giving us the opinions of the guys who used to be our newscasters. They're all apparently well-versed on whatever the actual news was that day, even if WE somehow missed it, so now we get to listen to them talk about it, instead of simply reporting.

When did this get so out of control? It's reached a point where I can't turn on a news channel at a random time and have any reasonable expectation of learning anything. I have to schedule my TV viewing around when the actual news shows will be on, and count on stupid pundit forums to be the norm at all other times. It's supposed to be the other way around.

("You're a pinhead!"; "No, YOU are!")

Another thing that bugs me is all of the stuff they've got on the screen now. Back in the day, the news channels were decidedly boring, and I liked it that way. Sure, maybe there would be a floating graphic over the anchor's right shoulder on occasion, but that was about it. Very dignified. Very bland. My kind of TV.

But then sometime in the 1990s, they started adding these tickers at the bottom of the screen. The first time I saw one, I thought, "Well, OK. That's novel and fairly interesting. I guess I can handle it..." but the trend just couldn't end there, could it? Within six months, I started noticing even MORE crummy tickers showing up on news stations. Not only would there be an anchor reading stuff, but there's be two scrolling feeds of mostly useless information constantly under him. CNN Headline News was the worst offender, eventually even reducing the size of the window in which the newscaster was featured to accommodate all of its tickers and graphics.


I LIKED the boring old news format; I WANT to listen to five minute reports on things happening in other countries; I DO prefer more in-depth information targeted at reasonably intelligent adults. It was cool and comforting back in the day when you could turn on the news and not be bombarded with a thousand sounds and images at once. Back then, you could just relax and take in a bunch of information. What happened to the guy just sitting there and reading?

I'll tell you. At some point in the 1980s, some wiseguy decided that the news business ought to be highly profitable, and everything went downhill from there. They started tailoring the content to the lowest common denominator, and cutting back on the depth of their coverage to make more time for commercials and the friggin' weather report. News staffs that were once dozens of reporters strong were cut down and down and down until every news outlet was relying on just a handful of people to cover everything. No wonder the country's in the crapper.

And that's where the pundits come in. They're cheap, they're stupid, and they're easy to manage. All you have to do is throw some deeply opinionated lunatic in front of a camera, and BLAM -- your programming will take care of itself for an hour. And the bonus is that people will actually WATCH that stuff because they like being told what to think.


Sigh. It's probably never going to get better, either. Even the best of TV channels end up falling apart ultimately, which I guess is just the natural order of things. News isn't really an exception.

So, where's a guy like me supposed to go for entertainment and information? NPR? Nah, too hippyish. The BBC?? Nah, too British. The INTERNET??? YES, that has to be it!

Keep your eyes peeled for a viable, and non-politically motivated, internet news channel. I say it's bound to happen, not only with news but other kinds of television programming. I mean, there are some great internet television networks already, so it makes perfect sense for one devoted to news to come up, and I'll be among its first followers. I the meantime, I guess I'll just stick to Fark.


Now here's another two-fer. A couple of sci-fi-horror gems from the 50s, both of these movies come on the same disk from our friends at Netflix. Enjoy!

The Mole People (1956)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049516/


Netflix description:
A team of archeologists on a quest to find a lost race instead discover a horrific tribe of people living underground who have brutally enslaved the creepy half-human mole people.

This first entry in today's double creature feature is actually much better than I could have possibly imagined. I mean, sure -- The Mole People follows just about every cliche of the 1950s low-budget sci-fi monster genre, but there's still a little quality to its underlying story.

Our heroes are two handsome archeologists named Jud and Roger who stumble across an ancient Sumerian civilization hundreds of feet below the surface of a mountain in Asia. Seems these underground cavern folk wound up there when some sort of natural disaster sealed them in, like, a thousand years ago. They've managed to survive in a new kind of parallel universe down below, while enslaving a race of "Mole People." They're ruled by a king and a conniving high priest, and are not very friendly, in general.

Anyway, when Jud and Roger get down there, they quickly figure out that they can control both the Sumerians and the Mole People with their simple flashlights. See, none of the cavern dwellers have experienced real LIGHT for centuries, so their eyes can no longer handle it, and a quick blast from a regular bulb will send them to the ground in agony. Armed with this knowledge, Jud and Roger walk around like they own the place, flashing their "Fire of the Gods" at anyone who messes with them. Needless to say, the high priest cooks up at scheme to steal the flashlight from them when they start questioning the Sumerians' treatment of the Mole People.

One thing leads to another, and soon Jud and Roger are searching for a way to escape from this underground world. CAN they find a way back to the surface? WILL the Mole People revolt against their Sumerian masters?? WAS that a flash of accidental nudity that I spotted during the human sacrifice scene???

(Zoidberg?)

Yeah, it all sounds quite silly, and admittedly, it is; but there's more to The Mole People than cheap rubber masks and bad dialogue. This movie actually has some thought to it. I mean, the idea of an ancient civilization existing untouched by the rest of the world raises all sorts of questions, and this film takes them somewhat seriously. Plus, it has a message about respecting those who are different. Heck, in some ways, The Mole People was ahead of its time.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the first half hour of this picture is mind numbingly boring, unnecessarily drawn out and padded with poorly selected stock footage. Not to mention, most of the acting and special effects are lousy.

But what did you expect? The Mole People is better than most other films in its class. And, hey -- it made for a great Mystery Science Theater episode! Might as well check it out.

3 out of 5.

AND...

Tarantula (1955)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048696/


Netflix description:
In Tarantula, a lab experiment gone horribly awry creates a massive spider that satiates its bloodlust with cattle -- before moving on to human beings.

Yeah, just look at that big nasty beast on the DVD art. Scary, isn't it?

Well, maybe on the cover it is, but not so much in the film. Yeah, Tarantula was a bit of a let-down.

This one is about a mad scientist experimenting with some kind of super growth hormone in an effort to solve the world's hunger crisis. The stuff makes things expand to, like, 200 times their normal size or something. Our scientist injects it into various animals, and SURPRISE -- one of them escapes. Can you guess which?

Uh-huh, the tarantula. It's gargantuan, and it stalks the nearby desert for a few days while our REAL hero -- Doctor Matt Hastings -- tries to figure out why all the local cattle are turning up dead. He's got a love interest, and a helpful local sheriff on his side, and yada yada yada....


Anyway, the whole deal ends in a battle royale between the giant tarantula and the townsfolk. They fire a bunch of explosives at the bug, and it dies. The end.

Really, that's all there is to say about Tarantula. It's an incredibly simple movie, with one of the most anti-climactic endings I've ever seen. They just blow the thing up! It's like, one minute, the tarantula is there, and the music's all dramatic, and you think, "Man, this is going to be intense," and the next minute, the credits are rolling and you're wondering what just happened. Here and gone in a flash.

The novelty of the giant spider from the 1950s isn't as satisfying as one might assume. In fact, we don't even get to see much of the spider. Tarantula lacks the charm or profundity of The Mole People, and is definitely the weaker half of this double feature.

Meh.

2 out of 5.

b.