Hypothetical conversation:
Me (to Friend 1): Say Friend 1, did you happen to catch thebaseball match yesterday evening?
Friend 1: Indeed I wish I had. However my roommate, Friend 2,was engaging the television.
Me: Engaging the television? But verily, it is the playoffs.
Friend 1: Aye, and I told him this.
Me: But what possibly would take precedence over our mighty RedSox and their quest for a championship?
Friend 1: "Sex and the City" reruns on TBS.
Me: Wait, what? I just threw up in my mouth.
Of course the above hypothetical conversation is an extremesituation that I hope nobody ever finds themselves in.
However, what is not extreme is the issue of TV sharing. It canbe a tenuous one for many around this campus. To borrow a page fromBrian Wolly's playbook, below I will outline several basic groundrules for television watching.
First, let me illuminate two long-standing assumptions on therights to television watching.
The first, of course, is the "first come first served"assumption. This is the assumption that Friends 1 and 2 wereoperating under in the above example. Friend 2 was the first to getto the television and thus had the right to watch something lamelike "Sex and the City." This of course leaves Friend 1 in doublethe pain. He is forced to not only miss an important playoff game,but he is also subjected to "Sex and the City," the single mostoverrated show ever in the history of ever. Plus, these are thereruns on TBS which are cut down and edited so there's nonudity.
Of course, you all see the danger in adhering to the "first comefirst served" assumption. No baseball, and for what? A watereddown, hour long, fashion magazine advertisement.
The second prevalent assumption is the democratic assumption.When the number of conflicted audience members is higher than two,this is a popular way to resolve any disputes.
Let's say that Friend 2 is watching the "Sex and the City"reruns, laughing at the lame jokes, and taking notes on Samantha'sBCBG strappy sandals. Meanwhile, Friend 1 is attempting to rip hisleft arm off and beat himself over the head with it. But Friend 3shows up. "Hi Friend 1 and 2," Friend 3 says, "What's the score ofthe game?" All of a sudden the balance of power shifts. Friend 1drops his notepad and Friend 2 pops his left arm back into itsshoulder socket.
The reason? Democracy. The votes are cast and counted, and allof a sudden by a 2 to 1 margin Friend's 1 and 3 are enjoyingwatching the Red Sox violently thrash whomever they might beplaying.
However, there is a definite danger in the democratic method.This danger is what I like to call the Laura Frye Dilemma. Myfriend Laura Frye grew up as the middle child between two red-meateating, testosterone-driven, Neanderthal brothers. Consequently,any time the Frye family attempted to make a democratic decisionregarding television, Laura's opinion would be tragicallysilenced.
Monster Truck Rallies instead of "My Little Pony," which is whyLaura is a lesbian today.
Just kidding, she's not a lesbian. But she very well could havebeen.
Generally the above assumptions are fair ways to regulate theequity of television watching. However, they do not addresspossible issues of television injustice, as was the case with mypoor non-lesbian friend Laura.
To reconcile occasions of injustice I have devised what I callthe Index of Importance. The IOI is a comprehensive scale to ratethe importance of television programs.
For example postseason sporting events, awards shows, "MondayNight Football," season premieres/finales, and "American Idol"would be the top tier. These programs take definite precedence overany other program, and over each other in the above order.
The second tier would be comprised of regular-season sportingevents, new episodes of popular primetime television shows,"Nightline," and any and all incarnations of "Law and Order."
This leaves reruns, movies, and "The O'Reilly Factor" to roundout the bottom of the pyramid.
Of course, the IOI is flexible and responsive. Let's say that onNov. 4 I want to watch the season premiere of "The OC," but ithappens to conflict with what my roommate Dan was already watching:the Country Music Awards.
According to the IOI, the Country Music Awards would takeprecedence over "The OC," however the CMAs are really, really lameand "The OC" is one of the best shows on television.
Therefore, in that situation, Dan would amiably capitulate, andI would get to find out if Seth ever makes it to Tahiti or if Ryanever returns to Newport Beach.
As an appendix to the IOI: under no circumstances whatsoevershould television priority be given to a party watching a movie ortelevision show of which they own the DVD.
For example, my roommate Scott, generally a nice kid butterribly, terribly lazy, is watching the movie "Entrapment" on theUSA network.
Now, "Entrapment" is a quality film, but it is a film that Scottowns on DVD. As Scott is watching the movie, I come into the roomand say "Hey man, 'Full House' is on the Family Channel right now.Switch it over." And he says, "Yeah but hold up. Let me just get tothe part where Catherine Zeta Jones slides under the laser beam."Scott is in the wrong.
The correct course of action is for Scott to get off his lazyass, put "Entrapment" in his computer, chapter jump until he getsto the part where CZJ slides under the laser beam, and allow me towatch a good solid half hour episode of "Full House."
If you follow the ground rules I have outlined, you will have anutterly enjoyable television watching experience.
To recap: democracy is useless, sports always take precedent, Ihave now made Catherine Zeta Jones references in two consecutivecolumns, and Ben Hoffman totally ripped me off with his"'Entrapment' as Plan B" joke. You thought I wouldn't notice Ben?I'm left handed too Ben. Maybe I could write a column aboutthat.
