Boy, I hope nobody loses any respect for me on this one, but I really like this show.
My wife and I watched this show last night, and the episode we saw wasn't exactly ha-ha funny, but it was interesting funny. We saw there was another episode on Sunday, so we watched that one, too (By the way, On-Demand is one of the best things ever), and this clip is from that one. It was the funniest part of either episode.
I hope this show gets an audience, because what I like about it isn't the sometimes-obvious jokes, and while I enjoy the exchanges between the celebrity panel, that is isn't what makes me like the show either.
I like the idea of small arguments being treated lightheartedly. Because, in reality, these things are not that big of a deal, but it is things like them that have led to the ever-increasing number of divorces. Couples in these kind of situations need to step back and realize how silly some of their arguments are, and I think "The Marriage Ref" does a great job of showing that.
When the host closes each episode with a pro-marriage statement like "it's worth fighting for," I feel like THIS kind of TV show is what marriage needs. Couples need to see other couples arguing about the same silly things, laugh about how ridiculous they must sound when they're arguing like that and see the greater good in staying together.
Nancy Grace is probably one of my least favorite TV news personalities. I don't know if anyone appears phonier on TV than she does in this clip with Elizabeth Smart (from several years ago). Smart, who was abducted from her home some years back, appeared on Nancy's show to support a bill for the National Sex Offender Registry.
However, Nancy wanted her to delve into her experience as a missing child. Smart was politely reluctant to do so until she flat-out refused. Watching stuff like this confirms to me the idea of no present or future TV news personality will ever be worthy of the late Walter Cronkite's title: the most trusted man in America.
Those days are long gone, with talking heads like Nancy feigning interest for the sake of "good" TV.
Everybody knows it can be hard sometimes to be completely objective and unbiased as a journalist. Some reporters cover it up, some struggle with it and some have just given up trying altogether (Fox News).
In sports journalism, it can be even harder. Almost every person a sportswriter covers is a celebrity, and as a journalist, you want the confidence and trust of the uber-famous person you interview and write about. It takes real effort to keep the line between professionals and friends from getting blurred. And just like in regular news, some have just stopped trying altogether.
Take, for example, this excerpt of Stuart Scott from ESPN The Magazine on January 11, 2010. If you read it, you'll see how Stuart Scott responds to someone bashing his buddy Tiger Woods. Click on the picture for a bigger view. To fully digest how terrible of a response this was, I would like to analyze each sentence from Stuart Scott's response:
Allan, I'm sure you know people who have been just as unfaithful as Tiger. Really, Stuart? Really?! You're "sure" about that? Tiger Woods had affairs with nine different women. (At least nine. That's only the amount of women who have come forward...so far.) You're sure "Allan" knows someone who has a wife and two kids and has flown around the country having sex with club hostesses, porn stars and pancake waitresses? You don't think much of "Allan," do you, Stu?
He's made some bad mistakes, sure. Right, at least nine confirmed ones, so far. But it doesn't make him a creep. If Mrs. Woods was your sister, I don't think you'd be singing the same tune, Stu.
It makes him human. That's right, human. Do O.J.'s actions make him human and not a creep? I get that everybody puts sports figures on a pedestal - especially ones with a squeaky clean image like Tiger had. But what Tiger did makes him a creep, not the worst person in the world, but a creep. One affair, maybe human. At least nine? Welcome to Creepville.
I don't condone what Tiger has done, but calling him names for failings in his personal life is hypocritical. Only if Allan is as big a "sexmonger" as Tiger. I don't cheat on my wife. If I were to call Tiger a sexual deviant, I don't think I am being hypocritical.
I don't get it. THAT is for DANG sure.
Why are people so upset about something that doesn't concern them in the least? Because people like YOU bring us the information that "doesn't concern (us) in the least."You can't report of the shortcomings of athletes for years and years on Sportcenter, and then take this sort of stand. THAT is being hypocritical.
Watch this clip of Jimmy Kimmel decimating Jay Leno on the Jay Leno Show. It's hilarious.
Haven't posted in about a week, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention anything the Leno-Conan Wars going on right now. I assume most are aware of the current situation: Leno named Conan as successor, decides he doesn't want to retire, gets a prime-time show, show tanks and apparently gets The Tonight Show back. While rumors of a "Tonight Show" deal being finalized has not been confirmed, it appears as though NBC wants to support Leno, which I don't completely understand. Apparently, it is being reported NBC has even offered O'Brien $30 million to leave.
Sure, Leno was the #1 late-night guy when he left, and Conan's ratings a considerably lower, but it takes time to build an audience. Time it appears he is not going to get, despite the time Leno was given when replacing Johnny Carson.
Additionally, isn't it about time to build a new "Tonight Show" audience? I know Leno has this weird hold on the fixed-income crowd, but is that what NBC really wants? To own the viewing rights of the elderly? They're not telemarketers, for crying out loud. NBC has got to be the only major network (no, the History Channel is not considered a "major" network) actively pursuing the "Age 50 - Dead" demographic, which is a mistake.
Ages 18-49 is the key demo for advertising money, and Conan is popular within that group. People are getting married later, having fewer kids and, in many cases, both the husband and wife are working, thereby creating more discretionary income at a younger age. Leno does not compare with Conan in that group.
Proof of that lies within the reaction to this whole ordeal. Groups were created on Facebook to proclaim allegiances. Last time I checked, "Team Conan" and "I'm with Coco" have a combined total of over 225,000 supporters, while "Team Jay" and "Team Leno" combine for under 2,000 members. Doesn't that say something?
I think so.
Make the right and smarter choice, NBC. Keep Coco.
Gosh, since it is already January, I know I am pretty late on this one, but I keep meaning to rave about "Modern Family" on ABC. I haven't been the most consistent viewer of the show, but every time I see, I ask myself, "Self, why are you NOT the most consistent viewer of this show?"
One reason to like it is because ABC allows you to watch clips, as well as share them. I don't understand the purpose of companies preventing people from embedding video clips on different Web site. Don't you want more people to see it?
My favorite character is Phil Dunphy, a dad that sees himself as the "Cool Dad." Like Michael Scott (The Office) for bosses, I guess anytime you have a character who sees him/herself as something he or she isn't, it's going to be comedy gold. Here's Phil being Phil:
Then there's Jay, played by Ed O'Neil. His son is gay, and he is uncomfortable with it. In fact, he purposely announces himself before he enters a room to prevent the possibility of seeing his son and and his boyfriend kiss. In this scene, he seeks a "woman's opinion" from the couple:
And here's another scene I thought was very funny:
If I am nothing else, I am persistent. And if the actual outcomes of the BCS games are any indication, I am nothing else.
I'll admit my predictions haven't exactly been on the ball (pun definitely intended), but I'd like to think a lot of people erred in their predictions. And if it saves even a drop of my credibility, I'd like to mention that I am 21-12 in my overall bowl predictions this year, so I'm not completely incompentent - at least at this.
BCS Championship Game Texas (13-0) vs. Alabama (13-0)
Colt McCoy is a great quarterback. No one can legitimately argue to the contrary. He's done a lot of great things during his four-year career at Texas.
Texas is a great team. For any team to finish a regular season at a perfect 13-0, it is impressive. It involves managing the emotions of a bunch 19 and 20 year olds. That's not easy.
However, McCoy and the Texas Longhorns' offense have only struggle in two games (Oklahoma and Nebraska) this season. And both of those games shared one common ingredient in the opponent: a stellar defense. This is not a game where Texas will be able to avoid that. Texas will have to overcome that, and I really don't think they'll be able to do it.
Alabama has a pretty good offense to go with its Berlin Wall-esque defense. Led by Heisman Trophy Winner Mark Ingram, the Crimson Tide has averaged 413.8 yards per game on offense. Good enough for 32nd in the country, which might not seem that impressive, but it's better than some notable offenses: Oregon, Oregon State, Missouri, Bowling Green.
I think Alabama's offense to go along with Texas' struggles against elite defenses will be the keys to Alabama's 2010 BCS title.