Why The Hell Am I Watching Below Deck?

Below Deck is a show on Bravo that my wife and I watch together. I've been asking myself why I watch this show. I think I have answers. For one, it's about money and social class. Rich people chart a yacht for leisure and luxury. It's a variation on the theme of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. For whatever reason, it's interesting to watch rich people hang out on a boat and be served upscale food. Maybe I'm jealous. Maybe I picture myself having the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to vacation like this in my next lifetime. I do like when the crew makes fun of the guests behind their backs.

Another factor is sexual intrigue. There is sexual tension on the yacht and sexual tension makes for good television. The most recent episode I watched included a liaison in the laundry room between two crew members. One of the participants, named Rocky, is a feisty and funny woman who in earlier episodes seemed close to a sexual encounter with Emile, a young man who seemed all too eager for sexual shenanigans. Rocky seems like a breakout star in the making. I wouldn't be surprised if she gets her own reality show after this season or at least is cast in a more high-profile show.

It's not all about sex. There's general fighting and bickering that occurs between crew members. Kate, the serious and always on her game crew member, is constantly busting the chops of chef Leon and accusing him of not trying hard enough to please the guests. Leon defends his culinary skills and tells Kate he doesn't like her, and usually does just enough in the kitchen to make the guests happy. I guess it's fun to watch people fight at work.

One more thing. There is drinking. Lots of drinking. The guests party. The crew parties. A deck hand named Dane showed up for a few episodes but was kicked off the yacht for excessive drinking. He was let go by Captain Lee, the cranky leader who demands high-level performance from his crew. The steady Captain displays a soft side in providing compliments and positive reinforcement at just the right times. He also distributes tip money to the crew that guests leave when they depart, usually in the $15,000 range. 15 large, baby!

So there you have it. Money. Rich people. Good-looking crew. Sex. Drinking. Arguing. Some of your basic ingredients in a 21st century reality show. Get your popcorn ready! And then get back to your normal life, buddy!

First TVs, Then Fox News on TV

Increasingly, Fox News seems to be the default station in restaurants and other establishments that I visit. I live in Western New York (also known as the Buffalo-Niagara region), a place that a friend once described as "a red part of a blue state." There obviously was a time when flat screen televisions weren't playing in grocery stores and diners; now it's common for me to see Fox News airing in these and other places.

The experience of being in airports with CNN on every screen is familiar to many. When CNN is on the screen, it's easier for me to grasp. After all, CNN was the first cable news operation, and is still considered by some to be a neutral news source (or at least to provide the appearance thereof). If Fox and MSNBC occupy polar opposites of the cable news spectrum in their overall presentation of politics, CNN exists somewhere in-between, at times closer to MSNBC, other times nearer to Fox.

It's rare for me to see MSNBC airing in local establishments. MSNBC projects something resembling the liberal viewpoint, however 'liberal' is to be understood when presented by a corporate-cable news entertainment operation. MSNBC hosts and pundits don't always flatter President Obama and other Democrats. But the channel tends to give Democrats the benefit of the doubt in its construction of 'progressive' politics and viewpoints. MSNBC, in a 'lean forward' corporate way, sends signals about politics and culture that are qualitatively different than those that come from Fox News.

The most recent instance of seeing Fox News on a screen in public was when I went to a diner with my family. I'd never been to the diner before. We were seated at a booth. Two big TV screens were easy for me to see: a local news station on one and Fox News on the other. A music station was playing, so the TVs were muted. So one screen was Fox News (known for sensational headlines and coverage obviously unflattering to President Obama and anything approximating the liberal cause). The juxtaposition was interesting: local news doing what local news does (crime stories, pet stories, profiles of local businesses, weather forecasts) alongside Fox News (consistent undermining of President Obama and other Democrat politicians).

I'm not sure what place Fox News has in a diner. Or a supermarket. If you're wondering, it's not MSNBC that I want to see on these screens. The torso and head of Chris Hayes or Ed Schultz doesn't naturally fit into a diner or supermarket scheme either. I don't walk into a coffee shop hoping to see Morning Joe on the screen ("brewed by Starbucks"). I don't know any self-described liberal who eagerly anticipates the next opinion from Ed Rendell or Eugene Robinson. Corporate cable news-entertainment from any station at the pub and elsewhere in public feels to me like an intrusion; an unwanted and unnecessary infusion of politics into my everyday life.

All of this to say: It used to be that television screens were reserved for sports bars and airports, now they appear in more and more places where I live, and usually set to Fox News. Why? To what effect?

I hope a few readers will share observations. What is it like in your daily life--TVs set to The Weather Channel, ESPN, local news, or something else? How do you feel about what's on? In terms of the stations that are on, what messages do you think are being sent to patrons?

.

Facebook Is Television

I'll just write, free form, without hyperlinks or images. I'm writing to write, to write out loud, and writing instead of watching TV or watching Twitter. I'll write for a while, until my 2-year-old wakes up from a nap. He might nap for an hour, or two, so that gives me time to write and wonder.

What comes to mind first? I guess I've been wanting to say something about Facebook. I want to say something about why I'm glad I didn't have Facebook in college, kind of a response to this piece by Nathan Jurgenson that I like. I know, I said no hyperlinks, but that's only one. Jurgenson makes a lot of good points in the post. It would be nice if we weren't so worried about our image, and if we weren't so scared of our "digital dirt" (a phrase he uses that I really like), but how can we not be afraid of our digital dirt? So many  people in this world are so quick to judge, to use information against you, to hold you accountable to the "worst" parts of your past. I guess I just wanted to briefly and simply say that people are judgmental. Jurgenson asks:

What if more people wore past identities more proudly? We could erode the norm of identity consistency, a norm no one lives up to anyways, and embrace change and growth for its own sake.

That's a really good question. And maybe he's right. And maybe people aren't as judgmental as I think. Sometimes we want to be judged by our best work, not by our more foolish and immature moments, and I think that's partly where the "Glad I didn't have Facebook in high school" (or college) statement comes from.

* * * * * * * *

Now comes the part when I refer to something I said in Introduction to Sociology last semester. I was talking with students about Facebook, and comparing Facebook with television, and then I blurted out "Facebook is television." I don't know if anybody has already said that, or written about it. Please alert me if someone has. I don't want to steal someone else's idea (or plagiarize). It's getting impossible to be original in this day and age. There are too many smart people writing smart things. Well, "Facebook is television" is a pretty simple thought anyway. Facebook, like television, is something that's on. Remember when Bruce Springsteen wrote "57 Channels (And Nothin' On)" Sugar, that's hyperlink number two. A blogger can't help himself. Anyway, the Springsteen song is from 1992. We were already complaining about all the crap that's on. Now it's three million channels and nothing is on. I think that's a reason people complain about Facebook: much of the time, there's nothing on. That's not to disrespect our friends and family members who post pictures of their kids or their dinner. But how many times does one want to see a rerun of somebody else's cute kid? How many times can you watch a rerun of How I Met Your Mother? (What's up with that show, I can't figure it out for the life of me. I've never made it through an episode, so I must be referring to people who watch it a lot).

Well, you get the point. There's a lot on. There's a lot to consume. Same for Twitter. Which is why I wonder if the term "backchannel" should just be "channel." The hashtag lets us check out what's going on behind the scenes (or, should I say, what's going on in the scene). It's surfing through Twitter and seeing what's on.

Okay, I haven't said anything about producing content. I recognize we are producers-consumers these days, but I tend to focus on consumption. A serious question: what does the research tell us about the ratio of consuming to producing? Is it accurate to say that most people consume way more than they produce? I'm inclined to think from the perspective of a consumer. Maybe it's because I consume a lot. Yes, I produce too, but not as much as I consume. Honestly, I need to study up on prosumption. Maybe I give too much attention to being a consumer.

In any case, thinking as a consumer, I think there's something to the notion that "Facebook is television." Facebook, Twitter, television, YouTube, Vine (first impression: Vine is pretty cool) give us a million of channels to watch (and gripe about). Forgive me for all the parentheses. I probably use too many when I write. And I know we're not always griping about what's on. We enjoy much of what we watch. What we watch makes us laugh and makes us feel a whole bunch of emotions. "A whole bunch of emotions" is a badly written phrase. It's a sign that I've been writing for 42 minutes without a break.

So I will take a quick break to grab a drink of water.

I'm back after a few minutes. I ended up exchanging a few text messages with my wife.

Well, I'm going to give this post one quick proofread and wrap it up. Mack might surprise me and wake up any moment. And by the time I come back to this post, I might just delete it or decide not to post it.

I did some proofreading and minor editing. I've been at this for an hour now. I've been thinking about this stuff for a long time, but the actual writing and editing took one hour. So know that it's not totally thought through. So why post it? Why not sit on it longer and make it better? Well, I told you, I just wanted to write out loud for a while.