Now a Pew report confirms my view: “In addition, The Daily Show not only assumes, but even requires, previous and significant knowledge of the news on the part of viewers if they want to get the joke.”

That’s not my peeve. The thing that annoys me is that various people seem to believe that the “my brother and I” construction should be used for both subjects and objects – so, for instance “they went to the shops with my brother and I.” The proper approach, of course, is to consider what form of pronoun you would use if it was just the first person singular: “I went to the shops”; “They went to the shops with me.”

Second peeve: so, this isn’t actually an error, but in certain circumstances it’s permissable to use either ‘who’ or ‘that’ to refer to people – my personal preference, in general, is to use ‘who’ (as ‘that’ seems to treat individuals as non-human objects), but I increasingly find people using ‘that’ when given the choice. Of course, I’ve also seen people use ‘which’ where they should have used ‘who’, but that’s an actual error, and not too widespread.

End rant….

It’s a fascinating premise, since it’s a mix of luck and calculation of risks and returns. For those unfamiliar with the show, a contestant is faced with 22 boxes. On the inside of the lid of each box is written a different cash amount (in the UK case, from 10p to £250,000). One of the boxes is ‘their’ box, the default prize they will take home. But first they have to open each of the other boxes one by one, thereby narrowing down the range of possible amounts in ‘their’ box. After they open three boxes, or so, they get an offer from a ‘banker’ to buy their box (with the unknown amount) from them for a set amount of cash. They can ‘deal’ – take the fixed sum – or choose ‘no deal’ and continue opening boxes, until the banker offers them another offer.

Stephen Dubner has noted that economists are interested in the show because of the data it provides on the decision-making of individuals (when sitting in a television studio in front of a live audience). Watching the British version I was struck also by the manner in which the contestant I watched relied on ‘lucky’ numbers to choose which boxes to open – no surprise really, but interesting nonetheless. There was also more concentration – in the patter of the presenter, and on the part of the contestant – on the single largest prize than on the spread of the prizes on the board, which struck me as inappropriate (though I may be wrong – I haven’t done much number-crunching on this). The odds being quoted to them for success also seemed wrong to me, seeming to treat all closed boxes as of equal value, rather than noting that the player was playing with one particular box – though, again, this was an off-the-cuff analysis.

Finally, the ‘banker’ (who appears only through phone-calls to the presenter) was being treated by the contestant as an actual person, or at least personality – it seemed she was at least in part treating it as a psychological contest (talking about how the banker wasn’t respecting her, etc.). The Freakonomics posts haven’t noted anything definitive about the formula used for the bids, with various commenters arguing over whether it’s a fixed formula or responds to the perceived personality of the contestant (or other factors such as their existing income) but it seemed to me that early offers were well under the expected return (average of possible results) while later bids became more generous – thus encouraging the contestant to play on near the beginning but bow out rather than play the last game (bearing in mind that the perception of new bids will be coloured by previous bids).

EPIC
I have lived in important places, times
When great events were decided, who owned
That half a rood of rock, a no-man’s land
Surrounded by our pitchfork-armed claims.
I heard the Duffys shouting ‘Damn your soul’
And old McCabe stripped to the waist, seen
Step the lot defying blue cast-steel -
‘Here is the march along these iron stones’
That was the year of the Munich bother. Which
Was more important? I inclined
To lose my faith in Ballyrish and Gortin
Till Homer’s ghost came whispering to my mind
He said: I made the Iliad from such
A local row: Gods make their own importance.

In media studies, coming – by chance – across an old copy of Bagdikian’s Media Monopoly (I think in Charlie Byrne’s, Galway’s jewel of a bookshop) was a revelation. Follow that with Herman and Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, where again I must thank Sabryna for my (autographed) copy.

I also like to keep copies of the dictionaries of Ó Dónaill and De Bhaldraithe by my desk, to encourage use of Irish – either reading from Foinse or writing, very occasionally, on funferal.

Passing it on
Hmm, here’s where it’s tricky. I don’t like imposing on people with these things (and there are only certain people who will appreciate a book meme – though granted my acquaintances are more likely to fall into the category). Anyone want to step up?