Stumbling and Mumbling

CSI: a question

Just recently, my TV viewing pleasure has included the CSI franchises. But these raise a question that bugs me - why are the women such unrealistically ideal types?
The thing is, although I've met men like Gil Grissom, Mac Taylor or Nick Stokes (though, granted, few with Horatio Caine's uncanny stillness), and can recognise these as realisticish characters, I've never met women who combine intellect, looks and integrity in the way that Catherine Willows, Alexx Woods or Stella Bonasera do. (As for Calleigh, I have far more chance of being abducted by aliens than of ever meeting anyone like that).
Why is this? Is it that CSI has some kind of reverse sexism which requires it to present women, though not men, as improbably perfect?  If so, why is CSI unusual (though not unique - think of Alison Cameron in House) in doing this? The women in Sex and the City, Desperate Housewives and 24 (say) were much more realistic being, variously, neurotic, vacuously self-obsessed and not especially attractive. Or is it just that I've been unlucky? Or what?

In defence of Big Brother

It's a cliche than mankind cannot stand too much reality. But this cliche, I suspect, explains why the chatterati so hates Big Brother: Lord Puttnam says he's "not proud" of it; Adrian Gill calls it "unedifying and dispiriting"; Brendan O'Neill calls it "filth."
But what makes Big Brother so worth watching is that it is real - and it's reality that's filthy and unedifying.
Emily's woeful effort to "get down with the 'hood" (as she would probably say) was surely a funnier and more incisive glimpse into class and race relations today than anything that could have been invented by a drama or documentary-maker - as, for that matter, was Channel 4's hyerventilating hysterical response to it.
And even - especially - when nothing happens, BB is a mirror onto the world that no author could give us.
Even the best and truest dramas, such as the Simpsons or Corrie, systematically misrepresent reality. They give the impression that articulate, interesting people form meaningful social relations. BB, by contrast, gives us the truth - that people are dull, inarticulate, self-obssessed and (rightly) uninterested in each other. No drama could reveal the truth that young women are interested in little more than hair straighteners.
There is, perhaps, a deeper lesson in BB. It's that in a world in which the self and the simulacrum of individuality are so highly prized, the result is boredom, inanity and isolation, punctured by low-level conflict. But then the chatterati, who are as egomaniacal as any housemate, could never see this.

True colours?

Guido on June 1:

Big Brother's Emily is coke sniffing Cameroonie.

Her profile:

She considers herself to be right wing and will be voting Conservative in the next election. She says she has no time for benefit cheats, and believes everyone has a right to education, to make money and to keep it.

Today:

Big Brother contesant Emily Parr was dramatically removed from the house today for using a racially offensive word.The 19-year-old drama student used the word "nigger" while dancing with fellow housemate Charly in the living room.

Transcript here. Discussion of Bayes' theorem here. Lyrics to Common People here.

End this vile spectacle

Every night, a programme is broadcast in which publicity-hungry morons are thrown into a contrived environment by manipulative producers in the hope of generating conflict. And millions tune in to watch this grotesque latter-day equivalent of Bedlam.
This vile excuse for entertainment demeans us all and drags this country's reputation into the gutter.
It must be taken off the air now.
I refer of course to Newsnight.

CBB: shooting the messenger

Those who are complaining about Celebrity Big Brother are shooting the messenger. The fact is, CBB is performing a hugely valuable service by highlighting some of the nastier features of our society and teaching us some important lessons:
1. Racism needn't be overt. It can lie in motivations. With one exception, there's been little outright racism directed towards Shilpa since the loathsome Jackiey left. But there's no doubt that the bullying of her is motivated by implicit racism - worrying about where her hands have been,  speculating about why Indians are thin. It's second-degree racism.
2. Racism is not confined to the old. CBB challenges my optimistic view that racism would fade away because racist attitudes were more common among the elderly than young. But it's the older members of the house - Dirk and the lovely Cleo - who haven't been racist, and the younger ones who have.
3. CBB confirms that celebrity, at least in the UK, is an Adler phenomenon, not a Rosen one.  Jade has achieved considerable wealth despite having no talent or personal worth whatsoever. This should remind us of what all but the most bone-headed vulgar libertarians have always known - that inequalities in wealth bear little relationship to personal merit. 
4. CBB should crush the remaining moral superiority which we English - even me - are apt to feel sometimes. What's revealing about the contrast between the cultured, dignified and intelligent Shilpa on the one hand and Danielle and Jade on the other is that all are seen as representative - insofar as any single individuals can be - of their respective nations. As Morag says, shame.
5. There's a - for me - very awkward class issue here. The antagonism (racism?) directed towards Shilpa comes from the underclass. Which raises the question: is this a fair reflection of class attitudes? If so, what happened to the dignified, egalitarian working class we knew and loved (and romanticized?)?
For these reasons, I disagree with Sunny. This is reality, or at least a faint glimpse thereof - and it's not pretty. We should thank Channel 4 for illuminating some of the murkier corners of our society.
There's one final benefit of CBB. The goodness of any event - and this is a point philosophers have generally overlooked - can be tested by one question: how much pain and humiliation does it cause Teddy Sheringham? By this standard, CBB's depiction of Ms Lloyd's antics has been a wholly good thing. 

The economics of Pop Idol

From the people who gave us this comes this fine analysis of the economics of Pop Idol and manufactured celebrities. It's a great read, especially by the standards of German economics. Some highlights:

Why do we experience this shift from "self-made" stars to "manufactured" celebrities?...Whereas self-made stars become endowed with market power through the very mechanisms which create them, celebrities have inferior opportunities to capture the value created by their appearance. Therefore the media companies are able to capture the bulk of the profits from "manufacturing" celebrities.

Superstars may be replaced by fabricated celebrities who draw large audiences without having substantial bargaining power to get the created value.

Simon Fuller described his manager-client relationships with the Pop Idol contestants as "partnerships" in which he recieves between 25% and 50% of their earnings.

Reality shows like Pop Idol cost about half as much to produce as typical new drama or sit-coms.

And here's an older classic paper (pdf) on how companies cope with the market power of key workers.

TV quality and capital reversing

ITV3's programmes this afternoon raise an interesting puzzle.
It's this. Since the 1980s finance has become more easily available and real interest rates have fallen.
Neoclassical economics says that, at the margin*, ITV should now produce more high-budget, risky, long payoff programmes, and fewer low-budget, safe, short-term payoff progammes. It should make more capital-intensive television.
But the opposite has happened. In the 80s and early 90s ITV made (some) expensive dramas with long-run pay-offs - from repeat fees, overseas sales and video/DVD sales, as ITV3's schedule shows. Today it makes low budget programmes with big-name actors to guarantee some kind of audience, but less hope of long-run revenues from repeats and overseas sales.
Can you even imagine it making an expensive drama like Brideshead Revisited today?
And yet this is exactly the sort of programme that should be more likely to be made when interest rates are low - high-budget, risky, but with potentally long revenues.
There is, therefore a paradox. ITV seems to be economizing more on capital now that it's cheaper.
What can explain this? It's not a worldwide phenomenon. In the US, easier finance has led to better programme-making: think of 24, The West Wing, The Sopranos and so on.
Nor can ITV's strategy be justified by a need to retain control over human capital. If anything, it's become more dependent upon big-name stars or format-owners like Simon Cowell than it was in the 80s.   
Nor is ITV pleasing investors or advertisers; it's share price and advertising revenue are both sagging badly.
So, what is the answer? Sheer stupidity is the obvious one. A less obvious one is that this is an example of re-switching, or capital reversing. At very low interest rates, capital-saving production methods can, perversely, become more profitable.
It's insufficiently appreciated that the history of ITV might vindicate Piero Sraffa.
* This qualifier is important; I don't want to suggest that ITV's 1980s programming was all quality.

Irrational process, efficient outcome

An irrational voting process can yield an optimal outcome. This is the thought that struck me watching Big Brother last night*.
There are three nominations for eviction: Lea, Richard and Sezer. Good judges suspect - and I hope - that Sezer's supporters will vote roughly equally to evict Lea and Richard, whilst all their supporters, and Sezer's opponents, will vote against him.
Under BB's irrational first-past-the-post system, Sezer could be evicted, therefore, even though a majority might want him to stay.
However, under a transferable vote, he would have more chance of staying in, as votes to evict (say) Richard would be transferred to Lea.
Most of us think STV superior to FPTP. But in this case, it's not. FPTP, in increasing the chances of getting Sezer out, improve the chances of an optimal outcome.
By this, I don't just mean "what I want." I mean three things:
1. The greatest happiness. Those of us who hate Sezer do so strongly. Those who hate Lea or Richard do so only mildly. Sezer's going, therefore, could increase aggregate happiness, even if it's only what a minority wants.
2. Utilitarianism with paternalistic preferences. People who like Sezer, or dislike Lea, have irrational preferences. FPTP, in this case, discounts these preferences.
3. Morality of virtues. Sezer is a sleazy sexist liar. Booting him out the house would therefore promote a MacIntyrean community of virtue.
The bottom line here is that an irrational process can lead to an optimum outcome.
The question is: does this result hold more widely, or is it just a curious artefact?
* Actually, most of my thoughts were on Aisleyne's thighboots, but you really don't want to know them.

In praise of work

The BB7 housemates include a Scouser and a man who claims to have been unemployed for 21 years. Surprisingly, these are two different people.
But Shahbaz's behaviour - which seems even more annoying to his housemates than to me - carries a lesson. Even more than the other housemates, the guy is completely self-obsessed and oblivious to others.
This, I suspect, reveals a benefit of working. In any job, we have to consider how our behaviour affects other people. We therefore learn some self-awareness. Because Shahbaz hasn't been in work*, he's never learnt this.
It's a cliche that employers want "people skills." But Shahbaz's conduct suggests that employment can create such skills, as well as select for them.
Smith and Marx both argued that employment dehumanized and deskilled workers. Shahbaz provides evidence to the contrary.
* Assuming his claim is correct - which I find only slightly more plausible than Sezer's supposed career history.

Is American Idol racist?

Yes, says this paper by Jungmin Lee:

I find strong evidence for same-race preferences, in particular among black viewers. Featuring more black contestants attracts more black households to tune in to watch the show. And, with more black viewers, a black contestant is less likely to be voted off.

There are two possible interpretations here. The benign one is that colour is just a proxy for musical tastes. If blacks, more than whites, have a preference for RnB-influenced singers, who tend to be black rather than white, voting and viewing will split on racial lines, without racial prejudice.

The other explanation is that because the voting is anonymous, no-one feels a stigma from expressing a racist preference, and so indulge their tastes. This might explain why American Idol is racist, but The Weakest Link (pdf) isn’t (except against the Welsh).