England or America - Which one burns you up more?

I have returned from my short blogging exile with two gripes which have really got to me over the last few months. One is from the Yanks across the pond, whilst the other is directed at our neighbours over Offa's Dyke. Now I now One Man has become a nerve centre of nagging of late, but you will learn in time - this is what I do! Just ask Jen!

Gripe Number One - American TV advertising

Now I enjoy the good advert. The quality of advertising isn't at fault here. But if any of you have the channel ABC1 from your freeview or Sky boxes, you may see where I'm going with this.

If I'm not British, I'm certainly Welsh. But when its comes to TV I guess I am a typical Brit; a cup of tea with most programmes, watch the odd soap (yes now and again) and ensure that the kettle is on during the break for another cuppa. I assume that the way ad breaks are planned out on this island is a typical, standard British thing - theres a break before the programme, then one, two or three breaks are equally distributed throughout the programme so that each part is similar in length, then there is another break after the end of the programme to begin the cycle again for another programme. With me so far? Not rocket science at this point.

But if you watch this heathenous channel (yes it's heathenous, because it is American) you will know that this pattern of advertising is very different. I was reminded of this idiotic timing when I watched Scrubs on ABC1 the other day. To begin, the end of the previous programme rolls pretty much straight into the programme you want to watch, then when you get a small glimmer of the plot (lets say, not even 2 minutes in some cases) you get an ad break. Note at this point, that this channel tends to air a lot of 30-minute-time-slot sitcoms like Scrubs, so this is based purely on these type of shows. Then you watch pretty much the entire thing - then 2 minutes before the end, you get a break. After you have finished channel-flicking, kettle boiling, toilet going etc., they show the remaining few scenes - which are sometimes not worth coming back for! Then once the credits roll you know that another programme will start almost immediately.

I assume that this is the American way of advertising - ABC1 being a Brit channel but owned by the ABC corporation which airs Yankie sitcoms. But why alter with such a simple and effective way of 'ad timing' WHY!?!? For the same reason the Americans have to change everything for better ratings, which leads to a bigger profit. By watching the end of a programme, I am immediately thrown into another programme's beginning. I, as an average human being, will then watch that programme because I, just like most people, am lazy. If I get a sniff of the plot, I will stay for more. Once I have consumed a whole chunk of sitcom goodness, those bastards make me wait for the final 3 minutes. Then like a mug I wait (because the last 25 minutes would surely be wasted if you don't wait) and I watch the end, only to be flung into another programme.... and so on. Bottom line - American telly has evolved to ensure YOU watch. We are still in the stone age when it comes to network television.

But do you know what? I like the stone age. I don't want some network producer insulting my intelligence or trying different techniques so that I end up watching an episode of Hope and Faith (which is awful by the way). The ad break at the end of a programme is there for a reason, a bloody good reason as well! We need breaks between programmes to make sure we don't turn into couch potatoes, slobbing in front of the TV all day!

Sorry - this anti-American rant has been coming for a while. Especially with my current essay about how the US is denying the world the human rights it says it provides. Let it be known - Scrubs is now a Sky One treat when I go over my mum and dad's house.

Gripe Number Two - The British media and the celebrity

I hate the British media. I really do. And I hate the fact that we love celebrities so much. We are that sad that we 'have' to dream about them at night. We 'have' to step over our own mothers to meet them. We 'have' to do anything to become one. Why?!?!

Of course, both the media and the celebrity come hand in hand. The British media thrives on celebrity, celebrity thrives on the media. Call me jealous, call me envious, call me whatever - I bloody hate the celebrity culture. But do you know what I hate more? The fact that it is a particularly British quality. People do jump for joy in the name of the famous in other countries - but not as much as we do.

Two examples show this. Sven Goran Eriksson, the England manager who was exposed for a money grabber he is by the 'fake Sheikh' - courtesy of the News of the World - was perhaps shown by the media for the greedy man he really was by that stunt. If you are unaware, Eriksson was tricked into thinking a wealthy sheikh was interested in buying a Premiership club and was fooled into thinking he would be the new manager of it. He betrayed the confidenitality of some of his players including David Beckham and Michael Owen. It eventually cost him his job.

Fair enough when considering that he received his due for his actions - but why did the media have to take this step? Do we enjoy analysing celebrities so much that we want to see them fail and suffer, as well as live the high life? It was clear that Sven was pissed off at this debacle - but not at what he had done, but at the lengths the British media went to in intruding his private life. He has never been quiet about the role of the media whilst he was manager before now; they had always stuck their nose too far.

My second example - oddly enough Sven's potential succesor - Article!

Scolari has said in the above article:

"I don't want anything more to do with this England matter because in the space of two days... my life was invaded, my privacy was disrupted," said Scolari, who will remain Portugal coach until after the World Cup.

"There are 20 reporters outside my house now. If that is part of another culture, it is not part of my culture. I am not the coach, and will not be (England's) coach."

This is where I start to smile because the unthinkable has happened. The British media has actually chased someone away. It's clear that this over-exposure of the situation has scared Scolari, to which I dont blame him for at all. The egg yolk remains on the English and the FA - their media has cost them very dearly - and now they are back to square one, not to mention the embarrassment of pushing Scolari to the front of the queue only for him to reject. Maybe England will think twice before sending twenty million reporters to harass any given person next time.

So the choice is yours! Which one peeves you off more?!?!?!!?!?!?