Once again, the media (old and new, they're all guilty) are engaging in their silly, sophomoric and spastic debate in this year's election campaign. Instead of informing the public about the issues that are before the voters (taxes, Iraq, Iran, Korea, health care, Social Security) they are debating what they (the media) are reporting and then debating whether or not they should be debating their debating.
No wonder the media is held in such low esteem. One cannot watch Bill O'Reilly without seeing Bill O'Reilly on TV or hearing him on his radio show talk about the media. O'Reilly slips on the loofah soap every time and goes into "Paranoia One Mode" anytime any media criticise him. It's a vast media conspiracy, he alleges.
One cannot turn on Keith Olbermann without seeing him trash Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.
And, the sad thing is that the media rush to protect each other from any criticism from the public. The media personalities "get away with" things that an average citizen can't.
They are a coddled bunch, the media. They are bloated with their feelings of self-importance. They're an elite club, the media. They're easily swayed. They're easily intimidated by politicians. If they don't suck up to the other media they won't be invited to the high dollar cocktail parties in Washington and New York.
Is there any chance the media (in all forms) will grow up? No way. They enjoy the power trips of being on TV and being quoted on TV by other media pals. It's a media ego trip extraordinaire and the public is being taken for a ride down a rocky road.
The media has "Attention Deficit Disorder" and ratings prove it. Radio listenership is down. TV cable news viewership is down.
One phrase needs to be repeated over and over again when you're watching and listening to the media in this heated and, you'd never know it, important election year, "Grow up or shut up!"
Sadly, there is no "Daddy" to spank them and send them to their rooms.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Chris Wallace is no Mike Wallace
"I knew Mike Wallace. Mike Wallace was a friend of mine. And, you, Chris Wallace, are no Mike Wallace."
No doubt those words have crossed a lot of minds in the aftermath of the Chris Wallace-Bill Clinton interview on Fox News. Without getting into the muddy minutia of who did more to "get" Osama bin Laden, let's take a look at what seems to be feigned shock and surprise by both Chris Wallace and the chattyheads on cable TV and talk radio.
Two words. Grow up! Or, go out and get a life in some other profession. The news media appears to be trying to explain their shortcomings in reporting and asking the tough questons -- and follow ups -- by turning away the attention they're getting and talking about the explosiveness of the former president's answer.
Anger? Explosiveness? Frustration? Do you really want to hear and see it? Get "out there" and you will. If the news media would get out of Washington and New York, they'd hear it from the folks who live and work in the 50 states. The chattyheads should quit talking among themselves and talk to real people in Ohio, Texas, California, Iowa and across America.
We could use a little more wider range of expressions -- anger, fear, disgust, horror, sorrow -- from elected officials -- especially those who are and were in the Oval Office.
As far as Clinton's "finger pointing" at Chris Wallace, there should be more finger pointing -- by the media, at themselves. The members of the media would better represent their profession if they would stick their noses into the hows, whys and what fors of real news reporting that the public truly deserves.
Chris Wallace inherited the job of Fox News Sunday morning talk show from Tony Snow who now sings like a Canary for the Bush administration. Before that, Wallace was a reporter and sometimes news anchor for NBC and ABC. It is tough for me to remember even one memorable news story that he ever brought to the TV screen other than a distant memory of an investigative story that he once reported on about a car repair shop overcharging customers. Can there be any doubt that Wallace is indebted to the Fox News powers for rescuing him from the work pits of the oil and lube shops and bringing him a little fleeting fame on a third-rated Sunday morning cable TV program?
If the media were mature enough, instead of trying to overdramatize what, in earlier years, would have been just another presidential interview, they would be taking an honest look at the way they report and present the news to the American public and the world.
Who cares if Wallace was "surprised" by the former president's anger? THAT has become the story instead of the content of the answer that Bill Clinton was giving. From the number of interviews that Wallace has given since the Sunday interview telecast, it appears that he is using the moment in the spotlight to further his career. Can a book be next?
If more public officials were as challenging and forceful in their answers as Clinton was, perhaps the "new media" would bring to the public a better news product.
When the media person (Chris Wallace) becomes the story instead of the content of the news story itself being the news, that's when it's time for the media to say, "Are we really being fair and balanced, and what's our obligation to the viewing public?"
There's too much entertainment in cable news. It didn't start yesterday. Mike Wallace began his career as an announcer and a radio-TV game show host. His son began his broadcasting career as -- well, who knows. But, it is a safe bet that Chris Wallace wouldn't be in the job that he is now if he hadn't been the son of Mike Wallace. And he is enjoying his ride on the coattails of his dad's reputation. And, he is no Mike Wallace.
No doubt those words have crossed a lot of minds in the aftermath of the Chris Wallace-Bill Clinton interview on Fox News. Without getting into the muddy minutia of who did more to "get" Osama bin Laden, let's take a look at what seems to be feigned shock and surprise by both Chris Wallace and the chattyheads on cable TV and talk radio.
Two words. Grow up! Or, go out and get a life in some other profession. The news media appears to be trying to explain their shortcomings in reporting and asking the tough questons -- and follow ups -- by turning away the attention they're getting and talking about the explosiveness of the former president's answer.
Anger? Explosiveness? Frustration? Do you really want to hear and see it? Get "out there" and you will. If the news media would get out of Washington and New York, they'd hear it from the folks who live and work in the 50 states. The chattyheads should quit talking among themselves and talk to real people in Ohio, Texas, California, Iowa and across America.
We could use a little more wider range of expressions -- anger, fear, disgust, horror, sorrow -- from elected officials -- especially those who are and were in the Oval Office.
As far as Clinton's "finger pointing" at Chris Wallace, there should be more finger pointing -- by the media, at themselves. The members of the media would better represent their profession if they would stick their noses into the hows, whys and what fors of real news reporting that the public truly deserves.
Chris Wallace inherited the job of Fox News Sunday morning talk show from Tony Snow who now sings like a Canary for the Bush administration. Before that, Wallace was a reporter and sometimes news anchor for NBC and ABC. It is tough for me to remember even one memorable news story that he ever brought to the TV screen other than a distant memory of an investigative story that he once reported on about a car repair shop overcharging customers. Can there be any doubt that Wallace is indebted to the Fox News powers for rescuing him from the work pits of the oil and lube shops and bringing him a little fleeting fame on a third-rated Sunday morning cable TV program?
If the media were mature enough, instead of trying to overdramatize what, in earlier years, would have been just another presidential interview, they would be taking an honest look at the way they report and present the news to the American public and the world.
Who cares if Wallace was "surprised" by the former president's anger? THAT has become the story instead of the content of the answer that Bill Clinton was giving. From the number of interviews that Wallace has given since the Sunday interview telecast, it appears that he is using the moment in the spotlight to further his career. Can a book be next?
If more public officials were as challenging and forceful in their answers as Clinton was, perhaps the "new media" would bring to the public a better news product.
When the media person (Chris Wallace) becomes the story instead of the content of the news story itself being the news, that's when it's time for the media to say, "Are we really being fair and balanced, and what's our obligation to the viewing public?"
There's too much entertainment in cable news. It didn't start yesterday. Mike Wallace began his career as an announcer and a radio-TV game show host. His son began his broadcasting career as -- well, who knows. But, it is a safe bet that Chris Wallace wouldn't be in the job that he is now if he hadn't been the son of Mike Wallace. And he is enjoying his ride on the coattails of his dad's reputation. And, he is no Mike Wallace.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Katie Couric's Debut -- "The Big Sneezy"
The debut of Katic Couric as the latest of the CBS Evening News anchors will probably be remembered as "The Big Sneezy".
You know what they say about a sneeze, don't you? That it is the closest thing to an orgasm one can feel. But, too soon, after that goody-good feeling, with a shrug of one's shoulders and a shake of the head, life moves on and reality once again sets in.
Time was when the world breathlessly anticipated such an event. But, events like this are not the events that they used to be.
Who appear to be the copycat cable news media barely-out-of-their-teens producers and writers seem to be infatuated with the phrases, "Wait'll you see the next story" and "You're not going to believe this" as well as an overuse of the word "exclusive". "Exclusive" used to be used when only one media outlet had the story or an interiew. Today, we're under the barrage of a dozen "exclusives" of the same story or interviewee, from the breathless Rita Cosby to the nitwit logic of Joe Scarborough.
The list of those who will appear on Couric's upcoming newscasts is impressive. Presidents Bush and Clinton, Bill Maher and others want to get within the glow of her debut spotlight. But, the true test of her credibility will be whether or not she has real journalistic teeth behind that Pepsodent smile. Can she ask the hard questions and, more importantly, can she doggedly pursue the "follow up" question that so many TV newsies have abandoned?
Rush Limbaugh is being touted as her big "get" this week. Is he going to be asked for political analysis or is he being interviewed about his own life? Will she dance around the tough questions or will she bring up Limbaugh's drug problem? The big question - as Bob Novak would say - Katie, is this: Ask Rush Limbaugh if he is still on a prescription pain-killer for his ongoing back pain. And be careful about "The Viagra Thing", Katie. At last count he still had 29 out of the 30 pills that were secretly prescribed to his Florida doctor and given to him to protect his "privacy".
You know what they say about a sneeze, don't you? That it is the closest thing to an orgasm one can feel. But, too soon, after that goody-good feeling, with a shrug of one's shoulders and a shake of the head, life moves on and reality once again sets in.
Time was when the world breathlessly anticipated such an event. But, events like this are not the events that they used to be.
Who appear to be the copycat cable news media barely-out-of-their-teens producers and writers seem to be infatuated with the phrases, "Wait'll you see the next story" and "You're not going to believe this" as well as an overuse of the word "exclusive". "Exclusive" used to be used when only one media outlet had the story or an interiew. Today, we're under the barrage of a dozen "exclusives" of the same story or interviewee, from the breathless Rita Cosby to the nitwit logic of Joe Scarborough.
The list of those who will appear on Couric's upcoming newscasts is impressive. Presidents Bush and Clinton, Bill Maher and others want to get within the glow of her debut spotlight. But, the true test of her credibility will be whether or not she has real journalistic teeth behind that Pepsodent smile. Can she ask the hard questions and, more importantly, can she doggedly pursue the "follow up" question that so many TV newsies have abandoned?
Rush Limbaugh is being touted as her big "get" this week. Is he going to be asked for political analysis or is he being interviewed about his own life? Will she dance around the tough questions or will she bring up Limbaugh's drug problem? The big question - as Bob Novak would say - Katie, is this: Ask Rush Limbaugh if he is still on a prescription pain-killer for his ongoing back pain. And be careful about "The Viagra Thing", Katie. At last count he still had 29 out of the 30 pills that were secretly prescribed to his Florida doctor and given to him to protect his "privacy".
Monday, May 08, 2006
What was CNN Headline News thinking? Glenn Beck -- No, Glenn Yecchhhhh!
Watching the first fifteen minutes of Glenn Beck's debut on the CNN Headlines Channel was painful. I had to turn it off -- didn't make it to 20 past the top of the hour. It was embarrassing for me to watch a grown man embarrass himself.
Glenn Beck made the Three Stooges look like Rhodes Scholars. Clever, he's not. Suave, he's not. Goofy? That he is!
Here was a radio talk show host -- who is not funny on the radio -- trying to be funny on TV. If he thought he was going to bring something new, hip and creative to cable news, he and the heads that should roll at CNN Headlines News for putting him on TV were so, so wrong.
It was reminiscent of the ill-fated Rush Limbaugh venture into syndicated television. Glenn, remember; What works on radio doesn't always work on television.
The sooner the Glenn Beck TV show is put to a swift death, the better. It would be a mercy killing and spare the cablewaves from any more of this less-than-talented programming.
Go back to the drawing boards, CNN Headline News Channel. This one ain't gonna work!
Glenn Beck made the Three Stooges look like Rhodes Scholars. Clever, he's not. Suave, he's not. Goofy? That he is!
Here was a radio talk show host -- who is not funny on the radio -- trying to be funny on TV. If he thought he was going to bring something new, hip and creative to cable news, he and the heads that should roll at CNN Headlines News for putting him on TV were so, so wrong.
It was reminiscent of the ill-fated Rush Limbaugh venture into syndicated television. Glenn, remember; What works on radio doesn't always work on television.
The sooner the Glenn Beck TV show is put to a swift death, the better. It would be a mercy killing and spare the cablewaves from any more of this less-than-talented programming.
Go back to the drawing boards, CNN Headline News Channel. This one ain't gonna work!
Monday, January 30, 2006
What about the wounded soldiers? Where's the reporting?
You might expect the media -- from Fox News to CNN to MSNBC to NBC to ABC -- to headline every newscast with updates about anchorman Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt being wounded in Iraq.
But, don't you think that the families of the 2000 + servicemen and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the tens of thousands of wounded feel that their sons and daughters deserve equal coverage, too? Where are their faces on the TV screens and the media's Web sites?
What makes a media person's life more important than a soldier's or Marine's life? Nothing.
We'll continue to get wall to wall and minute to minute coverage across all media channels when a celebrity is wounded and recovering but not one of the others who were in the Humvee has received or will receive an ounce or inch of coverage.
Where's the outrage? Don't the media have a moral and professional responsibility to cover the average Joe and Jane in the warfare trenches?
But, don't you think that the families of the 2000 + servicemen and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the tens of thousands of wounded feel that their sons and daughters deserve equal coverage, too? Where are their faces on the TV screens and the media's Web sites?
What makes a media person's life more important than a soldier's or Marine's life? Nothing.
We'll continue to get wall to wall and minute to minute coverage across all media channels when a celebrity is wounded and recovering but not one of the others who were in the Humvee has received or will receive an ounce or inch of coverage.
Where's the outrage? Don't the media have a moral and professional responsibility to cover the average Joe and Jane in the warfare trenches?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)