Category Archives: Quiz

I creamed the competition on the Slate quiz — slightly

Hey, y’all. I’ve been back from Boston for a couple of days now, but I’ve been way too busy for blogging. It’s not just catching up with work. The first night we were up there, there was a big thunderstorm down here, and it struck several trees in our front yard. My neighbor across the street saw it happen, and said it was amazing — the glow was multicolored, and seemed to last about 10 seconds. He was sorry he wasn’t shooting video. I’m sorry, too, because I would have liked to post it here.

It damaged our upstairs HVAC system. When our son checked on it the next day, it was 102 upstairs. A damaged valve was causing heat to blow instead of AC. Fortunately, that wasn’t terribly expensive to fix. I’m now dreading what an expert might tell us about the trees (a friend is sharing with me the name of an arborist, so I can get him to look at them before we call the tree-felling guys). Meanwhile, I’m glad none of them fell on the house.

I’ll tell you about my Boston trip later. In the meantime, I DID find a minute to take the Slate quiz, and managed to triumph — crushing the appointed Slate staffer by two whole points! (But what do you expect from someone who spells it “Werthan?”)

Of course, I was still 49 points below average, so I’m not planning to throw a party to celebrate my victory.

See how y’all do. I expect y’all will all do better than I did. But hey, aside from reading about the Red Sox in the Globe over the past week, I haven’t been intentionally following news. So cut me a break….

Well, at least I know more about history than THESE guys…

You know how, for the last three weeks, I did really badly on the Slate News Quiz but still beat the Slate staff person assigned to compete that week?

Well, half of that happened this week. I only got five right out of 12, for an embarrassing 186. But this time, I got creamed by Technology Editor Jonathan Fischer, who scored a 370.

So let’s not talk about that.

Let’s talk about history. I’m a lifelong student of it, but lately I’ve been thinking a lot about how very, very little I know about it. Even with the small slices in which I’ve taken a particular interest through the years — World War II, the first years of our republic at the end of the 18th century, Rome in the time around Julius Caesar’s assassination — I am constantly shocked at the major things I suddenly learn that I did not know. Happens all the time.

For instance, reading all those Patrick O’Brian novels has made me try to learn more about the Napoleonic Wars, and particularly the Royal Navy during that period.

Well, I was over visiting my Mom the other night, and she always watches “Jeopardy” in the evening. This night, the Final Jeopardy question — or rather answer — was the one you see above, under the category, “The Early 19th Century”: “Admiral Pierre-Charles Villeneuve signaled ‘Engage the enemy’ around noon & surrendered at 1:45 PM during this battle”.

So we know he’s French, and it’s the early 19th century, and one can reasonably assume that this was a battle of some significance — a fleet action, say, as opposed to a meeting between a couple of frigates, where you wouldn’t have an admiral in charge. And Villeneuve’s name was vaguely familiar to me, but I wasn’t sure which significant battle he had lost. As far as I knew, it could have been the Nile, or Algeciras. Although I don’t think those were known for being brief.

So I just went with the biggest one of all, and said “Trafalgar.” The climax (and end) of Nelson’s life, his greatest triumph — the one that got him the column.

But I didn’t know, and I felt bad about that.

Soon, though, I felt better.

The three contestants all answered some variant of “What is Waterloo?”

Seriously, they did. These were three fairly bright people — they did well on plenty of other answers — and all three of them had bet money that an admiral was in command at Waterloo.

Oh, and it was Trafalgar. But I should have known, as a Jack Aubrey fan.

Anyway… if y’all want to take the Slate quiz, here’s the link. If you don’t do any better than I did, you don’t have to share…

 

 

 

I’m dumber than ever, but still a winner, folks!

Things are increasingly weird over at the Slate News Quiz.

For the third week in a row, I have been declared a “winner” for having scored higher than the designated staff ringer. Each time, I have done this in spite of having scored below the reader average.

And this week, I outdid myself. I’m pretty sure I scored my worst grade ever, by a substantial margin — 182 points. Really. However, Senior Advice Editor Paola de Varona had, amazingly, only scored 139. I am not making this up, as Dave Barry would say. Meanwhile, the average slob out there had scored 302 points — pathetically low, but a genius level compared to Paola and yours truly.

And I had started out so well! I got all of the first three (out of 12) right, and done so very quickly. I felt I was on my way, maybe, to a record high…

And then I got only one of the next nine questions right! You’ve gotta be impressed by that, right?

I think it’s time Slate took a long, hard look at the quiz. Maybe they’ll realize that they need to start asking questions about things that reasonably observant people can be expected to know. Here are some of the questions I missed:

  • The U.K. government has granted permission for the sale of the Chelsea soccer team to Todd Boehly for more than $5 billion. Boehly is also the co-owner of which Major League Baseball team? Really? I’m supposed to not only know who is buying a British soccer team, but I need to know further trivia about him?
  • Which actress has been selected to receive the 2022 Special Tony Award for Lifetime Achievement in the Theatre at the June 12 awards ceremony? First, it’s an awards show, and I don’t follow those. Second, it’s the Tonys, and if I followed an awards show, it wouldn’t be that one. Third, and I stress this, it hasn’t even happened yet!
  • Researchers have developed which gene-edited plant that may provide a new vegan source of vitamin D? I don’t know about you, but I have a condition that causes my brain to turn off when I see the word, “vegan.”
  • Which petroleum company’s annual shareholder meeting was interrupted by dozens of climate protesters chanting slogans and holding banners? It could have been ANY of them, right? Is this not a routine occurrence when oil shareholders meet? This is so dog-bites-man, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the protest was on the official agenda of the meeting.

And so forth. I had kinda followed the news. But not this stuff. And obviously, based on everyone’s horrible scores, I’m not alone on this…

… but again, I’m dumber than average. Dang!

The Slate news quiz is fixed!

You may not have noticed this because it’s fixed in a reverse of the usual pattern. Instead of being rigged in favor of an insider, it’s somehow manipulated to make the general public win! Which is just perverse and counterintuitive. That’s why it took me a while to suss it out. Fiendish, ain’t it?

Again, I beat the ringer — the site’s “Future Tense Editor,” whatever that means — but was stomped by Joe Six-Pack out there.

Make of that what you will. And let us know how you do on the quiz…

Yeah, I ‘won,’ but I’m still below average

Unable to resist the impulse to constantly humiliate myself, I take the Slate News Quiz most Fridays. Since it’s timed, which I hate, it only takes a moment.

And sometimes, when I do slightly better than usual, I share the result with y’all.

Today is one of those days. As you see, I defeated the “senior editor” who was this week’s star contestant.

But I still lagged behind the average reader. Of course, I suspect that a lot of them are hiding behind their anonymity and cheating. I just don’t know how.

This test is ridiculous, though. Seriously — I’m supposed to know which of four weird names starting with Z is that of the racehorse that “is the early favorite to win this year’s Kentucky Derby?”

I wish they’d stick to actual, relevant news that serious people could be expected to know. Of course, even then, I’d often miss because of the time pressure. I’m not a quick-draw artist. I have to think about things.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering how senior you have to be to be a “senior” editor at Slate, the answer is “about 29, apparently.” Whenever I see the title “senior something” next to a picture of a kid, I look that kid up. She graduated from college in 2015, so she’s probably about 29, but I can’t know for sure, can I?

We old guys are pathetic, aren’t we?…

Oh, yeah? Well, YOU spelled your name wrong…

I haven’t been posting any scores from the Slate news quiz lately, for two reasons:

  1. I really don’t like the new format. Try it, and see what you think.
  2. My scores really, really suck. This may be because of my recent aversion to pretty much all the news I encounter, thereby causing me to read less of it. But that’s probably not all of it.

See if you can do better. Actually, I expect a bag of hammers could do better.

Even that kid they call their “audience engagement editor” did better. Way better. But I comfort myself with the observation that she doesn’t even know how to spell her own name. I mean our own name… whatever…

Hey, I aced the Slate News Quiz! For once…

461

In keeping with my policy of posting the results on the rare occasions when I do well on the Slate News Quiz, and ignoring the whole business when I don’t, I share with you today’s result.

Of course, a lot was at stake today. They had taunted me with the challenge, “Think You’re Smarter Than a Slate Staff Writer?”

A “staff writer?” Are you kidding me? Obviously, the honor of editors everywhere was at stake!

I still went into it with some trepidation, given my record with these quizzes, but I kinda lucked out: Seems like there was only one sports-related question (which I suppose are gimmes for most people), and I guessed right on that one.

See how you do

I was smart today. But so were other people

493

Just thought I’d brag a bit. I got every answer right on Slate’s weekly news quiz! Which I haven’t done in awhile, or maybe ever.

I didn’t rush myself, which helped — but cost me points. Still, I scored higher than the average, and higher than the Slate staffer who was the designated guy to beat this week.

But not much higher. They did well, too. Which suggests maybe the questions were just unusually easy this week.

Check it out and see how you do…

 

I may not be bright, but I’m not quite as dumb as these guys

380

I never truly excel at the weekly Slate News Quiz, unlike our friend Doug. I’m just too deliberate, and this test rewards celerity.

Also, I sometimes get the answers, you know, wrong.

So I take satisfaction from such modest results as today’s. I came out looking pretty dumb, but not as dumb as certain other people.

Although I’m still kicking myself for getting the below question wrong, when I KNEW the answer. I had used the correct answer in something I was writing for an ADCO client (one in the insurance industry) just a few days ago.

But… I was trying to be fast, and that was my undoing. I saw the name of a corporation that I knew had been in the news in relation to the opioid crisis, and clicked on it, and even as my finger was applying pressure to the mouse button my brain saw the correct answer and screamed “NOOOOooooo!” But it was too late.

opioid

Doug gets a perfect score on the quiz!

Doug 550

I should have posted this on Friday, when Doug sent it to me. Perhaps I held back out of envy.

As he reported:

Got a 100% for the first time on a Slate News Quiz…  so I got that going for me, which is nice. (Caddyshack reference)

For my part, I missed one, and only got a 468… probably from being slow. But if I’d gone faster, I’d have missed more. That’s the way I am. I need that extra second or two that keeps me from the high scores.

You can still take the quiz, if you wanna…

468

We all deserve trophies! But especially me!

374

A score of 374 out of a possible 600 (I think) is not normally something to write home about, but today it was enough to win!

Although I didn’t actually win anything. And if I did, I should probably share it with the other contestants, because it was so close…

Anyway, I’ve again humiliated myself on the Slate news quiz — just not quite as badly as the host of “Slow Burn” (whatever that is) and Mr. Average out there.

On the upside, however, my aging brain still retains the capacity to learn. As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve started making myself take the test over each time, a few minutes after the first time, to see if I get them all right.

It’s still not a perfect score, because I never, ever do nothing nice and fast, and this test is timed — which I hate. It’s always going to take me a certain amount of time for my eyes to skim over the possibilities, identify the right one, and click. And I think my hand-eye coordination is average, at best.

But at least I learn…

572

Yes! In your FACE, Slate News Quiz!

417

OK, so this was a pretty modest achievement. I got two questions wrong, which means that if this were a test in school I would have gotten an 83, which even by South Carolina’s currently overly generous grading system would be a low B.

But here’s the thing… Y’all know that I’ve always taken inordinate pride in my test-taking skills. That’s what got me through high school without studying, slacker that I was. (One of my favorite lines from Woody Allen’s “Love and Death” is when a fellow soldier, heading into battle, moans, “Oh, God is testing us!” and Allen’s character says, “If He’s gonna test us, why doesn’t He give us a written?” Yes! Why can’t all tests be written?)

But the Slate News Quiz is the kind of test that foils me time and again. Partly is that they have a penchant for trivial news over the top stories. But mostly because you get points for how quickly you answer, which rattles me. I hate being timed doing anything, and especially on something requiring thought. I don’t do anything fast.

So week after week, I get skunked on this quiz, humiliated by the Slate staffer they pit you against, or the reader average, or both. But not today.

You know why I did better today? I made myself slow down. I allowed myself that extra beat where I go, Come on, you read something about this, or when I don’t know, Which makes most sense?, or on less certain ones, Which of these names do you have a vague memory of having heard lately?, or more deviously, Which of these names wouldn’t be here unless that’s the one?

I took a hit on my score for taking time, but I got most of them right.

I even did better than “senior editor” Jeremy Stahl. Curious as I tend to be when these online publications call somebody a “senior” something, I looked him up. He graduated college in 2004, so he’s about 37. Which at least is older than I would have guessed.

I mean, at least he’s four years older than that twerp, “Senior White House Advisor” Stephen Miller

And who knows? If the boy studies up, maybe he’ll beat the old man next time. You know how it was in the old Westerns: the top gun always has to be looking over his shoulder for the next punk looking to make a name for himself

 

Trying to keep that ol’ gray matter working

313

I accepted some time ago that I was never going to be a world-shaker on the weekly Slate News Quiz. Aside from the fact that it tends to value news that’s a little outside my areas of interest (like, you know, sports), it’s timed, which tends to rattle me. Because I never ever do nothin’ fast, to paraphrase Tina Turner.

And today, I met my own low expectations, missing five questions and scoring a miserable 313. (I did, by way of consolation, beat this week’s designated Slate staffer, but this was a feature writer, not a hard-news type, so no real honor in that.)

But as I say, I no longer expect to break records. This week, for instance, the top score was from a reader with the alias “LiberalViewer,” with a perfect 600. (How does one get a perfect score on a test in which time counts against your score? Get all 12 questions right in zero time?)

So I’ve started using the quizzes for something else — to test and train my brain. Now that I’m on Medicare and all, I suppose I should think about keeping the ol’ gray matter humming — or making whatever noise it makes.

So right after I score my usual dismal score, I go back and take the same test again, with two aims — to see if I remember all the correct answers and to see how much faster I can do it.

After all, since my annual physical last week was my first on Medicare, they gave me a mental acuity test. The nurse gave me three words to remember and asked me to draw a clock on which the hands pointed to 10 ’til 2. She left the room, and I set to work drawing my clock (the circle part was already drawn, thank goodness). Later, suddenly and without warning, she asked me for the three words. They were “sunshine,” “banana” and “chair.” I aced it — this time. (She never got back to me on the clock thing.)

Anyway, this week I did the quiz again several minutes later and got a 580. Which is good, I think. For a slowcoach like me, anyway. That’s about as fast as my fingers will click…

580

YEAH, baby! You’d better go STUDY UP, Aisha!

419

For once, I didn’t totally embarrass myself on the Slate News Quiz — which, as you know from my constant whining about it, is timed and therefore tends to rattle me.

Yes! Take a look at THAT, Aisha Harris! 419! You’d better go study up next time! That goes for you too out there, Mr. Average!

Actually, I should have gone 12 for 12. Both of the questions I missed were ones where — and I know you’ve been there — my first reaction was the right answer, but being an idiot, I talked myself out of it.

Otherwise, my result would have looked like what you see below. (Yeah, I make a habit of immediately taking the test a second time, to improve my speed and check up on my ability to learn.) Now, y’all go take it!

582

This test says I’m a racist — but a moderate one, let me add!

trap

Y’all know I’m a sucker for a written test, even if, as I take it, I can hear the voice of Admiral Ackbar crying, “It’s a trap!”

Which was sort of the case with this one as it proceeded. Even as I thought I could see the trap taking shape and closing on me, hubris kept me going, hoping I’d ace it anyway.

I didn’t.

I was attracted to the test by this item on the radio this morning. It was a story about all the Starbucks stores that are closed for racial-sensitivity training as I type this. Then came the hook:

How to evaluate your own bias:

The Takeaway invites you to participate in an assessment of your own implicit biases. Click here to access Harvard University’s “Project Implicit.” If this is the first time you’re attempting the test, you’ll have to continue as a guest. Select your country and language, then press “GO!” At the bottom of the next page, click “I wish to proceed.” Then select “Race IAT” — or other implicit association test of your choice — from the following page, and continue to follow the prompts from there to take the test. It should last about 10 minutes.

I went for it, of course. The result? It said “Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for European Americans over African Americans.

Which kinda ticked me off, even though I saw it coming. What caused this conclusion of my racism?

I’ll tell you, but I ask you to go take the test before reading my explanation. No, really, I mean it now! Go take it before you read past this…

SPOILER ALERT!

The test starts off by lulling you. It asks you questions you’d have to be a major, racist jerk — and a particularly dumb one at that — to answer “wrongly.” Questions like whether you prefer white people to black people, and to what degree.

Then there’s another batch of obvious-pitfall questions, about whether you think poor people are that way because they’re lazy and shiftless.

Then comes the trick part. From the beginning, I’m screwed because you’re supposed to respond as quickly as you can. That always messes me up. I like being rushed even less than other people do; in fact it’s a major personal peeve. My hand/eye coordination is about as quick as that of the average giant sloth, and I know it, and I get rattled.

But I can, eventually, sorta kinda get into the rhythm of the thing.

Anyway, in this part of the test, you’re supposed to, as quickly as possible, either hit the e key with your left hand or the i key with your right.

And here’s where it gets REALLY tricky: You’re not supposed to respond according to what you think, but according to how you have been told in advance to respond. And the way you have been told to respond is in a completed irrational, arbitrary manner.

In this portion of the test, the e and the i correspond to “good” and “bad” (or was it the other way around?). Onto your screen will flash two kinds of input — one of a set of photos of faces, and the other and set of words that are obviously expressing either positive associations (such as “happy”) or negative ones (such as “dirty”).

In the first half of this portion, you are instructed to click one of the letters for both black faces and positive words, and the other letter for white faces and negative words. This was kind of silly and irrational, and I hit the wrong key a couple of times, but I muddled through, and thought I was getting a little faster toward the end.

Then, once you’re warmed up, it reverses on you. You are instructed to hit one key for both black faces and negative words, and the other for white faces and positive words. This was both stupid and offensive, but I followed the instructions, and started doing it a bit faster as I went.

And as I did so, I suspected I was getting myself in trouble by getting better at following the instructions.

Sure enough, I was labeled moderately racist for getting a little faster in that last part — because, in the assumptions of the test creators, supposedly it was easier for my brain to associate the positive words with white faces, and negative ones with black ones. And that, they say, is why I did it more quickly.

Obviously, I believe that if it had been the other way around, with white folks associated with good words first, and bad words second, I would still have been faster on the last part. And then I would have been seen as having a moderate preference for black people, which I think would also have been kind of a bogus result.

But I don’t know that. And I kind of doubt that it would be valid to take it again. So I’ll just share with you what it said about me. The result is what it is…

This Pew typology quiz isn’t nearly as good as the old one

needy

Remember the Pew political typology quiz of a few years back? It was an attempt to classify people by their actual beliefs, getting beyond simple “left” and “right.”

It posed a lot of questions with only two answers and both of them wrong, but I found it intriguing. It placed me in what it called the “Faith and Family Left.” That bugged me because I didn’t like the “left” part — but I thought the “faith and family” part was fair enough. In fact, I liked it. And how often are any of us comfortable with the ways others describe us? Here’s how that category was described:

The Faith and Family Left combine strong support for activist government with conservative attitudes on many social issues. They are very racially diverse – this is the only typology group that is “majority-minority.” The Faith and Family Left generally favor increased government aid for the poor even if it adds to the deficit and believe that government should do more to solve national problems. Most oppose same-sex marriage and legalizing marijuana and most say religion and family are at the center of their lives. Compare groups on key issues.

Sounds kind of like me, doesn’t it? Even though it’s the group with the highest percentage of African-Americans (I joked at the time that Pew thinks I’m a black preacher) and I’m the whitest white boy at Bypass High, it felt more or less right. I chafed at some of it, but not all.

But Pew has a new typology quiz now, and I hate it. (Actually, it’s relatively new. I tried last year and hated the results so much I didn’t even write about it. Today, I decided to give it another chance, but it came up with the same stupid answer.) The questions demanding one of two wrong answers are even more egregious, and I simply refused to answer some of them. Which means Pew assessed me on the basis of incomplete information. And this time, it decided I was one of the “New Era Enterprisers,” which right off sort of makes me want to gag.

I ask you, does this sound like me?

This relatively young, economically conservative, Republican-leaning group tends to be relatively moderate on immigration and views about America’s engagement with the rest of the world. Most say U.S. involvement in the global economy is a good thing and that immigrants strengthen the nation. As is the case with other GOP-leaning groups, a majority of New Era Enterprisers reject the idea that racial discrimination is the main reason many black people are unable to get ahead. Nearly two-thirds favor societal acceptance of homosexuality. New Era Enterprisers are less critical about government than other Republican-leaning groups.

Really? “This relatively young, economically conservative, Republican-leaning group?” I try to picture that person, and I see John Dean before he started ratting out the Nixon White House. And if I were really a member of this group, I would have little memory of Howard Dean, much less John.

OK, yeah, I favor engagement in the world. But doesn’t that make me more of an old school postwar internationalist? More of a John McCain type? Or a Scoop Jackson, among the Democrats? And yeah, I’m less critical about government — but how does that put me in this group?

The only way it fits, overall, is that this category seems to be less ideological all around.

Pictured above and below are two of the questions I refused to answer. How could I?

Of course the country can do more to help the needy — such as passing single-payer. And it does NOT have to go further into debt to do it. False choice.

The one below is worse. I don’t think racial discrimination is “the main reason” many black Americans have trouble getting ahead. Nor would I for a second say that folks trapped in multigenerational poverty are “mostly responsible for their own condition.” There are many forces that can frustrate a poor person’s best efforts, and to say racism is “the main reason” is to blind yourself to all the others.

Anyway, I don’t have time to think about this any more. I need to run out and start a tech company and make a billion dollars. Because that, apparently, is the kind of young fella I am. A New Era Enterpriser. Sheesh…

racism

Slate Quiz: Ha! Take THAT, you young whippersnapper!

405

I know I shouldn’t feel pumped for beating a lowly intern, but I so seldom do well on the Slate News Quiz (it’s timed, and that rattles me) that I deserve to celebrate, just a bit.

Even though, you know, I cheated. Just a little…

Here’s what I did: On the very first question, I could see the right answer immediately. But then I hesitated, thought a bit more, and clicked on a different answer — and it was wrong! I had been right to start with!

I wasn’t going to proceed on that basis, starting in the hole, so I allowed myself a mulligan; I started over.

I ended up knowing most of the answers, and beating both the intern (take that, young Lila Thulin!) and the average by a fairly substantial margin (405 to 316 to 342, respectively).

So I made myself go back and do it again, deliberately getting the first answer wrong. But then, I accidentally correctly answered another question I’d gotten wrong the first time (No. 4), so I had to deliberately screw up another one (No. 12).

But I failed set things right. I ended up with a higher score, 431, the second time — probably because I did it faster.

So, there is wrongness still in the universe, and it’s my fault, and I seem to be incapable of setting it right. But I still slam-dunked this quiz! See how you do.

431

 

I won on the Slate News Quiz! (not that that’s unusual…)

200

As I’ve bragged here often, I tend to test well. Give me a written, and I’m in like Flynn.

Except on the weekly Slate News Quiz. First, it’s timed — I don’t do well with timed tests; they rattle me. Second, the news it chooses to test on is not the kind that’s on the front pages of the NYT, WashPost, or The Guardian, which is where I look for it during the week. Too much News of the Weird, sports and celebrity junk.

But this week, I ruled! And what probably put me over the top was that the sports question was, for once, about baseball! And about a game I had actually watched! (Which is something unlikely to happen more than once a year or so.) Take that, Dahlia Lithwick!

Test yourself at this link

428

 

Top Five Things Wrong With This PBS Quiz

decade

As y’all know, I dig PBS almost as much as I do NPR, and it’s basically the only broadcast outlet I ever watch. (Mostly I have a TV for Netflix and Amazon Prime, and occasionally, when I’m feeling retro, a DVD.)

So I have high expectations when I see the PBS logo. Which is why I was so disappointed by this lame “Which Decade Do You Belong In?” quiz.

The whole thing was phoned in for the shallowest of purposes — promotion of three “Masterpiece Mystery” series. Nothing is offered that would provide a serious time traveler with helpful insight into which decade he would be most at home in.

Here are the Top Five things wrong with it:

  1. The individual questions force you into ridiculous choices. Such as “Choose a Women’s Hairstyle,” and the options are “Beehive,” “Poodle cut” and “Shag.” In other words, you have to have a fave among the most extreme, least appealing, hairstyles of three decades. (The worst: “Who’s your biggest critic?”, with the choices being “The Establishment,” “The Church,” and “Your mother.” Y’all know me: I’ve got no beef with any of those parties. But I chose “The Establishment” because I knew that would make me cool in at least one of the three decades on offer.)
  2. Even if the individual questions offered minimal guidance, there aren’t enough of them to add up to anything helpful. There are only seven of them! I mean, why even bother inventing a time machine to begin with? With info like this, even if I fell and hit my head and thought of the flux capacitor, I wouldn’t bother to build it, because I’d have no idea where I wanted to go!
  3. Crass commercialism. Or, since this is technically not commercial television, crass… I don’t know… promotionalism! There have been loads of fine “Masterpiece Mystery!” shows over the years, set in many very fine decades, but this is all about three that were currently showing or about to have a season premiere. About as shallow as you can get, and strangely trapped in the current moment, considering that the point is to appeal to people who presumably want to live in other moments.
  4. Lack of truly cool decades. Forced to choose between the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, I of course ended up in the 50s, which will surprise few of you. But that’s because the decade of 1800-1810 wasn’t even offered! And you would think that PBS, if it exerted itself even slightly, would be able to manage that…
  5. One of the three shows that inspired this insipidity was a show that I haven’t even watched,
    No Annie Cartwright.

    No Annie Cartwright.

    from lack of interest: “Prime Suspect: Tennison.” I tried watching it one night, but quickly lost interest, mainly because it takes us back to the Metropolitan Police Service in 1973. In other words, it covers ground already covered far more entertainingly by “Life on Mars.” The central character is a young WPC trying to make her way in a service just beginning, reluctantly, to take female cops seriously. And I’m sorry — I’m sure she does her best, but she is no Annie Cartwright! Anyway, I lived through the 1970s; I became an adult in the 1970s, so show me something more interesting.

In the grand scheme of things, of course, such quizzes are beneath the dignity of PBS, which is probably why the person who contrived this just gave it a lick and a promise. But if you’re going to try to engage my appetite for quiz clickbait, then make it worthy of the PBS name!

That is all…

50s