WHY I'M A MAC

posted by James Reel

This has nothing to do with the blog’s usual subjects, except perhaps its broadcasting connection, but this article from that most indispensable publication, The Onion, reports that Microsoft’s notorious bugginess is reaching ever farther:

WASHINGTON—According to an FCC report released Monday, a new $300 million Microsoft ad campaign is responsible for causing televisions all across the country to unexpectedly crash. Enlarge Image Microsoft Ad Users have reported a number of failures resulting from the defective commercials, ranging from inability to change channels to "couldn't finish Heroes." The Microsoft ads, which began airing earlier this week, are being blamed for generating critical system errors in more than 70 million televisions. In addition, thousands of frustrated Americans said that the ads have caused their TVs to become unresponsive, their screens to turn blue, and a small box with the message "terminal application error" to suddenly appear. "I was in the middle of watching Monday Night Football when, all of a sudden, that stupid ad comes on and my TV freezes up," said Scottsdale, AZ resident Michael Chaplin, adding that he never wanted to see the commercial in the first place. "The next thing I know, all these numbers and symbols show up and I get an error message saying 'invalid file format' or something. Now my TV is ruined."

You’ll find the full article here. Perhaps I should point out to the uninitiated that The Onion is satirical.

NEGATIVE REVIEWS

posted by James Reel

The proprietor of Vineography, a wine blog I read, has explained why he rarely writes negative reviews. The world of wine criticism is rather different from that of performing-arts criticism, but there are times when I elect not to review something if the evaluation is going to be negative.

First, can the subject of the review, by its very nature, withstand critical scrutiny? Any professional performance is fair game, but student and amateur efforts can’t be held to the same standards. If I review an amateur performance favorably, I try to make it clear that I’m working on a sliding scale, and an impressive performance by a community orchestra wouldn’t be so impressive from the Tucson Symphony (unless the amateur performers really outdo themselves). But if the amateur performance doesn’t cut it, what’s the point of calling attention to this fact, rather than passing over the performance in silence? Amateur orchestras and theatrical troupes exist to give non-professionals a creative outlet; unless the artistic director is overly ambitious and misrepresents the company, these people aren’t trying to compete with the professional and semi-pro groups—they’re simply performing for their own amusement, for an audience dominated by their families and friends. If it’s clear that’s what the group is, and it isn’t putting itself forward as a real alternative to the pros, what’s the point of damning the results? Best to let them go about their worthy business without worrying about public criticism.

The case against negative reviews of books and CDs is quite different. There are a great many books and CDs coming out every week, and fewer and fewer venues for reviews. Space is limited, so why not focus on calling people’s attention to the best that’s out there, rather than condemning crap that they wouldn’t want to buy? In this instance, the focus is on the good of cultural consumer, not that of the producer. Of course, a book or recording by a high-profile artist deserves attention even if it’s bad, because of the heightened public interest. Otherwise, if space is limited, we should focus on the criticism that will do the public the most good.