"Never Underestimate the Power of Stupid People in Large Groups"

Today, I read this article and some of the comments surrounding it, and I have to say that it riles me up.

Changing "Sci-Fi" to "Syfy" is quite possibly the most ridiculous change in branding I have come across in my 23 years of existence. Supposedly, their focus group says that it is similar to how the channel would "text," but honestly, it makes me think of syphilis. Not exactly an appealing notion to market your network on. It's also clearly a step in "broadening" the appeal of the network for a "more mainstream" audience.

What happened to the concept of loyalty in this country? To fidelity? To fit into a niche and supporting a small but very loyal following? Why is every product dumbed down to the lowest common denominator (ECW Wrestling, reality TV, etc.)? The entire purpose of cable TV was to create content for these niche audiences, content that wouldn't be found on the networks, but now, in the midst of a conglomerated culture that has sought to be all things to all people in an effort to post the most profit in the least amount of time, diversity is considered nothing more than an impediment to dividends. They want babys and grandmas (but most especially those Generation X-ers in-between) to watch everything at every time for maximum revenue generation. It's not about long-term loyalty and all about short-term profit margins -- the same bullshit mentality that has brought this country's economy to its knees.

Personally, I have a hard time believing that "Syfy" was rigorously vetted through focus groups. Sure, you can trademark it, but that doesn't make it intelligent or appealing. I see only syphilis.

It should be a hit for the kids.

The other mass stupidity on my mind today is this constant scapegoating of the media. No matter if you're a lefty-loony or a righty-tighty, the media is always biased to the other side if what they report doesn't subscribe to your viewpoint. Right now, if Obama is praised or defended, it's the liberal elite media. If he's criticized or if Bush is defended, it's the corporate shill mainstream media. I'm not saying that there's no validity to such complaints, but to simply dismiss all the media because one article or reporter apparently takes a stand different that your own is sophomoric at best and schizophrenic at worst.

To my mind, the fact that both sides can complain suggests that SOMETHING must be right; if one side were always ignored, there might be some validity, but everyday the media is presented as both; even the same network can be accused of being "Obamabots" or "rethuglicans" at the SAME TIME. If anything, the problem is that the media is incompetant, having lost sight of reporting the truth and is instead more interested in "gets" and generating maximum ratings -- another casualty of the modern corporate culture. It is perfectly natural to disagree with the media's spin, perhaps even preferable. We shouldn't resort to namecalling and generalization simply due to disagreements. Calling out a specific person or article, that's fair, but a blanket dismissal is intellectually lazy.

We've got to end this entire "more is more" corporate stupidity in this country, wanting all with us now and forgetting about the long haul. Whether it's crushing a niche market or devaluing alternative points-of-view, this mentality is undermining the fabric of America. We were meant to disagree, to listen to varied opinions, and to enjoy different leisures. These differences are what keeps our society dynamic and in balance; without them, we will become stagnant and "drown" in our own filth. We can break off into smaller, more concentrated groups, whether it be the Green Party or a gang of geeks settling down for a Star Trek marathon. That way, when we all mingle at work or the neighborhood barbecue, the interactions will be all the richer for it.

Smarter, smaller, more diverse trains of thought for all!