Tuesday 14 October 2014

"Results may vary" = sleazy (Sept. 10)

Were the old TVs doing something illegal?

                                                            by Robert LaFrance

            I was thinking today (my head still hurts) about those big old televisions that used to adorn our houses - the ones that weighed about a metric tonne each. Remember them and the computer monitors that needed a mule and a crane to lift them from one room to another? Today I can easily carry a 32” flat-screen television in one hand, whereas back in 1975 I would have been hard pressed to carry a 17-inch TV with the help of lemonade and a Merle Haggard 8-track.
            My question is: what happened to all that stuff that was jammed into the backside (so to speak) of the old TVs?
            SOMETHING must have been in there. Today televisions are as flat as the top of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s head and, curiously enough, that space that disappeared from the back of the old TVs is just about the size of his head. Can that be a coincidence?
            Looking at photos of the old televisions and computer monitors that mostly came to North American from Japan and other Far East countries, I am now prepared to put forth a theory on the matter.
            Drugs. All that time the North American and European drug problems have gotten worse and worse, so the only conclusion I can come to is that those big backs on the TVs and monitors held all kinds of deadly drugs. Looking at the actions of all our political leaders during that period, and realizing that each of them owned a large TV, can we doubt that drugs were heavily involved?
            I think I have proven my case (Q.E.D. as they say in math), but now we have to figure out how the drugs are getting in today, because it only takes a glance at the headlines to know that world leaders are still ‘on the line’.
                                    *****************************
            Turning from the subject of television to the subject of television commercials, are we finding fewer cases of positive statements these days?
            Last evening, while I was watching a show called ‘Miss Fisher’s Murder Mystery’ in which she solved eight murders, three embezzlements, and a spitting on the sidewalk while the police stood by baffled, there came on my (flat-screen) TV a commercial about a miracle product that would clean one’s bathtub, flush, kitchen sink and little Johnny’s dirty sneakers.
            At end of the commercial the proviso came on the screen – in small letters – “results may vary”. Of course the idea of that little warning was that if I spend the $19.99 for this minor miracle, it might be as useless as my neighbour Flug’s nephew, who is at the moment on a sight-seeing tour of Renous, NB.
            As I’ve mentioned dozens of times in these pages, I was once employed by Environment Canada as a weatherman. In reporting the weather to the public, we were all warned to NEVER use percentages, as in “there’s a 40% chance of snow in Resolute Bay”. I recall our instructor in Ottawa warning us about using that wishy-washy way of forecasting.
            “Guys and gals,” he said, as he brandished a .38 calibre Smith and Wesson revolver, “if I EVER hear of you doing this, no matter where you’re stationed – Inuvik or Saskatoon – I will hunt you down and shoot you. Say it’s going to snow or not.” We never used percentages in our forecasts. Looking at the weather girls and boys on TV now, one can’t help but notice that it’s a 40% chance here and there. It’s called CYA, or ‘Covering Your Bum’.
            Then there is the matter of political and other polling. Even though pollsters are almost always wrong because people lie to them, they continue to rake in the money and continue to have their findings broadcast to the nations. Who is paying for these things?
            Like the ‘results may vary’ sleaze, pollsters always have their little proviso at the end of their published poll results. “We certify that this poll is correct to within four percentage points 19 times out of 20”. What does that mean?
            This is called wiggle room, or wriggle room if you’re a language purist. Like the previous two examples, the pollsters’ statement at the end is merely saying: “Hey, we don’t have any idea what’s going to happen and we’re leaving ourselves some space in case we’re left standing there with an omelette clinging to our beards”. Such as in the latest Alberta and BC elections.

            My favourite poll result of all time was during the 1974 federal election campaign when the NDP and their leader Ed Broadbent were found to have 45% of the popular vote sewn up, while Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals were mired in third place with 28%. The Liberals won a majority and the NDP got 16 seats.
                                                     -end-

No comments: