There Is No History on History

SO, ONE MIGHT ASK WHAT DOES IT MATTER THAT THE HISTORY CHANNEL ISN'T REALLY ABOUT HISTORY? Well, perhaps it is no different than what has happened to so many other "niche" cable channels before it, and presumably that will also come after it.

The Discovery Channel is far removed from what it originally was. So is TLC for that matter. And probably one of the first of the cable channels I can remember who made their mark that left their old purpose and format was none other than MTV.

DID YOU KNOW THAT AT ONE TIME MTV, ALSO KNOWN AS MUSIC TELEVISION, ACTUALLY AIRED MUSIC?

Yeah. MTV got its start doing 24 hours of music video presentation. So did VH1. Neither of those channels even compares to their former selves. They ditched that old programming what seems like a decade or more ago.

I am SURE it all has to do with ratings. Or, perhaps stated better, the lack of any. Maybe there is indeed another reason behind the changes these channels make to their lineups. But as republican senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa put it once on Twitter, "Again no history. Change name of channel to 'Et Cetera.'"

AT THE END OF THE DAY WHO CARES RIGHT?

Yeah. I'll admit. There is some truth to that. Life is full of many more important things to get our panties in a bunch over. If nothing else, when you tune into The History Channel or Discovery or MTV, you ALREADY KNOW you're not going to get what the channel's name suggests as far as programming is concerned.

But I also think, despite the dollars and cents and the grab for ratings, why can't we simply have some channels in our cable choices that cater to smaller audiences who want specifically what those channels are offering? I mean, all of us certainly PAY ENOUGH to the satellite and dish and cable companies for all of those channels. 

Why do all 300 channels have to have the same, "most popular" content? Why do they all have to follow each other and all do the same thing? How is that choice? How is that better than what we had before? How does this differentiate one channel from the other? And then, if they are all going to have the same content, why have all the channels?

I really DON'T CARE AT THE END OF THE DAY what any of these channels decide to do with their programming. I generally narrow my choices down anyway. But one thing it DOES say to me is that eventually what it will do is push people more and more away from cable companies, and pave the way for either channels to individually compete on a separate basis, or will pave the way for alternative companies to set up shop and let people pay for the exact programming they are interested in watching. 

RIGHT NOW THESE CHANNELS GET PAID WHETHER YOU WATCH OR NOT. If things go a different direction and people pay for individualized content, channels like these won't be able to command as much from advertisers, and they will have to cater to very specific audiences with programming that matters pertinent to what they call themselves.

Roseanne Barr's Show Revival Will Crash and Burn

SOME THINGS ARE BETTER SIMPLY LEFT UNDONE. Like say, a revival of Roseanne. Despite my dislike for all things that Roseanne, a committed liberal, believes in outside of the show she did, I cannot deny that the show was a good one. I'd even go as far as to say it was iconic. 

Certainly one of the successes of the show was that it simply was a typical all-American family struggling through life as so many Americans do.

Simply put, it resonated resoundingly with typical everyday people like you and I.

FOR OTHER REASONS I think there were a lot of shows that had their day, and were profoundly successful for so many reasons it would be impossible to break it all down. Surely one such show that comes to mind is the Carol Burnett Show. The antics and the chemistry of that team of talented comedians was a force to be reckoned with to be sure.

For a long time I have even held, and do to this day, that the Carol Burnett Show was even perhaps one of the BEST COMEDIES ON TELEVISION ever. And while I'd love to see what's left of the cast come back and try it again...

YOU SIMPLY CANNOT DO IT LIKE THAT AGAIN!

I remember a long time ago reading an article that asked Jim Carey why he never did a third PET DETECTIVE movie. His answer?

Jim Carey thought that by the time he'd jump into character for Pet Detective a third time around, he'd not be original anymore. He'd simply be doing an impersonation of the character he created and it wouldn't be funny anymore. Or good.

And so that was the end of Pet Detective. And I think he was right in his way of thinking to be honest.

Carol Burnett cannot come back and copy what she did with her show and be successful in doing that. Take another show that I think would fall under the same frame of thought.

SEINFELD!

Granted, here you have a cast who all are alive and well and quite frankly still funny. And they've mostly all gone on to have successful careers post-Seinfeld. But even if this team, and even the writers, all got back together to revive the show and hope to have a newly found success similar to the one they enjoyed before, they'd all be kidding themselves.

Seinfeld was funny for the show that it was. But it was also funny because it was fresh and everyone involved was having the time of their lives. Anyone would be a fool to think that they could do that again and have a successful show.

So, why does Roseanne think her show will be different? I really have no idea. Besides the idea that she essentially killed the show when her and Dan ultimately won the lottery. It was so far removed from the entire concept of the show that it just fell flat.

DO THEY COME BACK POOR AGAIN AFTER HAVING LIVED THE GOOD LIFE? AND DIDN'T HER AND DAN GET DIVORCED EVENTUALLY? 

I didn't do the research for this as I don't feel it is necessary, and honestly don't remember. Either way I don't it matters one iota.

Roseanne would do well do leave her show in the annals of history. There is even some thought that comes to mind that trying to revive the show may keep newer audiences from having any interest in tuning into any reruns of the old show.

IF THE NEW SHOW IS LOUSY, and I happen to think it will be, IT IS THE NEW SHOW AUDIENCES WILL REMEMBER.

In a nutshell, don't ruin a good thing is what I say. Of course, my advice is not really advise. It's just an opinion. And no one in Hollywood, and certainly not Roseanne Barr herself, will be reading this commentary and be persuaded to change her mind.

THAT ALL ASIDE, you do have some actors and personalities in their later years, their careers essentially dried up, who go on to pawn off their talents to skin creams, pain ointments, and dietary supplements. Maybe they need the money. Maybe Roseanne needs the money.

Or maybe she really has something up her sleeve that she can pull off her show's revival. I doubt it. But only time will tell. Will I tune in? Probably. Just because I am curious. But I think once the curiosity is done and my opinion is confirmed to be fact...

I'LL JUST MOVE ON LIKE I THINK SHE PROBABLY SHOULD...HAVE.

Sioux City Bee Farmer Loses All

FOR A BEE FARMER in Sioux City, Iowa, it turned out to be a terribly devastating tragedy when he discovered that vandals had knocked over and destroyed his beehives, leaving about 500,000 dead bees in the carnage.

For owner Justin Engelhardt this surely is NO WAY TO START OFF THE NEW YEAR as he told a local reporter that the vandals pretty much wiped out his entire business and he sees no way of recovering from the incident.

Certainly it is my opinion that the vandals be found as quickly as possible and swiftly brought to justice.

And the penalties should be stiff too. This is vandalism on a grand scale as it is probably not just the fact that these tools trespassed and destroyed a man's livelihood, but THEY ESSENTIALLY PUT THE MAN OUT OF BUSINESS!

I cannot imagine what the penalty would be for me if I were to walk into, say, a flower shop and destroy every flower or plant in the store.

Besides the fact that the act is totally uncalled for, it is also terribly pointless. What goes through the minds of some people? That's my question. Granted, as I often say in light of instances such as these, the fact that I CANNOT UNDERSTAND the mindset gives me comfort. 

I do wonder, however, whether this bee keeper at least had insurance? It doesn't seem to be the case if it is suggested that he will not be able to recover from this act. But it can serve as a lesson, perhaps, to other business owners who may have a similar type of business that perhaps they better make sure that they do in fact have some insurance...

JUST IN CASE!

The Internet Goes Click...Click...Click

It's a wonder to me that advertisers haven't gone beserk in some form or fashion from what seems to be the latest trend in Internet "storytelling." I mean, they spend a ton of money seeking out places to put their ads that will lure in what are supposed to be truly interested buyers of their products.

What's more, what's a click worth?

Well, money of course. Sure, a lot of these websites do get paid based on a certain number of impressions—and if you know what kind of websites I am talking about here, you know that every time one of their pages loads...

So do a ton of ADS!

So basically here's how these tend to work. You click onto a news story or something like that you might find say, on the Bing "homepage." Then you get suggested stories you might like somewhere after the article.

You click on one of those stories and a page loads...yep, complete with all those ads. It provides you some alluring detail...

Take as an example, "One Nike employee who costs the company the deal of a lifetime!"  It says "start slideshow" or something like that and now that you've gotten the bait you just have to click on, right?

So many people must do this, that's why these sites thrive.

So now another page loads, along with tons more ad displays, a picture perhaps as well pertinent to the "story" about to unfold. You'll notice that the screen jumps and scrolls itself. Funny how a lot of that jumping and scrolling occurs right around the time your pointer lands on "continue" or "next slide."

These websites are trying to force a click thru to one of those ads. Invariably to get PAID for that click. 

And that's not only annoying folks. But it is part of the reason I think the advertisers—the READERS notwithstanding—should be going beserk. 

The person clicking thru to that ad that advertiser is paying for probably has NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in what the ad is about—let alone in buying anything.

Without question there's one more thing that comes readily to mind. The WEBSITE and the STORY WRITER has absolutely no interest in the story either. They are simply interested in getting PAID.

Now, on the surface there is nothing wrong with that. Anyone who writes anything on the Internet would like some form of compensation. It's not THE ONLY reason we do it. But getting some form of compensation from doing it is an added bonus that can help us to determine that the time we spend doing it is worth it in the end.

But there is something else annoying about this trend in websites. That is, in order to get through the whole "article," you're going to have to click through perhaps as many as fifteen pages. Each of those pages will have a paragraph or two that contributes to the story...

AND AGAIN! EVERYTHING IS JUMPING AROUND AND SCROLLING UP AND DOWN WHILE YOU ARE TRYING TO READ WHILE THEY ARE TRYING TO GET YOU TO ACCIDENTALLY CLICK AN AD!

Now. I do get the attention span thing. Or, the lack thereof which plagues society today and these websites understand that as well. It's another reason, in some ways, this tactic actually works. If someone clicks into an "article" and sees a standard article format with several paragraphs and a few pictures they are like to say, "Ugh, I don't want to read ALL that," and are simply going to move on—and tons of ads will never even get the pleasure of an eyeball.

To be honest I actually find these "articles" and the whole presentation a bit annoying if not entirely frustrating. I am extremely careful not to accidentally click an ad. In part because I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR TO THE ADVERTISER, and more importantly, I AM ACTUALLY THERE TO READ THE ARTICLE. I don't want to be distracted by having to go back from ad I didn't want to click on in the first place...

AND SOMETIMES THE PROCESS IS SO DAUNTING FOR THE PROCESSOR THAT IT OVERLOADS THINGS AND THEN THE SITE FREEZES AND YOU HAVE TO EITHER START ALL OVER, OR RESTART THE COMPUTER.

I personally much prefer a method I am using here for THIS piece. That is the "start-stop" method, or "forced break" method. You are using combinations of short phrases and paragraphs and all caps, italics, bold-face text and other things to give the reader breaks. It also detracts the reader LESS from the longer article format because on the surface, while it is longer, it doesn't immediately present itself as obvious.

It's not the way I prefer to write. But, I will say that given the choice on any of those articles that I am actually interested in the details of, I WOULD MUCH PREFER TO READ IT THIS WAY, THAN THE WAY MOST OF THESE SITES ARE PRESENTING IT. 

In some ways it actually does surprise me a bit that these sites DO INFACT work. It would seem to me that most people would find this sort of thing to be more of a nuisance than a great way to read an article.

But these sites also get an enormous AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC, and for whatever reason the bigger "legit" websites cater to these "clickbait" websites. And so they get all the eyeballs. Other bloggers and article writers get shunned simply because they not only have a story to tell, but ACUTALLY WANT TO TELL THE STORY and would prefer that their story not be loaded up with all of those annoying distractions, jumping and auto-scrolling.

It is what it is, and as I have always said from a pure marketing perspective is that it continues to be done this way BECAUSE IT WORKS. I also know that writing an "article" in the format I have chosen here also works. I get the best hit counts when I write them this way as opposed to a more traditional format. 

And all that can be concluded from that is that until it doesn't work, the Internet, and the user, goes click...click...click...

Until either the readers get tired of it...or the advertisers pull the plug on it.

I do wonder though, out of all of those accidental clicks, how many people also accidentally pull out their wallets and their credit cards and actually buy what they have inadvertently clicked into? MAYBE THAT IS WHY ADVERTISERS have NOT gone beserk. Maybe it actually works? I'll never know because I avoid those accidental clicks like the plague.

Trump Right, Kneeling for Anthem is Disrespectful

President Donald J. Trump is right. NFL players should stand during the national anthem. It is that simple. Aside from all of the arguments about free speech, it has been well established that free speech does not necessarily apply to your place of work. And since the players in the NFL are employees of that organization, the NFL can implement a rule saying players must stand for the national anthem—

And they would be well within their rights to enforce such a rule.

It is actually quite amazing to me the stance that the NFL leadership and owners are taking on this issue since it is all too clear that taking this stance is severely impacting their business. And let's not forget that the NFL is in fact a business. Like any business, it has customers, and those customers (the fans) have made it all too clear, and overwhelmingly so, that they do not support the kneeling of NFL players during the national anthem.

As such, fans have sold season tickets, have stopped watching televised games, have stopped purchasing NFL jersey's and other memorabilia, and even some sponsors have decided to bail fearing backlash from angry fans.

This trend will only continue so long as NFL players continue to undermine the very business that pays their salaries.

Besides the fact that the entire protest is false to begin with, what I do find refreshing is that at least finally the American people are acting like true Americans again—more and more—and not allowing the agenda of the left and the lamestream media to dictate what the interest and conscience of the American people should be.

Stand up guys or you will find yourselves as irrelevant as women's basketball.