Conjecture and Divide
I favor un-uniting the states of America into two color-coded constitutionally-independent countries as much as the next Washington Square drum circle participant. I'll even go as far to say that if there was a Manhattan Separatist movement I would wholeheartedly support the cause by live blog-rolling it and barreling down Broadway in a Mitzvah Tank with a megaphone. Still, I'm uneasy with Gawker's Jesse Oxfeld using his Peter Jennings tribute for a platform to roll-up a copy of The New Yorker and smack it across the faces of Bush's Bumblefuck Brigade.
Jennings was an anchor for the blue states. This is not to say that his politics leaned one way or another, or that he somehow provided a friendlier newscast for liberal causes than for conservative ones; we have no idea of his personal views. What we mean is that Jennings showed, as John Kerry couldn’t in the last election, that there’s a value in being smart and sophisticated. While Brokaw was always the all-American, just-folks, nice guy, Jennings was worldy and urbane and unafraid to be a bit of an intellectual. That seems to be the incorrect mien for success in this country today, but, for those of us actually do appreciate the smart and sophisticated — for New Yorkers, in other words — it was nice to see one of us spend so long on top.Oxfeld would probably say they're too dumb to know what hit them (and maybe that's true) but to suggest Jennings was only appreciated by "smart and sophisticated New Yorkers" is not only the biggest pile of horseshit this side of Central Park South, but it's also a huge disservice to the man's career and accomplishments.
Comments:
With all due respect, what exactly were Peter Jennings' accomplishments?
Peter Jennings may have been a nice person, but I think he had about as much to do with what came out of his mouth on World News Tonight as Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw had to do with what came out of their mouths; they were all just dumb talking heads, genetically engineered to appeal to their little niches. Jennings began life as the "Young Pretty One" to contrast the old farts who were on NBC and CBS.
Do you know that at one point, this retard Dan Rather was actually leaning (I don't remember if it was to the left or the right) because he found that leaning increased his ratings? At another time, the clown wore these idiot sweaters because he found that THAT increased his ratings.
This entire crop of Talking Head Losers (Jennings/Rather/Brokaw) that are retiring or dying were only slightly less riduclous than when Barbara Walters (an ugly woman who can't even speak correctly) hosted a Nightly News Program. Jennings/Rather/Brokaw took over nightly news as the young sexy talking heads to give a younger/hipper news than the old unsexy guys who were actually journalists (and competent). If Jennings was more liberal than CBS and NBC it would only have been because some marketing survey showed that that was what his audience wanted him to be (and that he was going after CBS' sloppy seconds).
Seriously, Young Andrew, you need to do a google and see what the original guys looked like. They were old, even by old standards they were old. Jennings/Brokaw/Rather came in at a time when tv was trying to be hip but not LSD-Hip, like acceptable Dan Rather hip. It may be hard for you to believe, but at one time some clowns actually thought that Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw were sexy. (You seriously need to get your hands on some video of this idiot Brokaw going on and on about his FRIENDSHIP with Wobbot Wedford, it is a serious fahking hoot, almost like closet-case embarassing).
It really must be a bitch to be in your mid-twenties/early thirties now and not know that almost everything you see on tv now is like a cheap no-talent bastardized version of the originals. Except maybe for Jay Leno, I can't think of anything on tv now, that is better than what it is trying to ape.
I can't help but think that we are in for some kick-ass television and the most spectular news broadcasts in history. Because, it is humanly impossible for anyone to be more pathetic than Jennings, Rather and Brokaw were.
Christopher Paige
http://www.tempcity.com/dramanyc
Mr. Paige,
Did you actually read the man's obituary? While, yes, Jennings and Brokaw, and Rather were "talking heads," sort of, they also began as journalists in the field. I feel that you may be conflating their roles with those of the upcoming generation of newscasters, "telegenic" students of "anchorpersoning."
Jennings, for one, had the cred you claim he didn't: He created the Middle East bureau for ABC News. He actually knew enough about the Munich Olympic terrorists to offer commentary as it was happening. He gave us 60 unscripted hours on air after 9/11 (I, for one, remember his suggestion that parents reach out to their children and talk about what was happening).
Yes, Jennings, Brokaw, and Rather were all part of the machine we dislike, and increasingly so, but their origins were in actual journalism, and we shouldn't forget that. That's the main reason Americans would tune in every night - in soe way, we could trust them.
Yes, we should be angry about the route TV news - broadcast and cable - is taking, but we should direct that anger at targets worthy of our contempt.
"The Route TV News is taking" was invented by ABC. ABC was historically the lowest rated news broadcast and it tried one stunt after another to try to get some viewership. Buying Walters from NBC and trying to make her humanoid-looking was one stunt. And, I didn't know this until I read one of Jennings' obits, but putting Jennings in charge of a Nightly News program at age 27 was another one of ABC's stunts.
I didn't much follow the whole ABC News thing very closely and, I'm sure it would make a very interesting story if someone did detail it. As I recall, ABC's various news programs had such bad ratings, ABC put some guy getting good ratings with sports (Roone Alridge, maybe) in charge of its news division.
The whole concept of a pretty stupid talking head, and marketing surveys and make-overs and the whole hollywood-ing of news started (as I recall) with ABC - because ABC's ratings were so bad it had nothing to lose by trying anything.
As I said, I'm sure Jennings was a nice person. My point more or less is that if you are younger than say 50 and you think that Jennings/Rather/Brokaw were intelligent or that they were Newsmen (instead of talking heads), you are a victim of the times. I stopped watching CBS news the minute Rather took over. I could not watch NBC New without laughing at how Brokaw couldn't pronounce Rs correctly. I watched Jennings because he wasn't Rather or Brokaw, something that didn't and doesn't make Jennings a great Newscaster.
Christopher Paige
I somewhat agree, CP, since I always watched the Daily Show (with Kilborn, of course) with more anticipation than I ever did World News Tonight, never mind the other two networks' version of anchor-stardom.
Then again, I always thought Jennings was a wonderful person to hear the news from, even if the production itself was as dry as reading a newspaper. Clearly, by the time I came into the world, the rest of television was far more exciting and slick (even stale reruns of "Three's Company" seemed infinitely more delightful). I enjoyed Jennings' tenure, but I now look forward to the long-delayed industry shakeup and innovation that our country is due in network news.
in re Talking Heads and re-inventing yourself to a generation too young to know what you really are.
Jane Pauley gives a whole new meaning to dumb talking head. I once caught Pauley discussing "dorsal nudity" on Letterman (she was referring to bathing suits in Brazil showing a lot of butt; get it? rear? dorsal?). I used to just stare at Pauley when she was on the Today Show with Bryant Gumbel and just wonder how it was possible that no one else could see that she was nuts. Seriously,
I actually made a point of tuning into The Today Show just so I could be watching when the guys in White Coats came on and dragged Pauley, kicking and screaming, off to a mental hospital (where she apparently did end up, according to her because of her hives).
The thing is that I once had this sorta kinda "warm feeling" for Pauley because he was a local newsperson in Chicago when I was in college in Chicago. In Chicago, Pauley was very blond, she had her hair pulled back tightly and tied in the back, and she looked exactly like every other female reporter who was a news person for this particular tv station (they were all blond, they all had their hair pulled back and tied, and they all looked exactly like Pauley looked at the time).
So, imagine my shock when Pauley (one of the original Blond Bimbo Talking Heads) actually initiated a campaign to paint Deborah Norville as a ditsy non-newswoman (when NBC tried to ease Pauley's psycho ass off of the Today Show.)
Deborah Norville's real problem is that she is actually too perfect, compared to Barbara Walters and Jane Pauley, Deborah Norville is like some kind of alien from Venus.
Again, I can't imagine the horror of being a female journalism major in my late 20's early 30's and having something like Jane Pauley as my symbol of what it is to be a Professional Female Journalist.
btw, it was very obvious, to me anyway, that Cookie Roberts had some kind of blood-sugar problem that was out of control for a time. When you tuned into to a show with Roberts on it, all you had to do was watch for about 20 minutes and you could almost see the moment her blood-sugar level dropped; she almost looked like she was drunk. And, this problem went on for months and months, it was a hoot.
Christopher Paige
Drama NYC (tm)
blog comments powered by Disqus
<< Home