From observation, recognising that the general standard of television in my opinion has deteriorated and continues to do so year by year, so much so I now watch very little, I’ve found as far as the programme quality and content on all television channels, the following Doghouse's Laws of Television often apply.
I started compiling this list several years ago and some of these "laws" are now occasionally mentioned by contributors to a specific TV network message board, though of course they can apply to any channel.
I'm sure other contributors may relate to some of them and can think of other examples of practices which could be added to the list.
With a new programme, if your impression of it after ten minutes is that it's going to be rubbish, you’ll only be right 95% of the time.
The number of advance programme trails screened, will be in inverse proportion to the quality of the programme. The ”best bits” of any programme will be included in the trail.
The volume of background music will often be in inverse proportion to the amount of watchable activity on the screen at that time.
Any TV audience gets the standard of programmes it deserves. It’s no good complaining about the quality of a programme if you continue to watch it.
If an idea for a programme suggested to a TV network commissioning department isn’t another soap in one form or another, or requires an "in your face" presenter/auto-cutie, celebrities, judges, phone votes, or the inclusion of dysfunctional members of the public, it is unlikely to be made.
The number of programme presenters appearing at any one time, will usually be in inverse proportion to the quality of the programme.
The number and variety of similar programmes on TV, are likely to be in inverse proportion to their cost to present.
To reach the widest audience, in a programme where the subject is of a specific nature, it may include totally unrelated elements in an attempt to also “engage” viewers who aren’t the slightest bit interested in the actual topic, in a futile attempt to increase the ratings.
Some programmes, even a few news bulletins, given the level at which the programme makers pitch their production, should have the words; "for Dummies" added to the title.
If you've any doubts about watching a programme, from the trails or advertising you've seen, take a chance, give it a miss.
I started compiling this list several years ago and some of these "laws" are now occasionally mentioned by contributors to a specific TV network message board, though of course they can apply to any channel.
I'm sure other contributors may relate to some of them and can think of other examples of practices which could be added to the list.
With a new programme, if your impression of it after ten minutes is that it's going to be rubbish, you’ll only be right 95% of the time.
The number of advance programme trails screened, will be in inverse proportion to the quality of the programme. The ”best bits” of any programme will be included in the trail.
The volume of background music will often be in inverse proportion to the amount of watchable activity on the screen at that time.
Any TV audience gets the standard of programmes it deserves. It’s no good complaining about the quality of a programme if you continue to watch it.
If an idea for a programme suggested to a TV network commissioning department isn’t another soap in one form or another, or requires an "in your face" presenter/auto-cutie, celebrities, judges, phone votes, or the inclusion of dysfunctional members of the public, it is unlikely to be made.
The number of programme presenters appearing at any one time, will usually be in inverse proportion to the quality of the programme.
The number and variety of similar programmes on TV, are likely to be in inverse proportion to their cost to present.
To reach the widest audience, in a programme where the subject is of a specific nature, it may include totally unrelated elements in an attempt to also “engage” viewers who aren’t the slightest bit interested in the actual topic, in a futile attempt to increase the ratings.
Some programmes, even a few news bulletins, given the level at which the programme makers pitch their production, should have the words; "for Dummies" added to the title.
If you've any doubts about watching a programme, from the trails or advertising you've seen, take a chance, give it a miss.
by Doghouse Riley November 2, 2008
Get the Doghouse's Laws of Television mug.Orig. British Isles
n. A place of lodging for the destitute; the poor or homeless.
Alternatively known as workhouses, poorhouses, lodging houses, or "fourpenny hotels", destitute people would pay a cheap fee or work in return for being allowed to sleep in a dormitory-like situation with other homeless people - men, women and children alike. Usually people were segregated by gender.
These establishments were prevalent in the 19 century, though the word itself dates from the second half of the 1800s.
Some were private and some public. Most were charitable or set up by religious establishments. Some might include a meal for the price. The modern, though much higher standard, equivalent, would be a hostel / youth hostel.
n. A place of lodging for the destitute; the poor or homeless.
Alternatively known as workhouses, poorhouses, lodging houses, or "fourpenny hotels", destitute people would pay a cheap fee or work in return for being allowed to sleep in a dormitory-like situation with other homeless people - men, women and children alike. Usually people were segregated by gender.
These establishments were prevalent in the 19 century, though the word itself dates from the second half of the 1800s.
Some were private and some public. Most were charitable or set up by religious establishments. Some might include a meal for the price. The modern, though much higher standard, equivalent, would be a hostel / youth hostel.
"There are many kinds of dosshouses, but in one thing they are all alike, from the filthy little ones to the monster big ones paying five per cent and blatantly lauded by smug middle-class men who know nothing about them, and that one thing is their uninhabitableness."
by Setanta May 21, 2014
Get the dosshouse mug.When you are having a threesome with your dog, female in the middle, both male partner and dog high five with paws like an Eiffel Tower.
I was boning some freaky ho and she started blowing my dog, so I said gimme some paw and we high fived in the DOGGHOUSE!
by DemonSeedRadio December 28, 2018
Get the Dogghouse mug.by Aaron,Dave,Maz December 3, 2003
Get the Tollhouse mug.The first sit down meal between a couple following a falling-out, disagreement and/or argument where one party has clearly been in the wrong.
by Dougy_18 July 17, 2011
Get the Doghouse Special mug.by Jeff Adamo November 7, 2007
Get the doghouse bass mug.1. (adjective) to be unable or unequipped to handle a situation of temptation due to animalistic tendency, much like a dog's instinct to attack turkeys in his dog house
2. to be in the presence of one whom cannot control his actions related to sex, food, addiction or anger
2. to be in the presence of one whom cannot control his actions related to sex, food, addiction or anger
1. Person 1: "Dude! So whack; how could he cheat on her at that sorority party?"
Person 2: "Oh come on, you know they're all babes; turkeys in a doghouse."
2. Person 1: "You can't to his house alone!"
Person 2: "Why not?"
Person 1: "He'll totally take advantage of you! Turkeys in a doghouse..."
3. Person 1: "Why do you relapse?"
Person 2: "I was at a Miley concert with all my dealers! Turkeys in a doghouse!!"
Person 2: "Oh come on, you know they're all babes; turkeys in a doghouse."
2. Person 1: "You can't to his house alone!"
Person 2: "Why not?"
Person 1: "He'll totally take advantage of you! Turkeys in a doghouse..."
3. Person 1: "Why do you relapse?"
Person 2: "I was at a Miley concert with all my dealers! Turkeys in a doghouse!!"
by ShanfullyGracious September 27, 2009
Get the turkeys in a doghouse mug.