Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

Super Bowl Commercial Skewer-a-thon 311

Posted by michael from the because-pets-can't-drive dept.
tunabomber writes: "Those planning on tuning in to America's Patriotic Sports TV Event of the Year to catch the new commercials will no longer have to sit through all that football filler. PBS, of all networks, is airing a postgame show in which the subject of discussion is not the game, but the commercials. Super Commercials: A Mental Engineering Special is a beefed-up episode of the cultish Mental Engineering series where a panel of experts, including former Daily Show host Lizz Winstead and a Silicon Valley computer scientist, critique (read: eviscerate) Super Bowl commercials. There are also blurbs about this at The Kansas City Star and The St. Paul Star Tribune." One thing you'll be able to look forward to: fewer sock puppet commercials, more anti-terror commercials.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Super Bowl Commercial Skewer-a-thon More

Super Bowl Commercial Skewer-a-thon

Comments Filter:
  • This is great. Advertising may be annoying, but only when it's poorly done. I look forward to seeing this and learning more about well done ads. Besides, since AdCritic went away it's hard to get as much fun out of the commercials.

    • Re:Fantastic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kilgore_47 ( 262118 ) <kilgore_47 AT yahoo DOT com> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @02:40AM (#2929651) Homepage Journal
      One thing you'll be able to look forward to: fewer sock puppet commercials, more anti-terror commercials.

      Those aren't anti-terrorist commercials! They're anti-drug/anti-personal-freedom commercials!

      They're taxpayer-funded government propaganda designed to fool people into thinking that users of ilegal drugs are somehow supporting terrorism. In reality, the only actual drug/terror link would be in opium-related narcotics (ie heroin), but I don't expect the super bowl ads will mention that. I also don't imagine they'll mention that opium exports from Afghanistan have increased since the Taliban was ousted, namely because the Taliban had (at our request) banned farmers from growing opium. No, these ads will just say that drug users support terrorists.

      Personally, I'm 100% certain that when I buy MY drugs, they're locally grown and I'm in no way supporting terrorism. And it makes me awfully bitter that my taxes are being spent on a pair of superbowl ads that do nothing but slander me and the millions of other innocent americans who happen to enjoy smoking pot.

      There are real threats to this country right now. The government was able to arrest 734,498 Americans [lp.org] for smoking pot last year, but was somehow unable to catch one lunatic in a cave in the mountains. It's downright shamefull.

      • Re:Fantastic (Score:2, Interesting)

        by perlyking ( 198166 )
        Welcome to the modern equivalent of these kind of misleading adverts [imagesjournal.com].

      • Those aren't anti-terrorist commercials! They're anti-drug/anti-personal-freedom commercials!

        Amen to that. I was just going to post a little rant about what a ridiculous and strained connection there is between drugs and terrorism. But you did a fine job yourself.

        I thought maybe the gov. would want to do a little generic patriotic spot, something that helps bolster the illusion that we are the best nation on earth, or maybe a call to voluntary service, etc., but no, they use terrorism to further their anti-freedom agenda. Hey, maybe they can find a link between abortion and terrorism next!

        I guess if you don't like something these days, just call it terrorism.

  • Can't you hear it now? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by alansz ( 142137 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @01:40AM (#2929496) Homepage
    "Super Commercials: A Mental Engineering Special" is made possible by a grant from Doubleclick.

  • Wow (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DJ rCn ( 546098 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @01:40AM (#2929497)
    I didn't think PBS would ever step into the realm of something like this. Television commercials and commercial sporting events have never really been the focus of PBS programming. But this could signal a change of direction maybe for PBS programming, especcially seeing its a post game show. As in right after the game. Not a program that will be aired in 3 months which is the usual PBS stuff, it's all researched and taped, it's never really live. This is an interestingf concept.

    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Com2Kid ( 142006 ) <com2kidSPAMLESS@gmail.com> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @02:02AM (#2929562) Homepage Journal
      "Television commercials and commercial sporting events have never really been the focus of PBS programming."

      Nor are they now. The psychology BEHIND those commericals on the other hand, and even more so educating the public as to exactly what they are being constantly exposed to fits very well within the goals and ideals of public television.

      Also makes for one darn fine program too. If I may say so. :)


      • In, say, 1975, it may have been true that PBS showed a decent percentage of intelligent, out-of-mainstream programming--I certainly remember it being more high-minded when I was a kid--but that hasn't been the case for a long time.

        Present-day PBS is devoted to promoting what used to be referred to derisively as "middle-class tastefulness," to stroking the self-satisfied "soft elitism" of a semi-rich, mostly white, baby-boomer audience who fancy themselves enlightened and cultured because they prefer light theatre to sit-coms (unless those sit-coms are British), pops concerts and soft AOR rock to "crazy modern music" and MTV, Julia Child to Martha Stewart, the thoughtless pseudo-leftism of the American university to the thoughtless pseudo-rightism of dirty blue-collar slobs, and the white-bread consumerism of the Crate & Barrel to the white-trash consumerism of the Home Shopping Club.

        It's just another "lifestyle channel" with a superiority complex borne of its guaranteed existence regardless of its lack of popularity amongst the proles whom it deigns to "educate."

        The specific show in question, Mental Engineering, has got to be the most miserable piece of shit I've ever seen. For those who haven't seen it, it goes like this: Attention-starved minor local media celebrities, failed academics, and a hack comedian play back a few tv commercials, and intersperse them with soft-spoken, moderately intelligent--if only by tv standards--commentary and slow-witted "quips," agree with each other about everything, and laugh dignified little fake laughs. Riveting stuff. It's kind of like a painfully drawn-out Daily Showsegment, but not as smart, not as critical of mainstream opinion, and not funny.

        • PBS has become a more commercialized (and therefore less intelligent) venture mainly because it has lost the support of viewers and now relies almost entirely on corporate sponsors. Corporate sponsors, of course, expect ratings and ratings only come with pop trash.

          I would also argue, though, that PBS varies from station to station. Here in New York we actually have 3 PBS channels available and I can see a huge difference in the programming between them.
        • > semi-rich, mostly white, baby-boomer audience who fancy themselves enlightened and cultured because they prefer light theatre to sit-coms (unless those sit-coms are British), pops concerts and soft AOR rock to "crazy modern music" and MTV, Julia Child to Martha Stewart, the thoughtless pseudo-leftism of the American university to the thoughtless pseudo-rightism of dirty blue-collar slobs, and the white-bread consumerism of the Crate & Barrel to the white-trash consumerism of the Home Shopping Club.

          Hey, Julia can cook. She's not afraid to dollop half a stick of butter and a whole head of garlic into a recipe when it's called for. Julia's mad c00x0ring sk1llz wipe the friggin' pan with Martha's.

          Of course, light theatre bites just as bad as sitcoms, and even though eMpTyV doesn't play music anymore, that "light rock"... *shudder*.

          Yeah, OK. You're right about most of the stereotypes of PBS viewers. But lay off Julia and the French Cuisine, man. Step the fsck back ;-)

  • Man I love that show, hard as hell to catch though. One of the local PBS affiliates (there are three in my city, yaah! w00t w00t, one f which runs the Classical Arts Showcase for twelve hours a day, DAMNIT the Northwest rocks! :) :) ;) ) seems to run it sporadically, but in this case sporadically could very well mean "I just don't catch it all that often."

    Darnit.

    They don't have their video archive up yet (says coming soon. . . .) and I doubt that I'd find this series on most P2P file sharing programs. :)

    The Computer Nerd that they have on there is a little bit too much New Agey for me though, he is one of those "The Internet Will Change All Of Mankind" types of people who uses WAAAY to many buzzwords and has in the past (at least on that show) went on about how such and such technology was going to vastly change us all but in the end said technology just flopped.

    Oh well, still a kick ass show though. :) Even if they /do/ tend to over analyze things a bit, hehe (tis their job after all. :) :) :) )

  • Ad report cards at Slate (Score:3, Informative)

    by migstradamus ( 472166 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @01:45AM (#2929513) Homepage
    Slate magazine's Moneybox [msn.com] runs a regular series of "Ad report cards" that are fairly savvy. This one linked to above previews some Super Bowl ads.

    Mig
  • I am glad to see someone is doing this. Since Ad Critic shut down, I have nowhere to view commercials anymore. Kudos to PBS.

  • Not a bad idea. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bob_Robertson ( 454888 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @01:48AM (#2929521) Homepage
    Disecting commercials is an interesting exercise. Too bad it's tax money being spent on giving the commercials yet *another* showing.

    I think it's fascinating the cultural and social aspects of advertizing. Effective commercials have to hook into as much "common" thinking as possible in order to be profitable. Or, like the famous Mac "Metropolis" commercial, link into our cultural shared imagery.

    I look forward to real "smart chips", that can be used to recognize commercials and turn the sound off, maybe turn down the contrast for the duration of the commercial. I really hate the way stations turn up the volume during the commercials as a form of forced attention grabbing.

    But the extra volume is good for one thing, I can hear the commercials end so I know when to come back from the kitchen/bathroom.

    Bob-

    • ..."Too bad it's tax money being spent"...

      Advertisers know that this is one television event that not only will have a large audience, but will have viewers looking forward to viewing commercials. The government knows this too.

      and

      ..."I can hear the commercials end so I know when to come back from the kitchen/bathroom."...

      This is a multi-use room? I thought that the dining/living room or den/playroom was as far as that went! ;)

    • Re:Not a bad idea. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by bryan1945 ( 301828 )
      Very little tax money, really. That's why they have all those moneyraisers.

      As for the smart chips, do you really think that the content producers will ever let that go through? I don't. Especially since that commercials are required to NOT be louder than regular programming (maybe not all, maybe just broadcast?), but still are on almost every channel- my SciFi channel being particularly bad at this.
    • Too bad it's tax money being spent on giving the commercials yet *another* showing.


      About 10% of PBS/NPR funding comes from tax dollars. Let's not compare their paltry slice to the amount of corporate welfare that funds AOL-Time-Warner, NBC, CNN, et al, as you might poop your pants.

      I really hate the way stations turn up the volume during the commercials as a form of forced attention grabbing.


      Stations don't turn the volume up - the audio is compressed during production so the commmercials will play back louder. It's been done for years in pop music, which explains why your typical modern-rock station is completely unlistenable (from an audio standpoint).


      mb

    • Actually, my Panasonic television set has exactly that feature... volume normalization. It's pretty nifty.
  • TV guide named the 1984 Apple superbowl commercial as the best commercial of all time.

    I wonder if they have a different opinion on who Big Brother is now??
  • Cool - while ESPN, CNN/SI and Fox are breaking down the game, PBS will be breaking down who spent their 2.5 Million per 30 seconds the best. If the game is not at all interesting, this could be the best thing to tune to after the game.

    Besides, sometimes things like herding cats just has to be panned.

    RonB
    • Actually, this year's winner is the Britney Spears/Pepsi add, which is running at (a record) $9 for 90 seconds, or a good 500K more per 30 seconds.

      Wait, $100,000 per second!! There is something just so inherently wrong with that...
    • Cool - while ESPN, CNN/SI and Fox are breaking down the game, PBS will be breaking down who spent their 2.5 Million per 30 seconds the best.

      Or maybe even breaking down and commenting upon a different "game".
  • Yahoo's been carrying Pepsi's prehype ads for their Superbowl commercials for some time... and I don't know if it's just GIF/JPG problems or...

    But ever time I see Britney now, it just looks like she's become a Barbie doll.

    Can someone *confirm* this? Damn thing looks disgusting on the web. If it's true, I think I *won't* be watching TV for the next six months...
  • So have we reached the point where we publicly proclaim that we now enjoy being told what to do and what to think by people whom we know only want our money. Are we really that far gone and are our attention spans that short or is it merely that the greatest writers of our generation are writting little ditties and thirty second spots for Nike that are immessurably superior to story over the length of 22 minutes that exists.
    • People have always been pushing some agenda - trying to sell something. It was the greek philosophers who first observed that the truth of the issue is not what matters in showing a point, so much as the persuasiveness of the speaker through logos, ethos, and pathos. Its an art that has been studied for thousands of years, and a good persuasion is something to be admired, no matter what the outcome - at least it can be for those of us who have to communicate with other humans (I think that covers pretty much everybody).

      At the very least, we can laugh at how bad their persuasion is. I used to love watching the old "Shake 'N Bake" commercial where a child said, "My mom's making me Shake 'N Bake because she loves me." I could just imagine her finishing her thought, "and your mom doesn't because she doesn't make chicken with that." Or the "Mentos" commercials, where somebody does something sneaky, underhanded, or slightly illegal to someone else, who is understandably irritated, until they see the Mentos pop into the criminal's mouth. I keep waiting for them to push the envelope and show that anything's okay with Mentos by having someone stab someone else to death in front of a cop, and then pop a Mentos in their mouth to get the cop to let them off.

      But I digress. Commercials are an art, worth of appreciation or ridicule, despite their purpose. They are, to some degree, a form of literature, meant to do all of the same things as other media.
      Does this mean, as the author of the previous post suggests, that we have no appreciation for other forms of art?
    • It is a lot easier to be funny, thoughtful, or odd for 30 seconds than for 22 minutes. Considering that companies spends almost as much on these 30 second adds as a regular 22 minute sitcom, you tend to get a better, quick product. If "Friends" spent $2.5 million per 30 seconds for 22 minutes, ie., $110 million per episode, you would end up with a new MacBeth every week; or a new "Waterworld"- shit, just blew a whole in my own argument.

      Well, I hope that made some sense!

  • the NEW site (Score:5, Informative)

    by Com2Kid ( 142006 ) <com2kidSPAMLESS@gmail.com> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @01:54AM (#2929539) Homepage Journal
    Here is a link to the part of the site that actualy has some CONTENT on it (GASP!)

    Here [mentalengineering.com]

    Not the posters fault though, only a Google.com search turns up the real site, the one linked off of their intro page is even either old or just has not been updated with the latest content yet. :(

    Oh yah, ASF files with required plugins ahoy. :(

    (the site is also dying fast to, hehe.)

    • Re:the NEW site (Score:3, Insightful)

      by frankie ( 91710 )
      ASF files with required plugins ahoy. :(

      Oh my lord, that web site is evil [mentalengineering.com]. Every single page link is actually an applet trying to run WiMP. No HREFs, no ALT text, and certainly no NOSCRIPT. My Mozilla is completely out in the cold.

      Please voice your complaints about this affront to web standards. Here's some addresses:
      • www@pbs.org
      • webmaster@mentalengineering.com
      • crday@mentalengineering.com
      • johnforde@mentalengineering.com
      • producer@mentalengineering.com
      • hostmaster@ISD.NET
      • cswen@ARNAN.COM

  • sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nido ( 102070 ) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <65odin>> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @01:56AM (#2929541) Homepage
    Two 30-second spots ... suggest illegal drug sale profits may help fuel terrorism.

    And in the ideal world the suggestion would be caried through to the only obvious conclusion: prohibition of illegal drugs should be ended, and funds wasted on fighting the "drug war" should be redirected towards [voluntary] treatment programs for addicts. These are "your" tax dollars at work people (3.2 million of them, for 60 seconds of propaganda). If you don't like it then it's time for you to start withdrawing support from the system. (that's conceptually, semantically, and financially)

    The "war on drugs" does not have a clearly defined enemy. It's been going on for what, 30 years? And there's no end in sight. The "war on terror" also does not have a clearly defined enemy. Are you ready for perpetual war?

    • Hmm (Score:3, Offtopic)

      by Redking ( 89329 )
      Are you ready for perpetual war?
      Hmm...sounds like 1984. Yes, off-topic I know.

      rk

      • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Malcontent ( 40834 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @02:48AM (#2929669)
        Not really off topic I guess.

        It really amazes me how much orwell got it right. America seems to have really embraced his ideas. A continuing war, shifting enemies, contant surveilance, non stop bombardment of propaganda, a safe and cuddly big brother and of course doublespeak.

        When bush started up the brownshirts (I mean the USA Freedom Corps) I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
        It's double plus good to spy on your neighbors during the war of infinite justice against the axis of evil so join the USA Freedom Corps today!.

        If I didn't know better I would have sworn Orwell was the speech writer.
        • You have planted yourself firmly in the idea that Orwell's insight into society has similarities to our current situation. This helps you to ignore the real danger out there.

    • Re:sigh... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "The "war on terror" also does not have a clearly defined enemy."

      It does, fucker.
      My brother did not commit suicide, he was murdered.

      Have a nice evening motherfucker.

    • Re:sigh... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Malcontent ( 40834 )
      "The "war on drugs" does not have a clearly defined enemy"

      The war on drugs has the exact same enemy as the war on terrorism. That being you and your freedoms. These so called wars are very useful in scaring the public to give up hard won liberties not to mention all kinds of neat money laundering schemes to siphon taxpayers money.

      "Are you ready for perpetual war?"

      We have been in a state of perpetual war for ages now. Can you think of a 5 year period in the US history where we were not killing some people some place on the planet? I can't. Wether covert or overt, hot or cold, we have been in a state of continual war since vietnam. We need an enemy to make ourselves feel better and killing becomes addictive after a while. Like mass murderers who can not stay away from killing every few years we get the itch so bad we have to drop some bombs on somebody.

      • Re:sigh... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        We have been in a state of perpetual war for ages now. Can you think of a 5 year period in the US history where we were not killing some people some place on the planet? I can't. Wether covert or overt, hot or cold, we have been in a state of continual war since vietnam.

        The US government has been interfering with other people's government for over a century. The significence of Vietnam is more that it was a failure and the US people voiced their opinion of what was going on.
        The US government fears the US people, since most of the US population has no quarral with the rest of the world (assuming they even know there is a rest of the world...) But does not want to change it's policy of trying to make the rest of the world "friendly" to US government (and often corporate interests, from the sugar companies in Hawaii to the oil companies of today) by any means available.
        Probably the most suprising thing is that it took so long for something to happen on the US mainland.
    • I'm with you, make them legal. As I posted above, it has many benefits:

      Ensured qualtity=safer drugs for users
      Tax 'em like cigarettes. More state revenue.
      Put in place laws like DUI so abusers are punished.
      Extra money to treatment for abusers.

      The war on drugs is a feel-good kind of goal. We need to stop the desire on the user-end, not the supply end.

      • Ensured qualtity=safer drugs for users

        Have you ever watched "The Insider"? I used to believe that legalizing marijuana would lead to safer drugs, but to tell you the truth if I were a smoker I'd feel safer buying a joint from "Captain Reefer" than from RJ Reynolds.

    • Off-topic - so shoot me!

      Yep - legalisation is the only way to do it. As soon as you take away the need for drugs to be bought on the street you take away the drive to get new users hooked. You take that away the markt stops growing, it actually shrinks as in holland, and all these kids dont get into crime to feed their habit.

      If it fucks up thier brains so what! so does alcohol and guns, and we let them have those!

      I'd be interested in the level of drug taking among /.ers - how about a poll - drug of choice.

      never
      occational spliff
      daily hash head
      coke monster
      MDMA dance amfem dude
      speed freak
      fabulous furry freak brothers cocktail

      I'll bet we're mostly pussies that dont do nothin!
    • And in the ideal world the suggestion would be caried through to the only obvious conclusion: prohibition of illegal drugs should be ended, and funds wasted on fighting the "drug war" should be redirected towards [voluntary] treatment programs for addicts.

      In an ideal world the lesson thet prohibition dosn't work would have been learned about 80 years ago. Not only does it not work, it can actually encourage more abusive drug use as users binge due to an unreliable supply of an unregulated product.

      The "war on drugs" does not have a clearly defined enemy. It's been going on for what, 30 years? And there's no end in sight. The "war on terror" also does not have a clearly defined enemy.

      Both of these actually need the word "some" inserting.

      Are you ready for perpetual war?

      No doubt politicans are fully ready. War is a good way to divert attention away from domestic issues. After all can't risk putting all those hard working people at Microsoft, Enron, Anderson, etc under the spotlight. Or even (more diectly related to terrorism) those people working for the INS, FBI, USAF, FAA or NORAD...
  • Your tax dollars at work. Seriously, I laughed so hard when all those dot-coms of a few years ago blew half of their money on a single ad, only to go out of business a few months later. The thing is, the government doesn't have to answer about its spending, it just has to strain its citizens a little more. In this case, it is using the money of the people it is supposed to protect and using that money to tell us(if you're a US citizen) what you can and can't do. That million dollars could help save the lives of understaffed police officiers or firefighters without proper equipment, but that doesn't make the news.
    • The thing is, the government doesn't have to answer about its spending, it just has to strain its citizens a little more. In this case, it is using the money of the people it is supposed to protect and using that money to tell us(if you're a US citizen) what you can and can't do. That million dollars could help save the lives of understaffed police officiers or firefighters without proper equipment,

      Maybe because giving the illusion of "doing something" is easier than actually doing something useful. Governments are usually very reluctant to admit they did something wrong or omitted to do something they should have done... (The bigger the wrongdoing the harder they will try to draw attention away from it.)
  • the main point, will this show cover ALL the super bowl commercials? or only a select few? I wanna see them all..

    Also, will it be commercial free? ;-)

    -DrkShadow
  • What's wrong with sock puppets and herding cats? Funny stuff if you ask me.
  • First, editors post saying that TV rots your brains. TV is like cocaine (yes, I have the issue of SCIAM in front of me).

    Now, you flap your big slashdot jaw about how we stay and watch idiotic commercials during the Super Bowl?? Speak for yourself.

    I've had to wean myself over the last 2 years AWAY from TV. Truthfully, I don't miss it at all. Once you stop immersing yourselves in junk media, you realise how far others have gone... "Did you hear about Movie X, or who won Survivor XXX". So much talk, writings, shows are about other shows, essentially junk. You can guarantee that EVERYBODY on (broadcast) TV has some sort of skewing on thier shows...

    Normal network sitcoms (Full House type) are no brainer shows that promote 'good feelings' but are totally worthless in content (purpose is to drag in the dough through commercials). Next, you have documentaries on normal brodcasts (except PBS). Usually, some enviro-wacko bought a block of time to poision the minds of viewers in the attempt of acting like true information. Then you have news shows. The liberal slant is soo bad, I can't stand to watch them. The sad thing is, that they probably think they aren't THAT liberal. Then comes down to the PBS shows. These are exception, soft of. You watch the show, say about processor crafting. It seems to cover all sides of developers, but listen just a little bit after the show goes off. Brought to you by funding of Intel. I wonder what they omitted..... Perhaps AMD/Motorola/SGI???

    Josh Crawley
    • I agree that once you don't watch TV anymore you don't really miss it.

      It's somewhat sad when you mention to someone that you don't watch TV on a regular basis and them looking totally shocked. I bought a used large screen TV cheaply a few years ago but I lived in a valley where you could only receive one or two channels clear enough to see after you've messed with attennas long enough. Everyone wondered why'd I get the TV. To watch movies. (When I watch a movie I want to see it as it's meant to be.)

      For a few years I didn't even own a TV. A couple I knew gave me one just because they couldn't stand the thought that I didn't have one. Now I watch a show every now and then and think I would like to see it on a regular basis. (24, Alias, CSI) The only problem, since I've had the habit of not turning on the TV other than to see a movie I forget about the show and several episodes go by before I see it again.

      Strangly I remember a Simpson's episode where the childrens show was canceled so the kids had to find other things to do and everyone was in a utopic like world for a moment.

      But the biggest thing is people are so hooked on TV today that it controls most of what they think and how they relate. I don't watch TV because it became mind numbing after a while. Now seeing other's reactions to how TV effects their lives makes me not want to start back. Shows just keeep seeming to degenrate more and more. The ones that actually make you think are few and far between. WHen they do happen to get aired they don't tend to last long.
    • Good points.

      I haven't watched a sitcom in years. I watch some scifi and drama shows, but mostly as background with other tasks (like surfing /., he!)

      A lot of my TV watching revolves around Discovery, TLC, Animal Planet, and SciFi channel. Not so much for their series, but rather the specials like Walking with Dinos, Blue Planet, the occasional SciFi miniseries.

      I actually read about the various pop media stuff off my portal page, which I've set up with a variety of news sources. I included media stuff so I can at least be conversant with co-workers and such. The best part is I can read an article in 30 seconds and be conversant with them after they watched the hour episode! They don't even know I've never watched some of these shows!

      As for news, forget it. I occasionally watch FoxNews for O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes, but that's it. I gave up on TV and newspaper news almost 10 years ago.
      • The best channel imo is the Discovery Science channel; unlike the regular Discovery channel, they run mainly one hour science shows; no cooking shows, fix-up-your-house shows, and best of all no infomercials (even in the middle of the night). If you're an insomniac there will usually be something cool on, like an episode of Connections.
      • A lot of my TV watching revolves around Discovery, TLC, Animal Planet, and SciFi channel. Not so much for their series, but rather the specials like Walking with Dinos, Blue Planet, the occasional SciFi miniseries.

        You do realise that the two examples you give were actually made by the BBC? Also "Walking with Dinosaurs" attracted quite a degree of critisism since it presents fictional elements (in places complete fiction) as though it is facts. Similarly with the followup, "Walking with Beasts".
  • and T.V. shows dedicated to advertisements.

    Every once in a while I am happily reminded again of the reasons that I do not have a television set and why I do not watch any T.V.

    --Jeff
  • advertising - corporate mind control. or at least a bad attempt at it.

    I cannot wonder how many billions have gone down the drain in order to gain the market share that corporations want? How many billions has MS spent trying to convince folks they they are good?

    The fact that MS has not fully succeeded demonstrates the actual effectiveness of such techniques against a group of people who can thing for themselves on occasion

    except for the occasional marketing campaign for a favorite gameing system, etc.

  • Well, if they're going to follow the dot-commers' business plans for success, the next step after the multimillion-dollar Super Bowl ad is to buy comfy office chairs.

    My suggestion? By stock in Aeron, folks...

  • Adcritic is down, and it doesn't sound like the PBS show will actually re-air all of the commercials. Does anyone know where I might be able to watch the ads without sitting through hours of football?
    • Does anyone know where I might be able to watch the ads without sitting through hours of football?

      You mean hours of ads, with the occasional snippet of football, don't you?

      ...laura, not absolutely certain of the very significance of the Super Bowl

  • "The St. Paul Star Tribune"

    The Star Tribune is a Minneapolis newspaper - though it is available in St. Paul. Just thought you'd like to know.

  • Oh the irony (Score:2, Interesting)

    by xX_sticky_Xx ( 526967 )
    So back in the 80's the CIA thought it would be a great idea to help finance their terrorist war against the government of Nicaragua by selling guns to the Iranians and opening up drug trafficking routes from South and Central America to the inner cities of the US. Then they help out the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan with sales of opium. The US government then declares a War on Drugs.

    Back in the 90s, the KLA fought a dirty war against the Serbs with money made from drugs with the help of the CIA.

    Now, in 2002, Americans have to pay over $3 million to watch ads linking drugs with terrorism. Well no shit...people have been saying that all along.

    Check out a great short film that just won an award at the Sundance Film Festival called "Crack the CIA" [guerrillanews.com]produced by the Guerilla News Network. Quite revealing, featuring some footage from the Iran-Contra Congress hearings and a public confrontation between a former LAPD officer and the then Director of the CIA, John Deutch.

  • heh (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by lightfoot jim ( 441918 )
    Lizz Winstead and a Silicon Valley computer scientist, critique (read: eviscerate)

    Lizz Winstead and a Silicon Valley computer scientist, critic (read: eviscerette)

  • Odd juxtaposition (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nathdot ( 465087 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @02:36AM (#2929642)
    In reference to the 'Anti-Terrorism Ads':

    Does anybody else think that the ad juxtaposition will bea little off kilter?:

    *A dancing/singing CG cow will say something like: "This Bud's for you!"

    *Anti-Terrorism ad

    *A dancing/singing britney spears will say something like "Mmmm, pepsi... It's how to be cool!"

    :)

  • more ads i'll never get to see... sigh. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by limber ( 545551 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @02:45AM (#2929660) Homepage
    alas, here in Canada (at least in this chunk of SW Ontario), we never get to see the superbowl ads in the first place, 'cause they're typically substituted for cheesy local advertising by the Canadian broadcasters showing the event.

    here's the CRTC's lousy explanation [crtc.gc.ca]. (the CRTC is i guess a loathesome canuck version of the FCC, except considerably more pretentious and out of touch with reality.)

    apple's big brother? sock puppets? anti-terrorism? nope, more like just another "Leon's No Money Down Miracle Event!". (and no, my building doesn't allow satellite dishes)

    The other severely annoying bit that they mess around with is virtual ads [go.com]. Basically, the broadcaster superimposes logos and other teeny corporate markers over top of crowds, the first down line, and billboard shots. It's usually quite glaring.

    i just wish they would broadcast an unadulterated signal!!!
    • Just be glad that the CRTC made it possible for Cable and DSL (and broadband in general) not to be fucked over like what happened in the United States.
    • I was really amused to watch a NFL playoff game while skiing in Mont-Tremblant, Quebec. they superimposed canadian company logos all over the American stadiums. I didn't know that Canadian Tire advertises so extensively at Soldiers Field.
    • alas, here in Canada (at least in this chunk of SW Ontario), we never get to see the superbowl ads in the first place, 'cause they're typically substituted for cheesy local advertising by the Canadian broadcasters showing the event.

      Remember that if you can pyhsically pick up a signal from the US it's prefectly legal to watch it in Canada.

  • St. Paul Star Tribune? Not. (Score:5, Informative)

    by whjwhj ( 243426 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:07AM (#2929704)
    As a long time resident of Saint Paul, Minnesota, I can assure you, with all sincerity, that the Star Tribune is not a Saint Paul paper. It's a Minneapolis paper. Although I'm sure they'd like to think of themselves as a Saint Paul paper, they're not. Our paper is the Pioneer Press [pioneerplanet.com], and there isn't a single Saint Paulite who would tell you otherwise.
    • Uhh...why would they want to think of themselves as a Saint Paul paper? Is there somehow greater prestige being from there?

      I mean, it's all midwest to me.
      • Uhh...why would they want to think of themselves as a Saint Paul paper?

        Because it is. It covers mostly St. Paul and the eastern Twin Cities suburbs.

        Is there somehow greater prestige being from there?

        Ask some one from St. Paul if there is "somehow greater prestige being from there," the answer will be: Yes.

        Ask some one from Minneapolis if there is "somehow greater prestige being from there," the answer will be: Yes.

        It's really just a friendly rivalry thing. In the end, you need both to make up the whole Twin Cities package.
      • The strib like to think of itself as the newspaper of the Twin Cities (despite the "Minneapolis" in its name). The pipress usually ignores the existence of Minneapolis, or any suburbs west of the Mississippi, to the extent of including bits of western Wisconsin in its "local" coverage.

        Disclaimers: I work in Minneapolis, and live in Bloomington (a mpls suburb). But I read the Pioneer Press most mornings because the bus company [metrotransit.org] (based in Saint Paul) gives it away for free.

  • Superbowl cost effectiveness (Score:5, Informative)

    by bskin ( 35954 ) <.bentomb. .at. .gmail.com.> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:19AM (#2929726)
    A lot of people talk about companies wasting their money on superbowl ads, and say that the high costs aren't worth it. I think it's worth pointing out that in my marketing class last semester, we did a cost analysis on Superbowl advertising per viewer, and that it actually works out to some of the best bang for your buck of any advertising. If a product's market is general enough, then it's definitely worth the high cost of entry to get an ad on the superbowl. I know some of the dot com ads were pretty silly, but if they had reason to believe that their product would appeal to a general market, it was perfectly reasonable to shell out for an ad.

    Most dot coms had a lot of problems, but spending their money on advertising really wasn't one of them.

  • Thank God For Those "Anti-Terrorism Commercials".. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bowie J. Poag ( 16898 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:43AM (#2929773) Homepage


    Ah, yes...I can see it now.. A group of terrorists sitting around with potato chip crumbs all over their fancy pants getting teary-eyed over a skillfully-produced 24 second recap of the past 4 months.

    "*Sniff* *Sniff*..... You know, guys.. I need a hug. I was REALLY looking forward to hijacking a plane during halftime, armed only with a pair of Buster Brown galoshes and a plastic spork. But now... My heart just isnt in it. I just cant do it, after seeing that ad..I'm sorry, guys..it's just....*sniff*..its just those damn "marketing people" I keep hearing about, they really know how to tug at a guy's heart-strings."

    Uh..huh......Whats that sound I hear? The sound of $1,600,000 of yours and my tax dollars getting flushed down the crapper? If they really wanted to get our attention that friggin bad, they should have used the Emergency Broadcast System. We already paid for it, nobody ever uses it, and we know the futhermucking thing works. Jeezus.

    • I'm very happy that we have never used the "Emergency Broadcasting System." I can't tell you how thrilld I am that at no point did the Federal government need to announce that we had come under nuclear attack.

      Realize that when New York got hit, we didn't hear air raid sirens on the news?

      Be happy that as an American, we've lived our lives general without fear of airstrikes or foreign invasion.

      Y'all really outta get out more if you feel that two advertisements for the current war are these horrible transgressions.

      Be happy, the US wasn't ever nuked. That's a good thing. Be happy that WW III never happened (and it looks like this current situation won't result in a Christian-Muslim war) instead of being upset that we spent money on unused preparations.

      Note: I am happy that our tactical nuclear weapons weren't used to halt the Warsaw Pact's advance on Western Europe. Regardless of your feelings on the Cold War, you have to be happy that the weapons weren't used.

      Geeze, y'all are the biggest whiners on the planet.
  • I live in a big football town. Although I'm not into football I found the nightly poll results on the local news to be interesting. The question was about what people liked most about the superbowl. Most enjoyed the game , but a suprisingly large amount liked the commercials best. A small amount liked the half-time show and the people that like Cowboy Neal best liked the Pre-game show most.

    link [fox30online.com]

    They really should've had Britney as a seperate option if they wanted more accurate results IMHO.
  • Every year I feel left out and betrayed when I get to watch Super Bowl here with original commercials substituted with local run-of-the-mill-god-I've-already-seen-it-1000-time s commercials. Takes half of the fun out. I understand that commercial channels do that, after all they're in it for the money. But our non-commercial, state-owned channel does it too. Suckers. There are probably legal reasons involved, but still. I watch Super Bowl for a glimpse into a part of US culture I don't get to see otherwise, and to be forced to watch commercials for Austrian Wurst [wiesbauer.at] pisses me of

  • Copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by redelm ( 54142 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @08:31AM (#2930244) Homepage
    I'm a bit surprised PBS's lawyers would let this through. Ads are of course copyrighted material. Have the advertisers given permission (both the ad agency & sponsor)? They may not like criticism, although some say any publicity is good publicity

    Without express permission, quoting and excerpting for the purpose of criticism is surely "fair use". But I don't believe you can reproduce the complete ad, even if it is so short that complete reproduction is necessary to understand the criticism. IANAL.

  • Monster.com started it in 1999. Must have been a dozen in Y2K, flushing tens of millions down the advertising sewer. Furthermore most of those commercial were so silly, you couldn't figure what the company was about.

  • Correction on Lizz Winstead (Score:5, Informative)

    by Krelnik ( 69751 ) <timfarley@@@mindspring...com> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @09:13AM (#2930364) Homepage Journal
    Lizz Winstead [imdb.com] was never the host of The Daily Show [comedycentral.com], but she did co-create it with Madeleine Smithberg [imdb.com] and appear on-air as a correspondent a few years ago. She left the show in a dispute with then-host Craig Kilborn [imdb.com], which you can read about here [avalon.net].

    She's a very funny and talented person.

  • Actually... (in case anyone cares) It's the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
  • CBS is showing on Friday evening @ 8:00pm "Super Bowl's Greatest Commercials 2" which should give those who enjoy them a look at some of the good ones from the past. As they say "check your local listings as date/times may vary in different regions!"

Slashdot Top Deals

You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish. -- from the tunefs(8) man page

Close