The longest-running show in the history of broadcasting is getting a major makeover that hits the air today.  And based on what I’ve read about it, I’m glad I’m not a fan of the show.

That show is Guiding Light, which began its record-breaking run 71 years ago on radio and made the move to television in 1952.  I have a lot of respect for any show that has been able to last that long.  But ‘GL’ is generally at the bottom of the ratings, and in an effort to keep it running while cutting production costs, the producers of the show are trying to redefine the way soaps are made by using smaller handheld cameras and adopting a New Jersey town as the stand-in for the show’s fictional town of Springfield.

The show’s executive producer, Ellen Wheeler, says it’s time to shake things up:

“Soap operas have been shot, by and large, the same way since the 1950’s, the same way I Love Lucy was shot - with pedestal cameras, in just a few interior sets.  [It’s] old-fashioned, and it isn’t working anymore.”

Daytime’s number one soap opera for 16 years, another CBS show, The Young and the Restless, seems to be working fine doing things the tried and true way.  (I doubt if she added that little fact in the conversation.)

The show will go for a cinema verite look.  This is a fancy term for a kind of “documentary” shooting style, in which cameras are handheld, up-close and personal, and follow the action by generally moving around much more.  Generally, that style works for documentaries and when it makes sense.  But when a production actually “tries” for that look, rather than using it when it’s the obvious thing to do, it has been my experience that what ends up happening is a lot of annoying camera moves — especially unnecessary shakiness — that is more annoying than innovative.  There was some cop show on a few years ago…I don’t remember which one…maybe NYPD Blue, but don’t hold me to that…that relied on handhel, intentionally shaky camera work.  I tried to watch an episode, and noticed that before every cut, the camera would suddenly jerk left or right slightly.  I began to notice the distracting move more than I was paying attention to dialog.  I never made an attempt to watch the show again.

Unfortunately, a lot of the people in the business who really like this style are some of the same people in film class who toss around big words like juxtaposition whether they know what they mean or not, and are more caught up in emulating a style than thinking about whether what they’re shooting will actually work in that style:  it’s supposed to be what works for the viewer and lets them stay engaged with the show, not what the crew thinks is “cool.”

Guiding Light has been working some of the “new” style into episodes over the past few months.  Here’s a sample:

What will take soap opera fans some getting used to — beyond the shakiness, which could easily be avoided with steadycams if they just have to go off-shoulder — is lower sound quality and bad lighting.  In the clip above, featuring two actresses in a gym, there are lots of echos in the room and lots of shadows on their faces because the room isn’t really lit for television.  A side effect of the bad lighting, one that will probably make some more vain actors and actresses start checking their contracts, is that wrinkles will be a lot more obvious.

Making your characters look like hell just so that the cameras can move around more, to me, isn’t exactly a worthwhile trade.  But maybe that’s just me.

The show is also doing a lot more outdoor scenes in the small New Jersey town of Peapack, which has agreed to become the real-life Springfield for shooting purposes.  That, I’ll admit, is a cool idea; I’m sure fans of the show will enjoy seeing characters out and about in “real-life”-looking settings in the town they “live” in.  Even so, steadycams wouldn’t really destroy the mood.

It is worth noting that the show won Best Drama Series last year in the Emmys, so I doubt that this is really some “last ditch effort” to “save the show” from cancellation.  But still, are all of the changes the “next great thing” or will it be a sad attempt at hip?

If you watch the “new” look, I’d love to know what you think.

I heard in passing on the Today show this morning that Hillary Rodham Clinton has complained that she’s facing much more media scrutiny than her opponent Barack Obama.

Aside from the fact that this is a typical complaint of any candidate who isn’t winning by a landslide, and I’m not saying that she’s necessarily correct…but I wonder what she expected: she has slammed down our throats the notion that she is the one with all of the experience, while Obama is a newbie.

If she has such a long and distinguished list of accomplishments, why wouldn’t she expect to be scrutinized more than someone with the “clean slate” she’d like you to believe Obama has?

After all, you can’t scrutinize what doesn’t exist…right, Hillary?

MIKE STIVIC: Arch, you ought to be grateful for Ralph Nader. Do you realize that before 1968 there were hardly any cars recalled for being defective? But in 1972 there were nearly eight million cars recalled?

ARCHIE BUNKER: And do you realize that in 1974, who cares?

No surprise here, folks…Ralph Nader, the man with whom many Democrats still have a bone to pick from the 2000 election, is at it again: He’s making his third run for the White House.

The anger, of course, comes from the fact that he attracted 100,000 votes in Florida in 2000, and Al Gore lost that state by about 500 votes to George W. Bush.

But the consumer advocate has some tough talk for anyone who accuses him of spoiling anything:

“Political bigotry will be the label on anybody who uses the word ‘spoiler,’ he said. “Because ‘spoiler’ means minor candidates are second class citizens. Either we have an equal right to run for election, or we are spoilers for each other trying to get each other’s votes.”

Sorry to burst your bubble, Ralph, but it goes both ways.  Anyone who meets the qualifications does indeed have an equal right to run for election.  But at the same time, whenever you run for anything, you are trying to get the other candidate’s votes.

That’s sort of the object of the game, you know.

On Friday night’s edition of The Price is Right Million Dollar Spectacular, something happened that has never happened before: someone actually won a million bucks.

The show featured two opportunities for a contestant to win: during one of the six pricing games, perfect pricing would have earned a contestant the seven-digit top prize, but that one wasn’t won.

The second opportunity came in the Showcases. Traditionally, if a contestant bid the closest to his showcase’s actual retail price and was within $250 of the actual price, he’d win both showcases. For this special, if the winning contestant was within $1,000 of the showcase’s retail price, he won both showcases plus a million-dollar bonus.

Here’s the video of the big win, including the brief credits before CBS cut to those annoying split-screen credits courtesy CBS, which apparently had other people’s postings taken down in favor of its own “creditless” version:

I’m sure that if I were a contestant, I wouldn’t complain about a million dollar bonus. But as a fan of the show, tacking on a million bucks just seems a bit unnecessary to me…as if ‘Price’ is just tossing that out there because a million-dollar top prize seems to be the latest fad. At least now, a well-done game show is offering that prize for a change.

For the non-diehard ‘Price’ fans, I point out that the endgame of the show is the Showcase round. The “Showcase Showdown” is the part with the famous Big Wheel, during which it is decided which two contestants will move on to that final round. For a show that has been on the air for 35 years (and featuring the one-hour format with the Showcase Showdowns for the last 32 years), it’s amazing how many newspaper articles that discuss the show get the Showcase and Showcase Showdown confused.

It’s funny how things change over time. Sometimes, as technology changes, we have to change how we do things, meaning that there are little skills we’ve once learned that we have just abandoned in favor of newer ways of doing things.

This week, I have a list of “lost skills,” those things we used to do that we don’t do much of any more. Browse the list here, because it will be a big help for this week’s answers.

• First to play last week: Jude of My Way

THIS WEEK’S QUESTION:
Name seven “obsolete” skills you have mastered in the past, and state whether or not you still use those skills.

Either answer the question in a comment or answer it in your journal and include the link in a comment. (To be considered “first to play,” a link must be to the specific entry in which you answered the question.) You may include this link in the URL space when leaving your comment, or in the comment itself. As long as it’s there in one spot or the other.

My Answers:
1. Setting the timer on a VCR - Haven’t used it for about 10 years.
2. Dialing a rotary phone - Haven’t used one in about 15 years or so.
3. Changing a typewriter ribbon - Haven’t used a manual typewriter in probably 15 years or more.
4. Splicing audio tape - I had to learn it in J-school 18 years ago. Never had to do it once after I graduated.
5. Tape-to-tape video editing - It has been only a couple of years since I’ve done this.
6. Operating a slide projector - My dad still has one, and I’m pretty sure he still uses it occasionally. I haven’t touched one for more than 10 years.
7. Running a mimeograph machine - Did it in high school. Twenty years ago. Twenty!  Ouch.

When some color becomes the current fascination, it is described as “the new black,” as if black is the standard by which all fashion fads should be judged.

But what happens when the standard gets redefined?

Scientists in New York have created a paper-thin material that absorbs 99.955% of light that hits it, making it the darkest substance ever created, “about 30 times darker than the government’s current standard for black.”

I wonder how many tax dollars were spent as the government came up with a standard for what black is.

The material is said to give viewers a “dizzying sense of nothingness.”  It is part of a research project designed to create stealthy cloaks that will render the wearer virtually invisible.

The obvious question would be what, exactly, the government’s standard for invisibility happens to be.

This week’s edition of the Saturday Six is devoted to one of everyone’s favorite food, diet or not: the doughnut.

• First to play last week: Jude of My Way. Congratulations!
  (According to the rules, “First to Play” requires you to be the first to include the link to the specific entry in which you answered the questions, not just the general link to your blog.)

Here are this week’s “Saturday Six” questions. Either answer the questions in a comment here, or put the answers in an entry on your journal…but either way, leave a link to your journal so that everyone else can visit! To be counted as “first to play,” you must be the first player to either answer the questions in a comment or to provide a complete link to the specific entry in your journal in which you answer the questions. A link to your journal in general cannot count. Enjoy!

1. When you’re going to have a regular glazed doughnut, do you prefer it hot, cold or room temperature?

2. If you see a box of a dozen doughnuts, and there are no objections from the others in the room, can you stop at just one doughnut?

3. Which spelling do you prefer for the treat: doughnut or donut? Which do you see most often?

4. Take the quiz: What Donut are You?

5. When was the last time you had this specific kind of donut?

6. If you worked in a donut store, and had to make them as part of your job, how long do you think it would take you — if at all — to become sick of even looking at a donut?

If you have a Reader’s Choice question you’d like to see asked (and answered), send me an email! I’d love to be able to include it in a future edition of the Saturday Six.

My Answers:
1. Maybe I’m the only one, but I like them cooled to room temperature, not hot and gooey.
2. Certainly not! That’s why I try to stay away when I see boxes of them in the newsroom.
3. Doughnut. Other than the “Dunkin’” kind, I usually see it spelled as doughnut.
4. You Are a Glazed Donut

Okay, you know that you’re plain - and you’re cool with that.
You prefer not to let anything distract from your sweetness.
Your appeal is understated yet universal. Everyone digs you.
And in a pinch, you’ll probably get eaten.
5. About a month ago? That time, I did stop at just one.
6. I think doughnuts might be one of the only foods I might never get sick of, but for the fact that I’d have to see the amount of shortening and fat that goes into each one.

I’d like to pretend that I’m surprised.  But I couldn’t pull that one off.

For days now, we’ve had to endure the Clinton campaign’s focus on real issues in this election, which they seem to think include accusing Barack Obama of plagiarizing a speech by his friend and advisor Deval Patrick.  They’ve displayed an appropriate amount of “shock” and “awe” at their opponent’s “audacity” of copying.

But if you watched Thursday night’s debate on CNN you might have heard the claxon of the Double Standard alarm system blasting across the land, when you saw Hillary bring the house down with this:

“You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country.”

Funny thing is, we’ve heard that somewhere before, too. Specifically, from her own husband in 1992:

“The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time.”

Let’s go to the videotape, shall we?

Hillary also said:

“Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.   You know, we have strong support from our families and friends.  I just hope we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people.  And that’s what this election should be about.”

Earlier this year, John Edwards said this:

“What’s not at stake in this election [is] any of us.  All of us are going to be just fine, no matter what happens in this election.  But what’s at stake is whether America is going to be fine.”

Oh, yes, there’s tape for this one, too.

If plagiarism is so wrong, why would she do it?  Twice…in the same night!

Surely, her “35 years of experience” has given her the insight to form her own answers by now.  Experience shouldn’t be the death of original thought, should it?  Otherwise, why would she expect us to value it so much?

Going from criticizing one politician for doing something to doing the same thing yourself…and Hillary’s campaign seems shocked by the notion that she’s fallen behind because people are siding with a candidate who’s campaign is about change.

I had lunch with a friend, who told me that when Michelle Obama said she had never been proud of this country until now, that really ticked him off.

If you’re the uber-patriot type, the kind willing to wear blinders to anything less than praise for the good old stars and stripes, I would imagine that it might upset your delicate sensibilities to hear a potential future First Lady make such a statement.

Of course, Obama never really said that.  What she said was this:

“Let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are ready for change.”

There is a difference between the two. Particularly because of that little word really. It makes a world of difference.

The Language Guy took on this topic by pointing out that saying, “I really like you” is completely consistent with “I like you.” He also points out that Obama made the comment in two different places — Milwaukee and Madison — and that in the Madison stop, the tape of the event appears to have a glitch between the words I’m and proud.

In the past, I’ve worked with a few prima donnas who don’t receive complements all that well. If I were to point out that they looked nice in the outfit they were wearing that day, they might turn on me, demanding to know if I think they didn’t look nice in the outfit they wore the day before.

I’ve never understood the line of reasoning that allows someone to make that jump, but I now believe that it must be a right-wing thing.

When I say, “You really look nice in that color,” I’m not saying that you look terrible in other colors; I’m just saying that you look particularly nice in the color you’re currently wearing.

When I heard the quote, it didn’t raise my eyebrows at all, because it seemed so clear to me what her intent must be: that she was particularly proud now because of the way the nation has embraced the notion of something other than “business as usual.”

It’s like me saying that I was really happy with my car after I got the transmission fixed. I was relatively happy with the car before that when the transmission acted up; when it behaved itself, I was perfectly content with the car, and when it did act up, I was quite frustrated with it.  But I’ve never hated the car, or wished I had never gotten it.  So when I say that I’m really happy with the car now, that’s not badmouthing the automotive industry.

Of course, we all hear what we want to hear, and for Republicans — and Clinton supporters as well — what they wanted to hear was something very different.

My friend, Linda, points out the sudden U-turn of Obama’s opponents who previously have been quick to dismiss what’s being said in favor of blasting what hasn’t been done:

“But she said those words… heavy, hot-button words which, out of context and leached of intent, can mean whatever partisan politicos want them to mean. So they matter. And, for those who’ve been carping about ‘only words’ and ‘empty words’ and ‘words without work,’ the about-face is stunning, indeed.”

I could ask if the competition really feels so desperate as to try to make a mountain out of such a tiny molehill…but I guess the answer to that question is already clear.

Back when compact discs were all the rage, I was still buying music on cassette tape. I guess it was the combination of ridicule from my friends and the fact that the “new” used car I got at the time that had a CD player in it were the two things that finally made me start buying CDs instead.

That was years ago, of course. Now, if there’s a song I like — and I’m actually lucky enough to be able to figure out enough lyrics to do a Google search and find the song’s title and artist — I just go to iTunes and buy that song. The nice thing there is that I can buy only that song, not a CD with 13 songs when I only really like one on the whole disc to start with.

The same thing happened when DVDs hit the scene. I was a VHS lover for a long time, having amassed a healthy collection of the old tapes. I knew how everything was organized, and I could find whatever I wanted to see quickly. The only thing that took time was the rewinding or fast-forwarding required to get to the right spot on the tape.

After it became clear that DVDs were going to stick around, I got myself a DVD player and a few DVDs. Since then, I haven’t bought another VHS tape, and I haven’t missed them. I’ve actually converted a few VHS tapes to DVD, and tossed a few other tapes that were, unfortunately, showing extreme wear.

That brings us to now and the future of high-definition. I don’t own any HD-DVDs. I don’t own an HD television set, anyway. Nor do I have any plans to buy one. When the prices come down, that’s when I’ll think about it. Not before.

But if I were the kind of person who always had to have “the latest thing,” I’d be pretty miffed right now. Toshiba has announced that it is pulling the plug on its ailing HD-DVD format. Had I suffered from the “need” for HD in a big way, HD-DVD is likely the one I would have picked. It came out first, after all. The prices were better. And even Microsoft predicted that it would be “the” format of choice.

Wonder if Bill Gates put any money on that bet.

Anyone out there buying high definition DVDs, yet?  Did anyone get burned by the death of HD DVD?  Or did you decide to wait as well?

This weekend, author Patricia Cornwell spent $250,000 for full page newspaper ads to defend her recent $1 Million dollar donation to the Crime Scene Academy at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

Last week, Cornwell told reporters that she decided to donate the money to help teach law enforcement officers how to handle crime scenes after being disgusted by what she saw while following police:

“I’ve seen cops walk through blood. I’ve seen them leave their own fingerprints on a window. I’ve seen bloody clothing put in a plastic bag, instead of a paper bag, so it decomposes.”

In the ads, she says this:

“What has been publicized certainly does not accurately reflect my deep respect and admiration for these hardworking law enforcement professionals.”

And she adds that her comments were directed at the general public, not police.

“I’ve been riding with the police for 30 years. I care about these people and I’m not criticizing them. Any mistakes investigators make are not their fault. Too often they don’t have the training or resources they need, which is what the donation is meant to address.”

She then complained about television shows like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, which she accuses of “misinforming people about police.” TV, she says, has led people to believe they’re helping police when they meddle with crime scenes. Of course, crime fiction in print would never do such a despicable thing, the author did not add.

I like ‘CSI,’ and I don’t recall seeing episodes that encourage people to tamper with evidence in any way. I’m pretty sure, in fact, that those people who stage evidence generally find themselves in legal hot water by episode’s end.

So if it’s really time that we “take control of our crime scenes again,” as Cornwell has stated, then maybe crime fiction of any kind should be banned universally. That way, no one would ever get a wrong idea.

Think she’d go for that?

She says TV has led people to think they’re helping when they meddle with crime scenes, and cites an instance in which robbery victims laid out index cards highlighting evidence for the police to find.

When you start a meme involving things that come in sevens, one of the first ideas that comes to mind is the “Seven Deadly Sins.” That subject, it turns out, was the topic for the very first edition. Another topic that comes to mind is Snow White’s Seven Dwarfs. So far, that particular topic never made its way into a question.

Until now, that is.

Here are the names of the Seven Dwarfs and a quick description of them:
Doc: The leader
Grumpy: A stern exterior, but softer on the inside
Happy: Joyous and always laughing
Sleepy: Tired
Bashful: Shy, embarrassed when attention is directed his way
Sneezy: An allergy sufferer, Sickly?
Dopey: Clumsy, inexperienced, seemingly scared

Those quick descriptions will help you in this week’s question.

• First to play last week: Paul of Aurora Walking Vacation

Now, Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho, it’s off to work you go!

THIS WEEK’S QUESTION:
Name the seven dwarfs in the order that you most identify with their character traits, with number one being the one you think is most like you and number seven the one you think least like you.

Either answer the question in a comment or answer it in your journal and include the link in a comment. (To be considered “first to play,” a link must be to the specific entry in which you answered the question.) You may include this link in the URL space when leaving your comment, or in the comment itself. As long as it’s there in one spot or the other.

It’s the 200th edition of the Saturday Six! Where’s my cake?!?

• First to play last week: Linda of Huffington Post fame. Congratulations!
  (According to the rules, “First to Play” requires you to be the first to include the link to the specific entry in which you answered the questions, not just the general link to your blog.)

Here are this week’s “Saturday Six” questions. Either answer the questions in a comment here, or put the answers in an entry on your journal…but either way, leave a link to your journal so that everyone else can visit! To be counted as “first to play,” you must be the first player to either answer the questions in a comment or to provide a complete link to the specific entry in your journal in which you answer the questions. A link to your journal in general cannot count. Enjoy!

1. Other than a period, which punctuation mark do you think you use the most?

2. If a question mark indicated that you are inquisitive and an explanation point indicated that you are excitable, which mark best represents your personality?

3. Which punctuation mark gave you the most trouble in school?

4. Take the quiz: What’s Punctuation Mark Are You?

5. Which do you tend to be better at: punctuation or spelling?

6. If you could banish one punctuation mark forever, which would you choose and why?

If you have a Reader’s Choice question you’d like to see asked (and answered), send me an email! I’d love to be able to include it in a future edition of the Saturday Six.

Here’s a headline from the Coast Guard that is enough to get the attention of anyone in the newsroom:

Coast Guard Searches for Missing Anchor

No one from  needed to call personnel; the anchor missing is, of course, a boat anchor that separated from a 584-foot tank vessel near the Ravenel Bridge.  They don’t know why it came loose, or its precise location.

But there should be no empty chairs on the news set come Monday.

Can you imagine tuning into your local news and seeing this exchange?

Lucky I wasn’t the news director for this shop.  Both of them would have lots of ‘splainin’ to do.