by Alex Bennett

I have been suffering from irritable bowel syndrome for years. While not a serious problem, it’s annoying to me and—due to the flatulence it produces—those around me. This is what you get for becoming older. It’s probably where the term “old fart” comes from.

My doctor prescribed Elavil, an old-line tranquilizer that, in small doses, can help with IBS. But it made me drowsy. If taken before bedtime, you sleep like a baby, but when you wake up the next day, you lack energy. That’s why I stopped taking it. Predictably, the IBS came back.

Recently I asked my doctor if there had been any new advances in the three years since he’d originally prescribed Elavil. He mentioned something called Xifaxan—an experimental therapy that showed promise. In small doses it stops diarrhea. In large doses—two tablets three times a day for ten days—it seems to stop IBS. I jumped at the chance for a prescription.

When I got to my pharmacy, I was told my medical plan would cover only $4 of the total bill, which came to—grab tightly onto whatever you’re holding—$316! Was this some kind of scam between the insurance company and the drug maker? My physical relief was being held for ransom!

I had to have Xifaxan and the promise that it held for me. However, standing between me and blessed relief was the drug dealer on the corner called a pharmacist. Treating IBS has become the geriatric equivalent to scoring smack. Pharmacists are America’s new drug dealers.

When I was younger, I never got sick. Sure, I did drugs and plenty of them, but that’s not the kind of drugs we’re talking about. Still, I have to say, the dealers I knew in those days were infinitely more honest than these thieves.

Don’t give me any crap about how much it costs to develop this stuff. That’s like a doctor telling you how much it cost him to go to medical school. He broke even a long time ago, and so did drug makers. Now they’re cashing in. Besides, most drug research is sponsored by the government. Big Pharma actually gets our tax money to develop a product that they then charge us up the ass for—literally, in my case.

My girlfriend had a similar problem. She needed Nexium, an acid reflux medicine to counteract a bone medicine she was taking that had a corrosive effect on the stomach. Since her plan wouldn’t cover it, she was advised to take over-the-counter Prilosec. But that drug wasn’t effective in treating the problem. Who knows more about what is good for a patient—a doctor or some pencil pusher at an insurance company? Clearly, it’s time to reform healthcare.

But wait a minute! There’s a hitch. The insurance companies have a lot of money to fight universal healthcare. You know where they got it? From you and me and those damn fucking monthly premiums. We all make a bet.We bet that we’re going to get sick, and they bet we won’t. The problem is when they lose, they often find a way to disqualify you. On the street they’d get their legs broken, or worse, but in this bizarro world we’re the ones who suffer!

Our newly minted President claims he wants to change the medical system. He says he wants to make insurance “affordable” for everyone, but the words affordable and single payer don’t belong in the same sentence. It’s all or nothing. You either have universal healthcare or you don’t. There can be no compromise on this.

When are we going to realize it is our duty as human beings to make sure no one dies by the side of the road. When I hear about people dying of cancer because they couldn’t afford the medicine they needed or because their free clinic had closed due to lack of funding, it makes me want to scream. How can we do this to each other?

If we don’t get universal healthcare now, then when? Every day we fail to address this problem, more Americans die of systematic neglect. The day must come when the crooks running the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries are no longer able to profit at the expense of the sick and dying. It’s time to rebel. Let’s run the bastards out of town. Meanwhile, excuse me. It’s time for me to take two of my $5.20 pills. Gee, they’re so small.

by Alex Bennett

DO YOU KNOW WHY YOUR TV IS ABOUT TO FUCK YOU?

Okay, here’s the exam. What does the date February 17, 2009, mean to you? You’ve seen it, but where exactly? How about superimposed over the lower third of your favorite TV show? Now you’ve got it. That’s the day television goes completely digital, and your old reliable analog TV disappears forever. Maybe. Have I lost you yet? Well, here’s what you should know:

In May 1941 the FCC adopted America’s television standard of 525 total scan lines. Those are electron beams that sketch the picture in small lines across the face of the television tube. We weren’t the first country with TV. Germany, for example, had it in the ’30s. Their system was developed to a standard of 625 scan lines. The more lines, the better the definition of the picture. That’s why, if you’ve ever watched TV in Europe, the picture always seems so much better. Why we adopted an inferior system is beyond me, but I’ll bet it had to do with politics and payoffs.

There was another problem with international TV broadcasting: Our system was called NTSC, while other countries could choose between PAL and SECAM. There was no worldwide standard. What a mess. In the U.S., TV made its commercial debut in 1946. The momentous event would have been earlier, but World War II got in the way. Everything was black-and-white and fuzzy, but people would sit around happily watching the old Indian head test pattern just because it was there.

Color came along soon after. The first system to be approved by the FCC was from CBS, which started broadcasting color programs in 1951. Viewing required a TV set with a large whirling color wheel that made it incompatible with black-and-white shows. Archrival RCA’s original system was rejected because it wasn’t ready for prime time. However, its engineers persevered, coming up with, among other things, a black-and-whitecompatible system that coincidently improved on the original set. RCA also reportedly started rumors that the CBS set’s color wheel could come loose and decapitate its viewers. The fight between the two titans was prolonged, but CBS finally threw in the towel due to mounting production problems. RCA’s television network, NBC, launched limited colorcasts in 1954. That was 55 years ago, and one could argue that nothing of significance has changed in the United States since, with the exception of stereo sound.

In the meantime, other countries— notably Japan—had been working on new systems meant to create a TV picture in high definition. Many of them were analog as opposed to being strictly digital. I suppose another explanation is due. Analog is a variable continuous signal. Digital is a series of 0s and 1s basically representing on and off. Digital is said to be more flexible and efficient than analog, and it uses less bandwidth.

Still scratching your head? Never mind. It’s not important to know how digital technology works, just that it exists and that some people are going to get rich from it. In case you haven’t been paying attention, digital has been, over the past few years, slowly replacing analog. That’s why the FCC, which loves to establish standards, eventually mandated a cutoff date for analog television: February 17, 2009. Yes, it’s a Tuesday, which makes no sense at all.

So are you going to benefit from all this? Well, the analog system was ancient, and you will get a better picture with digital. All those crappy shows on your old TV will look better, but they’ll still be crappy shows. The real beneficiaries will be the manufacturers of TV equipment.

If you have an old-fashioned tube set, you must have a converter if you still want to receive a video broadcast signal on it. That will cost around $50—if you get a coupon from the government. On the other hand, if you have cable or satellite, you’re already good to go. If you don’t, maybe it’s time to buy a newfangled digital picture box. The cost of the flat-screen digital TVs is coming down to what tube prices once were. If you look around, you can get into a 32-inch set for around $500.

There will, of course, be some people left out in the digital cold because food comes first. After all, we’re in a recession. Gas costs a bundle, and mac ’n’ cheese is a major staple for some in the working class. How are they supposed to get their entertainment and information?

There might have been a better way. Those old channels could have been kept on the air, but the telecommunications boys have been drooling over them for years. Think of the bucks being spent by millions of people to do the conversion. It’s good for business. Still confused? Then you probably don’t want to hear about the two existing digital systems: 1080i and 720p, not to mention the 1080p, which….

Aw, fuck it! It’s all a big mess.

—————————–

Alex Bennett is a longtime HUSTLER contributor. The twotime Emmy winner, who broke into broadcasting at age 14, currently calls Sirius Left 146 his radio home.

by Alex Bennett

THANKS TO A STUPID GOVERNMENT EDICT AND PENNY-PINCHING CORPORATIONS,TERRESTRIAL RADIO IS IN DIRE STRAITS.

Did you know that radio has gone HD? Better sound and many new channels all on one signal? You didn’t? That’s probably because you, like so many people, don’t listen to radio anymore. Listenership is down 14% in the past ten years. Today you listen to your iPod, a CD, Internet programming or perhaps commercial-free music on one of the satellite networks. There are so many better options, especially since your local radio station has done nothing to maintain your interest.

How did this chasm come about? Back in 1996, President Bill Clinton—in one of his more stupid moments—signed the Telecommunications Act, which deregulated broadcasting. In doing so he changed the way broadcast companies operate.

Until that time, these companies were limited in the number of outlets they could own. The original standard was “the 7-7-7 rule”: seven TV, seven AM and seven FM in total, with no more than one outlet each in a particular market. There was one additional proviso: If you owned all three and a newspaper in the same market, you had to get rid of either the newspaper or one of the broadcast outlets. With deregulation, all of a sudden you could own as many outlets as you wanted. The newspaper rule still held, sort of, but Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation (the parent company of Fox) is trying to get that waived too.

The floodgates were opened, and the rush was on. Broadcast groups gobbled up radio stations faster than you could count. When the dust settled, the winner was Clear Channel Communications with 1,250 AM and FM outlets. Burp!

That’s where everything unraveled. In the past, if you owned a station, you competed against all the other stations in your market. They were your sworn enemies. Now they became your compatriots. With some outfits owning as many as eight stations in a market, sales departments were combined, as were marketing, accounting and the like. Even programming was consolidated with, in some cases, a single program director in charge of more than one station. It goes without saying that tens of thousands of broadcast professionals across the country found themselves out of work. All “redundancies” were eliminated.

What about radio personalities? You can’t replace them, right? Enter a nefarious practice known as “voice tracking.” For years radio owners had wet dreams over the possibility of automation, but nothing seemed to click…until voice tracking. With this technology the personality comes in to record just his voice. A computer adds the music later. Not only does he do the voice for the shift on his home station, but also for stations in maybe three or four other markets. Now one employee has replaced as many as three others. The station saves even more by paying the jock only for the time actually spent working.

Previously, a live four-hour shift paid for four hours. That same time block now pays talent only for the duration he worked recording the show. Remember, music is added later. Did you know that the personality on your local station isn’t even in its studio? Usually the only live shows are in the morning, when a certain immediacy is required.

What if a company owns two stations with the same format in the same market? Before deregulation they would compete, each trying to outdo the other. Now, owned by a single master, the lesser of the two stations is told to hold itself back in deference to the one considered a “cash cow.” Cost saving and conglomeration have dragged down a medium that once thrived on competition.

Talk shows remain virtually the only live programming, but even they have replaced hundreds of people because most talk is syndicated by satellite. In the process, localism was killed; talk shows now speak to the entire nation, not your hometown.

Diversity is another casualty: Clear Channel, which makes no effort to hide its politically conservative stance, has even contributed campaign money to George W. Bush. Not surprisingly, the only hosts allowed on Clear Channel stations are, for the most part, of a right-wing bent.

And what about single-station owners? They just couldn’t compete with the evil empire. They had to sell. Before deregulation it was independent stations that served America’s small towns with local news and other fare.

In time all things become obsolete. Just try to find a pay phone these days. The record store is all but gone.

Terrestrial radio survived the onslaught of television by adapting. This time, however, it may just be the end. Technologically, radio is a wireless medium with higher quality than the Internet or MP3s. But the medium that survived TV may just have been undone by its biggest foe, greed. 

—————————–

Alex Bennett is a longtime HUSTLER contributor. The twotime Emmy winner, who broke into broadcasting at age 14, currently calls Sirius Left 146 his radio home.

Sirius Satellite Radio host Alex Bennett explains why our media has utterly failed the American people.

Once upon a time broadcast news was nothing more than rewritten copy from the newspapers. Most newscasts ended with the admonishment “for up-to-the-minute details, consult your local newspaper.” Sure, there were a few bona fide news commentators, but actual proactive coverage was scarce.

A dying breed? Edward R. Murrow set the

It wasn’t until World War II that radio news came into its own, thanks to a renegade reporter named Edward R. Murrow. His vivid reports from London rooftops during air raids put radio reporting on the map. Murrow and his team of CBS reporters defined what we now call “broadcast journalism.”

After the war, the “Murrow Boys” helped shape television news, giving CBS its “Tiffany Network” reputation. Broadcast news was finally being taken seriously by everyone except the network “beancounters,” who couldn’t understand why their bosses allowed it to run at a loss. The bosses simply wanted something positive to point to when people complained about the Beverly Hillbillies. But that was then, and this is now.

Tim Russert yucks it up with NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell and

The downfall of broadcast news can be traced to the arrival of CNN in 1980. Not that CNN wasn’t a great concept. Disturbed by what he saw as the bias of Dan Rather—who’d inject his views into newscasts—Ted Turner decided to create a nonbiased, 24/7 news service. Now, for the first time, the news had to be profitable. Too bad money and good journalism don’t mix…unless you compromise your product. For years, CNN just barely kept afloat. Then, in 1991, its coverage of the Gulf War changed everything. CNN was the only news organization with a live feed during the bombing of Baghdad. The network’s subsequent war coverage not only gave cable news credibility, but also large numbers. With numbers came profit.

Broadcast news had become big money just as the grizzled and aging old guard reporters were falling by the wayside. They were replaced by “journalists” who had a new agenda: fame, glory, lucrative salary and perfect hair. Journalistic credibility quickly eroded. By the time we got to the Iraq War, the bar had been significantly lowered.

Smelling profits, other organizations entered the cable news fray. With a right-wing bias, Fox not only gave CNN a run for its money, but eventually pulled in more viewers. CNN responded by making its reporting more conservative. Just as bad, General Electric—a major war contractor—seized ownership of NBC and its cable news outlets.

During the Iraq War a Bush Administration genius came up with the idea of embedding journalists in with the military. Under the guise of freedom of the press, “embedding” reporters became a way to keep them in line. When you’re out covering a war with the troops, the last thing you want is to piss them off. The fear of being cut from access or, worse, getting yourself killed made the press more compliant and, ultimately, a willing tool of the Bush machine.

Reporters became a cheering squad for the Iraq War, presenting coverage that was little more than a squalid reality show. Reliable access to vital information was cut off. Sometimes facts were even falsified.
As the disinformation grew, so did support for the war. At one point, 75% of the American public believed Iraq helped perpetrate the events of 9/11. The news also pushed the notion of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction despite the lack of evidence. Bush and his boys played the press like a finely tuned violin.

A few alternative news sources protested, but they were not widely accessible. It wasn’t that the public was stupid, just too trusting of their mainstream sources. Mainstream news had betrayed them.

Imagine interrupting a possible leader of the free world, in midsentence no less, to break for a commercial. Since when did debates of this kind even have commercials? Since broadcast news went into the dumper, that’s when!

What’s wrong with running commercials, you might ask? On commercial programs, ad costs are based on the size of the audience. How do you get a large audience? You create drama. So if your political debates are part of your commercial programming, you treat them as you would a reality show.

“Let’s promote the good-looking black guy against the white woman.” That had to be going through their heads. Likewise: “Forget John Edwards. There’s no tension there. Besides, he hates corporations, and we are one.”

The candidates who didn’t fit the networks’ scenarios were cast as losers, making it impossible for them to get traction. The networks weren’t promoting a debate as much as they were a “cage match.” Not only did they pick the players, but they also created tension.

Tim Russert and Brian Williams hosting a Democratic Presidential debate.

The worst culprit is “Oh, sweetheart, you shouldn’t have worried about telling us you’re a lesbian. Heck, dear, I used to eat a mean pussy in my day!” Tim Russert, the pudgy, annoying chief of NBC’s Washington bureau and moderator of Meet the Press. (The show should be renamed Meet the Russert since he monopolizes every discussion.) At one point during a debate he shouted at Hillary Clinton, then argued with her. Hey, Tim, please look up the definition of moderator !

Russert also trotted out endless poll numbers that pitted black voters against white voters. On one occasion he even made the blanket statement that Hispanic people don’t like black people. What is the point of setting one group against another if not to jazz up the “cage match.”Thanks,Tim, for a hot, heaping pile of undermined race relations. On the sillier side, NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell swooned over Senator Barack Obama. Sliding off the tracks entirely, Mitchell (whose husband is former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan) announced, “He has a lot of young supporters like Maria Shriver.” Maria Shriver? Young? Maybe to Mrs. Greenspan, who is just a facelift away from looking like Norman Bates’s mother.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer

And now back to CNN. When Senator Christopher Dodd was still seeking the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination, he would publish (on his Web site) the amount of debate time the candidates would get to state their various positions. Obama and Clinton usually got the lion’s share. However, CNN’s old Wolf Blitzer spoke more than either of them. Shut up, Wolf!

The Democratic debate in Cleveland was the biggest draw up to that time. Eight million people watched it, and NBC cleaned up in advertising revenue. Creating this newest reality show by choosing the cast and selling it to America had made the “cage match” a major hit.

Am I suggesting that news people be censored? No! I’m saying they should get back to the moral principals that guided broadcast journalism in its golden age. The networks should treat news as if it were a wildlife sanctuary. Just sit in the brush, film the action and let nature take its course. Don’t disturb the order of things. If you don’t make money, run it as a loss and figure that’s your penance for running Deal or No Deal.
If you ever watched Star Trek, you’re familiar with the “Prime Directive.” Interfering in the natural evolution of a civilization was the only crime that carried the death penalty. Am I suggesting that these news creeps be executed for trying to meddle with the natural course of our lives? Of course not! Well, maybe. Sure, why not? They’re useless anyway.