Meh. I once ate an entire Maine lobster on the F train. With drawn butter. And a shrimp cocktail to start.
Saved the steak for when I got home. I mean, I'm not some kind of animal.
I'm sorry, we're debating the merits of WHICH restroom to boink in, and not the fact that boinking in public restrooms sort of gnarly?
Unless DC restrooms commonly have showers, that is.
So it's a campaign aimed at bodega owners?
Remember when commenting got people laid?
And now I have this stuck in my head: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Otla5157c
I would have expected to read something like this on Thought Catalog. But then I remembered: I don't read Thought Catalog.
@Tuckman Marsh Very little to do with sports? The author conspicuously uses CBS's $10.8B NCAA contract (without mentioning Turner's role) to bookend the post, and uses the NBA as a counter-example of white programming. Not sure what you consider sports, but that's sports, and a prominent rhetorical use of sports.
And why do sports matter? Because sports programming appeals to one of the most sought-after demographics for advertisers: males 18-40 with higher than average HHI. And promoting their other shows to that demo is intended to increase their audience in that demo for, you guessed it, selling advertising. Why do ratings matter? Advertising. What demo is pretty useless to advertisers? Old, white people.
So, given that the UCLA study shows that ratings are better for shows with diverse casts, and ratings are better for selling advertising, it's completely counter-intuitive to presume that CBS (or anyone else) is deliberately programming for old white audiences that don't support their revenue model. It's why you don't see lower thirds promoting Family Guy on Fox News, 82% of whose audience is over 55.
I mean, it's a nice device to make this leap for a piece: "they've figured out that appealing to an old, white demographic—that's just an inference working back from what they are currently programming -- is their path to staying America's Most White Watched Network". But it doesn't stand up to the reality of TV network business models.
@Tuckman Marsh That's your takeaway from my comment, Tuckman? Or did you not notice that the author began and ended the piece on the premise that CBS has invested $10.8B in March Madness rights, ostensibly to promote white programming to while people?
If TBS was such a huge part of securing those rights (and they were), I'd like to see TBS on the whiteness index. Regardless of the title game (which will maybe double the average ratings of a national semifinal game), TBS's networks broadcast way more of the tournament, which averaged 10M+ viewers per game. They've also got a pretty big relationship with MLB for the playoffs, and they've inflicted Frank Caliendo on unsuspecting baseball fans in the same way that CBS shills Two Broke Girls.
All that said, the presumption that sports audiences are overwhelmingly white -- "appealing to an old, white demographic" -- and therefore willing recipients of white casting in shows doesn't add up for me. A UCLA study found that more diverse casting results in higher ratings: "Median household ratings peaked among broadcast television shows that were 41 to 50 percent minority, while ratings took a dive for shows with casts that were 10 percent minority or less."
The author admits the perils of taking a casting snapshot based on current programming and assigning the cast to racial buckets. And I'm not denying the preponderance of white-dominated casts on TV. I'm just saying there are some red herrings in this piece. Because, you know, I read past the first sentence.
You realize, of course, that CBS didn't pay $10.8B alone for the rights to the NCAA tournament. They did it in partnership with Turner, and the Final Four is on TBS this year for the first time. Of those 63 televised game this year, CBS carried only a portion, while TBS, TNT and TruTV carried the rest.
I only closed the tab once I discovered he wasn't referring to Chico.