They invited me to write here about Ricardo Araújo Pereira's new program at SIC. I was amazed. Does SIC still exist? Or rather, I know that SIC and TVI still exist (RTP, for purposes other than advertising, died decades ago or was not even born). What he did not know was that they continued to show different programs of contests, soap operas, Cristinas and varieties disguised as newscasts. Apparently, from the top of its losses, SIC decided to sponsor a news program disguised as varieties. Or a humorous newscast, which is what “This is Enjoying Who You Work With” aims to be. Also strange that a station that has mr. Costa Ribas in the pictures don't take advantage (the modern designation is “fostering synergies”) master size of burlesque and, after letting Pacheco Pereira escape, go and recruit comedians abroad.
To top it off, he recruited Ricardo, who deserves a date of praise that I do not need to repeat. I just say that I like to see Ricardo and that I would never remember seeing SIC if it weren't for the Observer's invitation. And I say it to say that I don't know anyone my age or below (today, around 55% of Portuguese, damn them) who sees channels like that. Experience teaches me that:
1) the old people see CMTV exclusively, where people of their real or mental generation perish about passionate crimes and motorcycle accidents;
2) middle-aged subjects see Netflix, HBO and Amazon Prime, where people of their generation try to reproduce, usually in vain, the merits of “Breaking Bad” or “The Sopranos”;
3) children, aged 3 to 33, watch other children screaming on YouTube.
I have no idea who sees traditional channels, certainly a niche within a niche. Above all, I have no idea who sees the traditional channels to see Ricardo. The “most viewed” lists are consulted each year and, in recent years, eighteen or nineteen of the first twenty places are occupied by football matches. Translation: a “youtuber” that is filmed at the mother's house and punctuates sentences with “uoréver” has audiences superior to all television “contents”, with the possible exception of two dozen matches. Like what happened in the past with newspapers, televisions are going through a process of change: the point is that the process changes and televisions are immobile.
Recently, Tiago Dores told me that many suggested Gato Fedorento do a national version of the “Daily Show”. It was, obviously, a bunch of experts with no idea of the costs of such a program. There is a huge cost to pay for that. And, as far as I'm concerned, there is often the relative cost of watching that. Apart from Jon Stewart's golden period, helped by figures who would make a career out of it (Steve Carrell, Ed Helms, Stephen Colbert), the “Daily Show” was rarely bearable. At its best, it was magnificent, and created a new standard for TV news parody. Unfortunately, he also created a belief in his own brilliance that irritated a saint. The "Daily Show" was so popular, and it started to take itself seriously – and making it difficult for us to take it to play. From an intelligent clown, Stewart went down as a party guru, aware that, for considerable sectors of the population, his space for cheats was more influential than conventional news. Unsurprisingly, the grace was lost along the way: it is no joke to ponder and anticipate the “social” effect of the joke. Afterwards, Stewart reformed himself seriously and institutionally, the “Daily Show” continued with a presenter I don't know and the derivations (“spin-offs”, abroad) multiplied.