CONTACTING US
NEWSROOM:
(541)346-5511
E-MAIL:
ode@oregon. uoregon.edu
ADDRESS:
Oregon Daily Emerald
P.0. BOX 3159
Eugene, Oregon 97403
ONLINE EDITION: www.uoregon.edu/~ode
Perspectives
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITOR
Mike Schmierbach
NIGHT EDITOR
Carl Yeh
zmmmm
Television: Now, drunker than ever!
Even when you’re sober you can enjoy
the delightfully spinning world that
comes with heavy drinking
u
T
I V is good.”
Thus ABC has assailed us, and
thus a large percentage of America
seems to think ... still.
Well, I’m not sure about TV, but I have a mantra
of my own: “Beer is good.” Not just beer, of course
— the full range of intoxicants provides hours of
cheap entertainment.
Now, I readily acknowledge this is a horrible
thing to say. After all, as the University soberly
points out in letters and health center bulletins, al
cohol abuse is a serious problem, and the misuse of
Mike
Schmierbach
ilcohol hurts students, drinkers
md non-drinkers alike.
That aside, beer is expensive.
'Good beer, anyway.) Television
is free.
It has taken the medium a few
years to figure that out, but the
folks who produce TV seem to
have done the math. If television
::ould only achieve the same ef
fects as beer (less the liver dam
aee). it could final] v do what
hoards of brewers have been striving to do for gen
erations: control the youth of America.
You don’t believe me. You think I’m being con
spiratorial again. Or perhaps you already think
television has won.
Perhaps. But I see signs on the small screen that
a final battle for our souls is being waged; televi
sion is becoming intoxicated.
Not intoxicating. The flickering light of the tube
has always had the power to draw Americans in,
hence television trays, television dinners and tele
vision guides.
No, television is now, officially, drunk. Televi
sion slurs and staggers and spins in precisely the
way the world does under the influence of that for
mer champion, cheap liquor.
It took me a while to notice this; I thought it was
simply because I was drunk while watching televi
sion. Now, however, I have become convinced that
the world of television is increasingly becoming an
alcohol-induced haze.
It all makes sense. For the most part, drinking
has never been about quality or taste — students
swig alcohol to feel reality spin out from under
their feet.
Similarly, we all tune into television to discover
a world wonderfully separate from our own exis
tence. When you’re drunk, every woman looks at
tractive. When you watch TV, every woman is at
tractive.
People become more violent after spending a
few hours at the comer tavern; people on television
arbitrarily shoot each other for ratings. In real life, a
disturbing number of “encounters” take place after
drinking heavily; at least on television, the charac
ters never get STDs and rarely £nd up pregnant.
Vicarious promiscuity is safer than the real thing.
There’s nothing so loud or boorish as an angry
drunk man, unless it’s a character on a Fox sitcom.
And if you think your intellectual capacity is re
duced after a couple of pints, you should check out
the brainpower of the people on Ally McBeal who
allegedly passed the bar.
Until recently, however, television was always a
sharp-edged imitation of a drunk world. Sure, the
people were staggering fools, but unless your re
ception was shaky, the world didn’t sway in that
delightful way it does after you finish off a fifth
with a couple of liver-free friends.
Then, praise the gods, along came MTV. Every
elementary student cranked up on Ritalin has a
longer attention span than the hand-camera hold
ing lunatics who snap rapidly from cleavage shot
to sweaty lead singer and then back to cleavage
shot. The world may not be spinning, but it cer
tainly isn’t holding still in the world of music tele
vision.
It took a while for MTV to spread. Eventually,
however, the over-caffeinated kitten style of music
videos spread like a nasty case of Ebola through
every aspect of television. I think I caught a rapid
fire montage on “60 Minutes” the other night.
Of course, one cannot forget the hand-held cam
era and its contributions to nauseating dizziness.
Remember the first season of “Homicide”? I
thought Woody Allen was directing while being
chased by a pit bull.
There are more factors, of course. Computer ani
mation with its spinning logos and morphing faces
has certainly made for a more fuzzy reality, for ex
ample. Add in a testosterone-laden remote jockey
and you have a television experience that begins to
resemble the net effect of too many shots of bad
vodka.
This irritates some critics. They miss the linear
story lines and clean camera shots; they would also
lament the loss of realism, but that has never fac
tored heavily into television.
Youth, however, are eating it up. Americans are
expected to watch the last episode of “Seinfeld” in
unheard of numbers, and while Jerry et al might
have a still picture they have a very wobbly
lifestyle.
The networks are suffering, but television as a
whole remains strong. We love our drunken medi
um in all its variations, from Conan O’Brien acting
like a high schooler who sampled the punch he
spiked to the Simpsons and their excursions into
animated acid trips.
And why shouldn’t we? Sure, television dis
tracts us from the political arena and social aware
ness. Sure, it teaches us about a world that doesn’t
exist in which happiness is everywhere Visa wants
you to be. Sure, television news spends more time
analyzing rain clouds than the federal budget. But
at least it doesn’t damage our liver.
Besides, whenever the television world starts
spinning we can hit the off switch. If only it was
so easy to recover from yet another night spent
with our long-necked, brown-colored beer bottle
friend.
Mike Schmierbach is the editorial editor for the Emer
ald His views do not necessarily represent those of the
newspaper.
Drawing Board
99b
LI $t€ KEN SrAPPiS 60T
A mom EFFICIENT MCTWOP
°E OEHVEPIN6 INCHCl»«MT$
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Research reviews
This is in response to
Rob Moseley's review on
Tori Amos (ODE, May 8).
I found his review to be
shallow and inaccurate. If
Moseley were a true Tori
fan (as I definitely am), he
would have known the
truth behind this album.
Amos suffered from a mis
carriage early in 1997, and
the loss of the baby is
what triggered her to write
this new album. The
songs talk about loss,
anger and the respect for
the miracle of life. When
she talked about the
woman who “could hold
back a glacier, but she
couldn’t keep Baby alive,”
she is talking about her
self and the loss of her
baby.
Amos also has many
other songs that refer to
the incident in her album:
“Playboy Mommy,”
“iieee” and “She’s Your
Cocaine.” Moseley also
made a reference to the
song “Hotel.” Amos has
said this song is about a
past love and her struggle
to help him out. In her
lyrics “I have to learn to
let you crash down,” she
wants to let him go, but a
part of her is still connect
ed to him and wants to
help him out in his time
of need. She recently had
an interview that ex
plained her feelings be
hind these songs and the
album. If Moseley had
taken the time to research,
he woiifd have been in
formed of the sadness and
love that is very much an
important part to this al
bum.
I felt Moseley did not
accurately represent the
album to his readers. Be
sides the fact that she de
served five stars and was
only given four, Moseley
gave ridiculous judgments
about the order of her
songs. Is there such a
thing as a “correct" order
to play songs? I felt that
she put the songs together
in a wonderful and spiri
tual way. Also, it’s true
that this album isn’t about
hate and vindictiveness
but is very much about
sorrow and respect for na
ture. Amos is probably the
most lyrical and sensual
artist around. She is very
talented when it comes to
music, and with every al
bum, she continues to
take my breath away. >
Thank you for taking the
time to read this complaint.
I hope in the future Mose
ley will research a little
more before he gives a re
view on an album.
Lindan Spromberg
Undeclared
Quoted
“Oceans rise.
Cities fall. Hope
survives."
From an
advertisement
for "Deep Im
pact.” Hype tri
umphs.
"It's her world,
we’re just living
in it. ”
Taken from an
ad for “Woo."
Damrt, and I
thought I was still
“Living in Obliv
ion.”
“It's ‘Sleepless
in Seattle’and
'While You Were
Sleeping'
wrapped into one
great movie. ”
Critic Nancy
Jay, quoted in an
advertisement for
“Still Breathing.”
It’s pain and suf
fering all rolled
into one rough
evening.
“The date-night
movie of choice!
Funny and touch
ing!"
Rolling Stone
movie critic quot
ed in an ad for
“Sliding Doors."
Huh, huh, he said
touching.
“The best date
movie this year!"
John Mon
aghan, also talk
ing about “Still
Breathing." Wait,
I'm confused —
do I have to go to
two movies on my
date?
“Featured will
be some of the
greatest music to
ever hit the stage,
including songs
from‘The King
and I,’‘Okla
homa,’‘South Pa
cific, ’ ‘Flower
Drum Song’and
more!"
From an ad for
the Oregon Sym
phony’s tribute to
Rodgers and
Hammerstein.
Hmm...when
was that “Woo”
film again?
“It’s one of the
wildest operas to
ever hit the
stage!"
From the Port
land Opera's pitch
for “The Love for
Three Oranges.”
It’s also the best
date-opera of the
year!
SOURCE: Friday's
Oregonian A&E