The new “News” shows are, it is said, going to use TV cameras similar to those used by security agencies at airports. It is anticipated that very few people who are currently employed in broadcasting will leave their positions because of the cameras that see through clothing. Those who do leave their positions will do so at the request of ratings-loving management, rather than the personal desire of the broadcast personality. Many broadcast personalities have suggested that they will lower their egregious salary demands.
“Honestly, I got into television because I like to be looked at.”, explained one well-known broadcast personality. “I like being seen so much that if people can see more of me, I would accept a lower salary.”
Reasons to use the new, more revealing cameras supposedly originated in the desire to make the taking of nude photographs of citizens in any area deemed to be “of high security” more readily tolerated. The new cameras are not a shameless manifestation of broadcaster exhibitionalism, but of the leftist drive to infringe on individual freedoms. Their deep desires combined perfectly with television personalities’ overwhelming drive to have people see and hear them.
The most plausible of their justifications boil down to: “Viewers have the right to know that I’m not carrying a bomb under my blouse or anywhere else.”, announced one perky anchorette after memorizing and reciting that line and the two sentences following. “I have a responsibility to let the viewers know that people around me are safe. These new cameras are the best way to let people know that I’m not carrying any explosive devices.”
That, inane as it is, has been the most sensible comment on the matter to date. It was accompanied by knowing nods from other commentators on the hastily-assembled panel. They could be seen straining to see just what she looked like on the studio monitors while hoping that they, too, will be thought to be attractive enough to have their own recitations and teleprompter readings broadcast before the new, incredibly revealing cameras.
A few overweight “personalities” are reported to have contacted attorneys specializing in cases for those who are perpetually disgruntled, unhappy, and unfairly treated through no fault of their own. “If, through no fault of our own, we are so grossly overweight that people can’t stand to see our naked bodies, or if they switch channels in disgust when we appear before them, our civil rights are being violated.”
Few viewers seem to know, or care, much about the huge class-action lawsuits already in the planning stages. TV stations and networks that refuse to broadcast the exposed bodies of people whom they do not find appealing, or believe to be actually sickening, will be charged with “Discriminatory Broadcasting”. Viewers who change the channel when bodies they don’t want to look at are on screen will be charged with “Discriminatory Viewing”.
Trial lawyers intend to have Congress mandate the installation of second-by-second recording devices on every TV set. They plan to subpoena and use records of the accused’s channel switching habits to prove them guilty of such vile discrimination. “Doesn’t your Official Viewing Recorder show that you were watching Fox News until the camera swung over to Helen Thomas, at which point you immediately changed the channel and watched an infomercial about canning garden vegetables? Didn’t that happen? Of course it did. The Official Viewing Recorder on your TV doesn’t lie. Is any more proof necessary to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that you were guilty of Discriminatory Viewing?”
Juries, carefully selected to reflect the Obesity Epidemic that is said to be raging around us, will have little trouble coming to the desired verdicts.
