It's time for November sweeps. New TV shows instead of reruns, or possibly high-rated reruns, anything to get better ratings.
Oh yeah, and news crews are looking for the stories that will get them more viewers. Ratings mean everything.
At my job, we have been warned several times this week not to stay in one place too long--that is--don't spend 30 minutes eating lunch, because the local TV news crews are swarming all over the city trying to find municipal employees goofing off. These stories make for good ratings. We've already had several complaints this week that--of course--must be investigated, but which in reality are pretty much blown off for being so trivial and sometimes downright stupid.
So after hearing this warning for about the 17th time this week, I confronted my supervisor.
Me: I just want to make sure I'm not confused. We have a 30-minute lunch break, right?
Me: But if we sit in one place for more than 15 minutes, we'll get in trouble, right?
Super: (hesitating) Yes.
Me: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we were all clear on that.
So, for all your TV "journalists" (heh) who have nothing better to do: screw you. How much do you get paid for sitting on your fat asses and spying on people who are only trying to make a living, and counting how many minutes they spend in a Valero restroom, or trying to choke down one of those godforsaken hot dogs so they can keep going for a few more hours? And you still pretend wonderment when people profess contempt and sometimes outright hatred for you? You would cost someone their job because they had the temerity to try and spend their lunch break eating some real food from a real restaurant? For better ratings?
P.S. I wasn't personally affected by this. But it still fills me with rage.