Believe it or not, I got into an extended argument with a colleague about precisely this question en route to a meeting yesterday. We had a captive audience (we were in a car) which was intrigued (minutes 1-20), surprised that we went beyond the 20 minutes (minutes 21-33) and zoned out (minutes 33-49). Fortunately we reached our destination around that time.
The discussion centered on what is an appropriate show for the History Channel. Does the evolution of candy qualify as history or does it not? What level of detail is appropriate? Do we need to know how many tons of concrete were poured into the Hoover dam?
My point of view is - give the people what they want, and this is what I think they want. His point of view was that the History channel sucks and I am stupid (way to contribute to an argument).
No comments:
Post a Comment