Category: Television

Selling Alastair Cooke

In December 2005, Cooke’s family learned that his body had been surgically plundered and the pieces sold to different bidders. A body brokerage company had harvested his bones, falsified his medical records–claiming he had died at 85 of a heart attack–to make them more marketable, and then sold them to at least two tissue banks.

Cooke’s was one of more than 1,000 bodies allegedly stolen by the company, New Jersey–based Biomedical Tissue Services. Prosecutors say the company and the funeral home, Daniel George & Son, made millions of dollars harvesting pieces of the cadavers, instead stuffing bodies for burial with broomsticks and piping. An investigation is ongoing.

Here is the full story, and thanks to Bookman for the pointer.

How Economists and Journalists Can Get Along

Brad De Long and Susan Rasky have a list of Twelve
Things Journalists Need to Remember to Be Good Economic Reporters
and Twelve
Things Economists Need to Remember to Be Helpful Journalistic Sources
.  Lots of good stuff.  Here are two favorites, the first nominally for journalists, the second for economists.

Never write "economists disagree." No matter how limited
your space or time, never write "economists disagree." Write WHY economists
disagree. An expert who cannot explain why other experts think differently isn’t
much of an expert. A reporter who can’t fit an explanation of where the
disagreement lies into the assigned space isn’t much of a journalist. A
journalist who cannot figure out the source of the disagreement is a journalist
who is working for whoever has the best-funded public-relations firm–and is
working for them for free.

Get over your snobbery about local television news. This is a genuine
opportunity to reach the public. Learn to use it. Remember that the local TV
reporter’s gasoline-price story this evening will be seen by 300,000 people.
Your op-ed will be read by 20,000, if you are lucky. Your journal articles will
be seriously read by 12.

The Apprentice and Group Identity

The final two candidates in Donald Trump’s The Apprentice lead two teams through a task.  Every year Donald asks the respective team members who should win.  If the members answered objectively then each team should split in about the same proportion.  Yet almost invariably the members of each team tell Donald that the candidate that led them in the last task is the best. 

This is an interesting example of how easily our own identity can become tied to that of a group.  We are the Red team, and the Red Team leader is the best.  The Robber’s Cave may be more difficult to exit than Plato’s cave.

The failure of the teams to split in equal proportions also means that information fails to aggregate.  The Donald learns nothing from the people who know the candidate the best, the employees. 

Comments are open especially if you have other examples of the malleability of group identity and how it can distort information aggregation.

Dismal’s Paradox

Here is the Daily Show’s John Hodgman explaining how the Dismal Science got its name:

Jon Stewart: Uh, the way you’ve explained the tax cuts doesn’t really seem fair.

John Hodgman: Fairness isn’t really the point.  They don’t call economics the dismal science because it’s fair. 

JS:  Well, I suppose not.

JH: No, no, they call it that after Sir Eustice Dismal.  The 18th century English economist who proposed making smokestacks out of children. 

JS: I uh, I actually never knew that.

JH: Yes, it was a very interesting proposal but ultimately flawed.  I mean if you make the smokestacks out of children who will you force to clean them?…

JH: Yes, it’s referred to as Dismal’s paradox.

The real story which, contrary to popular opinion has nothing to do with Malthus, can be found here.

How will the web affect TV shows?

Shortly you will be able to see Lost episodes for free on the web, albeit with commercials (btw, my theory is that they have entered a parallel universe and are being tested by a non-omnipotent God).  I’ve bought Battlestar Galactica episodes through iTunes. 

But how will this affect the content of TV programs?  I see a few possibilities:

1. Individual episodes are more complex and less likely to be self-contained.  To watch only one show of Lost or BSG leaves you baffled.  But who can make sure he catches every episode?  What if you want to leave the country for a while?  Now if you have missed a show, you can use the Web to keep in touch with the longer and more integrated story.  You will do this even if you, like I, find web viewing distasteful and inconvenient.  Not everyone can afford TiVo, and some of us still need Yana to operate the remote and indeed the service itself.

This mechanism will raise the intellectual quality of TV.

2. Perhaps the time lengths of programs will vary more.  Has The Sopranos gone on a nearly two-year hiatus?  How about a fifteen-minute web shortie to keep us interested?

3. (Some) webcasts will be reproducible on iPods.  You will show the highlights of episodes to your friends.  Perhaps many producers will make episodes to stress "the best two minute stretch or skit" rather than the show as a whole.  Just as the song is outliving the album, perhaps the skit will outlive the show.

4. Might it, as Mark Cuban suggests, support soap operas in real time?  What better to watch on your work computer, during work hours?  In the longer run, the more entertaining your computer becomes, the more people will be paid by commission; blame blogs for that too.

5. TV on the web, in essence, shortens the release window for ancillary products.  How big a deal is the DVD in six months’ time if a web version exists now?  And what does shortening the release window do?  It will be harder to figure out what is a hit.  It will lower movie budgets.  It will increase the relative advantage that low-cost drama has over special effects spectaculars.  Surely you can think of more effects on this count.

Comments are open…

Polar bears are taking over the south Pacific

These days I am up for another TV show, so I tried Lost.  The plane crashes between LA and Sydney, and before episode one is over they have encountered a polar bear (sound familiar?).  So far I like it.  Real rates of return appear to be negative, a virtual prerequisite for good tragedy.  Next on my list is 24, but it will take a few months for me to get there.

In the meantime, suggest another topic for blogging.  Three separate mentions are required for the topic, and again I rule out the libelous, the obscene, and the physically impossible.  Mulch I already have covered.  I will return to the topic of "advice" (thank you for the kind words), so no need to mention that either.  Comments, of course, are open.

Addendum: Here are more Cheney jokes, do follow the link to the WSJ page.

Second addendum: Ladies and gentleman, "exercise" is the winner but I will take ideas from further suggestions in the comments, so keep on adding topics if you wish.

How quickly should I go through my stock of Battlestar Galactica?

The Hotelling rule tells us to consume a stock so the shadow value rises at a rate commensurable with the rate of interest…or something like that.  C’mon, let ‘s get real.  Here are a few options:

1. Set aside one day for a BSG fest.  I would lose the pleasures of anticipation, so no way.  (Would you want all non-currents-events-specific MR posts available all at once?)  The pleasures of memory would be weaker as well.

2. Have a strict rule, such as one a day.

3. Have a stranger impose a rationing pattern.  Sometimes we call this stranger the Science Fiction Channel.  But what about the accumulated stock of programs on DVD?

4. Watch it when your wife lets you (not an issue for those that have married well).

5. Refuse to watch the last episode, in an attempt to deny your mortality.

6. Watch them at an increasing rate.

#3 is appealing, but so far I am opting for #6.  Comments are open, if you wish to rationalize what you already have done.

Addendum: This question will become more important.