'The Daily Show': Escape from Iran
“How did you make it out of there alive?,” I somewhat seriously and somewhat facetiously asked “Daily Show” senior investigative foreign correspondent Jason Jones and producer Tim Greenberg about their recent trip to Iran. Their mission, and they chose to accept it, thinking they were going to France, was to somehow find humor “Behind the Veil,” as they’re calling their multi-part series documenting their ten-day journey to the land of the ayatollahs. .
After all, the two fake journalists could have easily become the male versions of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, or Roxana Saberi, thrown in jail by an oppressive Axis of Evil regime.
So how did “The Daily Show” manage to get two of its people into the country, with seemingly free rein? Believe it or not, they've been working on it for about a year, hustling both the United States government and the Iranian consulate’s press attaché for permission -- with assurances that Jones would not strip down in a mosque, or do anything else crazy. “You are mistaking us for real reporters," they assured the bureaucrats, even while knowing there's not a lot of laughter in bullets and death.
When the official okay finally came through, it was with this caveat -- they were not allowed to bring any electronic equipment with them. No computers, no cameras. Not great for TV, but more on that later.
The timing was perfect. They were able to go during the lead-up to the disputed June 12th election, before things got completely crazy and blood was literally running in the streets. They were safely back in an edit room in New York when the street demonstrations broke out, and would have probably been forced to leave the country anyway as other Western journalists, real journalists, have.
They hired a fixer who then hired a crew with equipment-- maybe not quite up to par, but good enough under the circumstances, until it wasn’t-- a guide and a van. As Jones and Greenberg were trying to sleep off the jet lag shortly after arriving in Tehran, the fixer summoned them: they could actually go to a campaign rally for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They quickly jumped out of bed and headed out.
If you missed this initial piece in the series, you have to catch it online. We are talking laugh-out-loud funny, and the backstory is nearly as good. Without a translator, Jones, doing a standup with the hard-line Holocaust denier ranting and raving in the background, had to take it upon himself to translate. It was basically along the lines of, "He hates the Jews." Pause. Turns to look at the bearded one and then back to camera. "Yes, he still hates the Jews."
But what you didn't see may have been as funny. Jones and Greenberg told me when they were setting up in the crowd, an elderly, scarved woman looked at them and asked: "Zionistas?”
“Jason said, ‘Just my producer,’” Greenberg said, laughing at the memory. “That's as close as I've been to a Holocaust denier since [former Daily Show correspondent} Rob Corddry," added Jones.
Their time in Iran was enough for the two to discern that the political divide was akin to the red state-blue state thing we have here. Uneducated, fundamentalist, poverty-stricken residents who live in the desert and in small towns outside Tehran are most likely to be Ahmadinejad supporters, and sophisticated city-dwellers wearing green are in support of the other guy, Mousavi—no great shakes as a choice of leader if we had our say….which, of course, the wackjobs who have retained control of Iran seem to think we do. Yes, the series of deadly street demonstrations was a Zionist, British and American-orchestrated plot to destroy the democratic will of a great civilization. With more than 100% of the voted counted.
But back to Jones and Greenberg. Driving out to the desert, somewhere maybe near Qom, they were trying to shoot a funny bit with some camels, but the camels kept running away. It was a 13-hour day, and they got about 10 seconds of a shot, but Jones said even that was ruined by "cheap Iranian equipment."
Unbelievably, they were actually given access to clerics and opposition leaders—who were later thrown in jail. In a rare bit of serious journalism Monday night, Jon Stewart actually brought on the son of one of the dissidents to give an update about his father's condition. The man had been pulled out of a hospital bed and jailed. None of this is/was funny.
In a play on Jay Leno’s famous Jaywalking segments “TDS” is calling Jihadwalking, Jones also managed to conduct many person on the street interviews in which he questioned people about their knowledge of the United States and its government, and-- to his astonishment, and visible disgust-- just about all of them passed with flying colors. The Iranians he interviewed were able to name the three branches of government, the date and year of our independence day and a list of presidents going back for the past 50 years, in order.
They also learned that Ayatollah Khameini (which Greenberg insists is pronounced like a rhyme for "hominy") is almost, but not quite as scary as that mullah from 1979 “Death to America” hostage hell, Ayatollah Khomeini. To most Americans, there isn't really a difference.
Yet while Jones seemed to find a lot of intelligent and friendly people, again, much to his surprise, he was a bit confused by the men’s room facilities. Apparently--and we don't have to get graphic here -- there is no toilet paper in Iran, but rather a hose.
And Jones was thirsty, so he drank from it.
(“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” airs at 11 p.m. Monday--Thursday ET/PT on Comedy Central.)
An Open Letter to David Letterman
Dear Dave,
As a female viewer of your show and an admirer of your comedic talents, yes, you owe me an apology and yes, you gave me—and all your viewers, your staff and most importantly, your wife—one on the air Monday night.
But Dave, I expected so much more from you. I consider you highly intelligent—if a bit curmudgeonly, extremely cynical and the type who definitely holds a grudge—but you seem to think my IQ level is in the low double digits. How else to explain that you "had no idea.” that the "women" (hmmm, how many is that?) that you bragged, yes, bragged, that you had sex with would not come under intense scrutiny?
You, yourself, in a successful attempt at humor, called out some famous philanderers that have provided you (and every other comic) with tons of material: Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer and Mr. Appalachian Trail South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford.
Let's think back for a moment. No, no one wondered what Monica Lewinsky looked like, much less of what she had to say, right? I vaguely recall a HUGELY rated Barbara Walters special that starred Ms. Lewinsky in all of her post-presidential, post-intern glory. Ring a bell?
Ashley Dupree? Was that her name? Whatever. No, no one was really interested in the Governor of New York's interstate booty call. While she didn’t have a long shelf life, you must have a really short memory, Dave, being up on the news and newsmakers as you have to be to get fodder for your show every night.
So, you just couldn't imagine that these women who worked on your show and slept with you might be violated by your actions. Much less your wife, who was before your holy matrimony and as the mother of your child, your ultra-longtime girlfriend—whom you cheated on.
Let's go back to your original announcement of this scandal that—I'm sorry, Dave—is really not going away anytime soon. It's just too juicy of a story. You're an older, powerful, very rich, successful, now-married man and father of a young child who was sleeping with young women in your employ. People are interested.
You masterfully told a story in which you deflected nearly the entire focus onto your blackmailer without taking any responsibility for your actions whatsoever—much less issuing any sort of apology. Again, you bragged about having sex with the women, in an arrogant way, actually, like it was your right. And then capping it off by saying that you weren't going to say anything more. Period, end of story.
My, how quickly that changed. Let’s not even mention your $30 million salary and/or when your contract is up, or all the ad revenue you bring to CBS. Yes, Dave, you are a very valuable personage. And although you, most of your viewers, me, and most of the people reading this would most likely be classified as liberal, America is still a Puritanical country and it flies in the face of most people’s values to boast about your extra-curricular sexual escapades when you’re in a committed relationship. Recent case in point: that goofball California legislator who told sex stories over an open mike. Most people still don’t cotton to it. And that guy had to give up his job. I’m sorry, Dave. That’s just the way it is in these United States.
Dave, I'm not minimizing how scary it must have been to find that threatening packet in your car, with what, the former fling’s diary, some steamy e-mails, some photos? But maybe you're also pretty scary to the women who work for you. Even if they're secretly thrilled at your attentions, physically and otherwise.
You said in reference to hurting your wife that you have your work cut out for you in saving your marriage. And that is certainly true. But I'd say you have a pretty good chance of keeping her, since the odds show that most women stay with their rich, powerful husbands who cheat on them. Think Mrs. Clinton. Think Mrs. Spitzer. Think that new CBS show with Chris Noth and Julianna Margulies.
But maybe you can start a new chapter and your Midwestern guilt will actually kick in. Maybe you can keep your Worldwide Pants zipped at the office. Just because your production company doesn't have a clause stating that it's not cool to have sex with subordinates … well, Dave, it's really just not kosher.
But if it ever comes out that Jon Stewart is cheating on his wife and sleeping with his staff — I’ll absolutely have a heart attack.
An Open Letter to Stephen Colbert
Dear Stephen Strong:
Welcome home, soldier. Your week in Iraq is all over, but the war, of course, isn’t. At least your presence there reminded us that Americans troops are still there. I am sure your presence gave them something fun to do, but hey, Nation, shouldn’t we think a little deeper about this fused exercise in military promotion and self-promotion?
Your shtick as the conservative counterpart, as an O’Reilly wanna-be, to Jon Stewart aside, you were not the only one flattered and enabled by the nominally apolitical USO to entertain the troops. These exercises to promote troop morale are part of “selling” as well as “telling.”
Al Franken went on such a tour when Bush was in command, although I noticed that W appears along with other former POTUS’ to endorse your cheerleading for our “service members.”
What are they really serving?
How will history regard this war born out of so much lying and responsible for so much killing?
Needless to say, these issues were not raised in four days of entertaining programs that gave presidents, candidates, military commanders, an Iraqi politician, movie star Tom Hanks and only two grunts, each chosen — carefully to represent a category — Arabs and women — face time in the coolest recruitment special targeted at war age teens.
The Pentagon was delighted and this effort was consistent with the “AAU” mantra that governs news coverage (AAU stands for all about us. ) The Iraqi people and their suffering were no where to be seen on The Colbert Report, just as they are usually invisible on the news.
You joked, “Iraq is so nice, we invaded it twice.” Good line — but it seemed to be said with approval. There were, of course, no anti-war sentiments allowed, no criticism of the president who got into your hair cutting stunt, no INFORMATION, really, other than we are there to “help” and it’s too early to proclaim victory.
While your show went out with its subtext of strengthened security, many Iraqi lives were being lost in new rounds of insurgent attacks by people who see the US as there to stay and only going through the motions of withdrawal. At week’s end, you thanked and genuflected to the bravery and beauty etc., etc. of the troops who sang us the ARMY SONG.
You may not know, Stephen Strong, that this song was originally written by field artillery First Lieutenant [later Brigadier General] Edmund L. Gruber, while stationed in the Philippines in 1908 as the “Caisson Song.” Six million Filipino’s died in that Vietnam before Vietnam, as brutal an intervention as any in our history. And today, totally forgotten!
Verse: Valley Forge, Custer’s ranks, [THE WARS AGAINST THE INDIANS!] San Juan Hill and Patton’s tanks And the Army went rolling along Minute men, from the start, Always fighting from the heart, And the Army keeps rolling along. (refrain)
Verse: Men in rags, men who froze, Still that Army met its foes, And the Army went rolling along. Faith in God, then we’re right, And we’ll fight with all our might, As the Army keeps rolling along. (refrain)
“Faith in God, then we’re right”… no doubt what the “enemy” sings too. “Allah Akbar” is how they put it.
This official anthem, led by that gung-ho Sgt. Major reminded me of all the anti-war songs that were never sung on a USO show, but also buoyed GIs in anti-war coffee shops/activism, and even today, in the ongoing GI resistance to war movement that never made it on your show or in the news. Where were the Iraq Veterans Against the War? Or for that matter, all the in the military critics of stop-loss orders, poor equipment, mercenary contractors, military “justice,” sick Veteran’s hospitals, unpunished war crimes, etc. etc.
As I laughed at your chutzpah and clever repartee, I was also weeping about the seeming co-opting of one of the few beachheads on TV for real satire and social criticism.
Some of You are Thinking it, So We'll Say it: What's up With Oprah, of All People, Giving Airtime to MacKenzie Phillips Saying She Had Incest With Her Dad? Is it a Ratings Ploy?
Being journalists, people whisper things to us that they might not otherwise say out loud.
In the last 24-hours those whisperings to us have become a loud roar: Should Oprah, perhaps the most well-respected and influential person on TV today, be giving significant airtime to the most uncomfortable, squirm in your chair—and yes, many say, disgusting—story of this or any year—Mackenzie Phillips’ claim of being raped by her father and having an ongoing incestuous relationship with him.
The most cynical amongst us will say that all Oprah’s doing is a ratings play.
Indeed, in Michelle Kung’s Wall St. Journal’s Speakeasy blog she writes about Oprah’s show so far this year—including the Phillips’ interview: “Ratings decline? What ratings decline? Though average viewership for Oprah Winfrey’s talk show dipped below 7 million last season — according to Nielsen, one July rerun had its lowest rating since the show’s 1985 debut—the talk show matriarch has unleashed a torrent of not just A-list stars, but wounded celebrities with sordid tales, seeking redemption. O-loids, if you will. The results so far have been record breaking.”
But such cynicism is a disservice to Oprah. Truth be told, Oprah is no stranger to tabloid fare, as any regular Oprah-watcher will tell you.
From this couch-potato’s viewpoint, however, Oprah’s intent has never been tabloid for tabloids sake. Her show isn’t the Springer show. Oprah’s has always had a more serious intent.
Like most of us, I have no way of knowing if Phillips is telling the truth. A cynic would say she’s made it up to sell books.
But what is true, as you know and I know and Oprah knows, is that there are indeed victims of incest out there. Just as we all know that there are victims of domestic violence and other horrible behavior that most of us don’t usually want to talk about.
And if seeing Phillips talking about incest on Oprah allows just one victim of incest to get out of that situation, it’s worth the discomfort to the rest of us.#
Why Do the Tea Leaves Still Say Diane Sawyer Will Be Put Under Scrutiny That No Man Has To Endure?
Whether you watch them or not-- and their audiences are dwindling, yet still a potent force -- the anchors of the network news broadcasts are among the most powerful people on the global stage, able to snag an interview with the president or just about any other newsworthy personage and jet into world trouble spots and history-making events, backed by the full resources of their respective news organizations.
It seems only fitting that in the wake of the passing of one of the greatest anchors of our time, Walter Cronkite, that there is a rare shake-up in the three coveted chairs that historically have been occupied for years and even decades at a time.
With Charlie Gibson passing his “World News” throne on to ABC's Diane Sawyer at the beginning of 2010, we will enter a new era of network news royalty--with two of the three seats being held by women for the first time in history.
Remember a few years back when Dan Rather was dragged kicking and screaming, which he still is, from the “CBS Evening News” desk and Katie Couric took over? Under an intense spotlight, the perennially perky (and yes, she rightfully hated that word) television veteran tried to redefine the genre of the tradition-bound evening news broadcast, with little success. Not to mention the scrutiny of her hair, clothing and makeup that just wasn't part of the equation when Brian Williams smoothly assumed the “NBC Nightly News” desk from long-time popular anchor Tom Brokaw.
Gibson inherited his mantle following a rocky, tragic period at ABC, after Peter Jennings died and then his successor, co-anchor Bob Woodruff was seriously injured in Iraq. He's done an estimable job, bringing in his newscast at number two, after top-rated NBC.
Yet the rumbling currents of criticism are already being directed at Sawyer, who's done some very softball interviews and puff pieces during her long and successful tenure at “Good Morning America”-- as well as hard-hitting broadcast journalism.
She's a tough cookie and a classy woman, although I've never gotten the part where she willingly worked as an aide to the most reviled president in modern history, Richard Nixon, before she made a major career change and became the media doyenne she is today.
But the tea leaves read that Sawyer's hairstyle, hair color, lipstick, weight and wardrobe will be as much as part of the discussion as her journalistic credentials. Aside from Couric’s elevation, it's been more than 25 years since the last female network news anchor, Jessica Savitch, made headlines for helming a network newscast (and she only held the weekend slot on NBC before her untimely death in a traffic accident).
Shamefully, much of the discourse about women in broadcasting has not evolved much beyond the superficial since then.#
With the New TV Season Almost Upon Us, the Biggest Issue for All Stations With Newcasts is How the Leno Move Will Affect Them. Here Are the Concerns—and the Strategies—Stations of All Affiliations Are Discussing
Comedy is big news this season, particularly in September, when NBC goes from dark and bloody to light and funny - dropping Jay Leno into the 10 p.m. prime slot traditionally reserved for scripted drama.
It's a move, however, that's no laughing matter for NBC affiliates and local news operations across the country. It could alter the viewing landscape forever.
Many local NBC managers are hoping for - but not banking on - a big Leno lead-in.
But others say they are concerned Leno will hurt their 11 p.m. newscasts. The worst-case scenario: Viewers watch Jay’s monologue, check out the guests and then it’s sayonara. It’s off to bed, or a quick switch to a Fox station to pick up their quick news fix and weather before bed.
“By their very nature, these type of late-night talk shows are designed for casual surfing," marketing maven Graeme Newell of 602 Communications told me. "Dramas have a story plot line that carry you methodically through the hour and keep you glued to the set. For me, I am a big fan of [Leno's]monologue and the skits, but have little interest in the interviews. That means I watch the top of the show and then I'm gone.“
It’s that “and-then-I’m-gone” factor that has general managers and news directors at the rival stations champing at the bit. They're looking for the upside in any Leno downside to grab new news viewers.
Talk to a CBS affiliate news director and you hear one word repeated often: opportunity. They can’t wait for the new season of CSI, and it’s the same with ABC and Fox station management, who are anticipating the halo effect of programs like “Lost” and “Idol.”
Timing can be everything, and it's NBC's timing that Jim Willi regrets. He's Senior Vice President of Dallas-based consultants AR&D.
"They waited to introduce Leno only a week before the other networks launch their season," said Willi. "It would have helped Leno and the stations if there was more time to develop Leno's audience against reruns."
So how do the local news directors feel about the timing, and Leno's impact on their late newscasts?
Try getting a TV news director on the phone, or reaching one by email for a comment. It’s really pretty easy. But try getting one of them to go “on the record” about the Leno-factor. That’s an entirely different story.
Who could blame them in this environment of you’re here today, and gone tomorrow.
The universal email greeting these days is:
“Hey Tom, I’m here and I’ve got a job, for now…” You can read a lot of paranoia into those three dots.
There’s a lot of pressure on local news directors – and general managers - to figure out a strategy for one of the biggest decisions facing them in the fall: how to prepare for life with Leno.
Back in April, management of the NBC affiliate in Boston, WHDH, thought they had the perfect strategy - don't run Leno, run news instead.
It was a very public on the record squabble between NBC and one of its largest affiliates. It involved some tough talk about the Leno change.
You had to love the ensuing headlines:
WHDH-TV snubs Leno as 10 p.m. program
Channel 7 opts for news battle, drawing NBC's ire
NBC gives Boston station an ultimatum on Leno show
The media giant says it will yank all of its NBC programming from WHDH-TV if the station carries out its threat to ditch Leno.
But NBC persuasion apparently worked. Ed Ansin, owner of WHDH’s parent company, Sunbeam Television, backed down:
As the WSJ reported, "the resolution offers a display of NBC's muscle as it faces talks with other affiliates on how to shape the show."
Boston Station Won't Ditch Leno's Show, Ending Dispute with GE's NBC
"While no other stations followed the Boston station's lead in pulling support for the show, several large affiliates have been pushing NBC to compensate them in some way for moving Mr. Leno to primetime. The concern: If the show offers lower average viewership in the 10 p.m. hour, it could reduce the audience for 11 p.m. newscasts, where local stations count on significant ad revenue, even if its lower cost makes it more profitable for the network.”
Ansin and NBC execs did their behind-the-scenes handshake and WHDH went away quietly.
So, like or it not, in Boston and across the country, Leno is here. NBC Stations now have to deal with the reality of a Leno-factor leading into their late newscasts.
Okay, so now what?
To get some answers, I took an informal survey of news directors and GMs.
How will stations play it? What impact will Leno have on the late newscasts? How will viewers behave during and after Jay Leno?
Here's a sampling of what they had to say:
Lyle Schulze, VP & General Manager of the NBC station in Palm Springs, California:
"KMIR6 has a consistent record of over-indexing on NBC programming; this should bode well for Jay here. This is a huge benefit for NBC stations in that Jay Leno and the 'Tonight Show' is an institutional brand. ABC, CBS and FOX do not have anything that comes close. The insertion of Leno at 10pm ultimately gives us a promotional leg up for our 11pm show.“
Dennis Kendall, Director of Broadcast News for Quincy Newspapers Inc. (the group owns a half-dozen NBC stations):
“We’ll be taking advantage of every topical opportunity Leno will be providing and treating them effectively as a news in progress update to insure they’re fresh. Further, uncertain about how Leno will fair, we’ll beef up our topical promotion in the prior hour in an effort to make an impression on those who’ll surf away.”
Are you planning to shift your coverage strategy inside those 11s?
“Not at this point. NBC’s research about audience flow from Leno seems sound but until the public is viewing the actual show we won’t really know. We’ll call that one in progress.”
Quincy also owns and operates Fox affiliates. Isn’t there a positive for Fox affiliate where you also have news?
“Absolutely. One of our Fox stations does an hour in that time period. We’ve already looked at their format to make certain we are in solid content each time Leno goes to break—the time surfing will most likely occur.”
Do you think Leno will help or hurt your late newscasts at the group’s stations?
“I’ll let the public decide that one but surely it can’t be any worse than NBC’s May performance in prime.”
One Midwest (Central Time Zone) news director - one of those CBS news directors champing at the bit – who sees his late newscast as appointment viewing:
“I honestly think this is an opportunity. It’s tough to sustain a variety show at 9pm. And there’s no real interest – judging from the research – in a 9pm variety show. I don’t think Leno will help or hurt us. I think it will most likely benefit the Fox station…the audience will sample the first few minutes of Leno and then go to Fox show for recap and off to bed. We’re just hoping to get viewers to watch our late news just one more time.”
An East Coast ABC station news director:
“Our position is that we will assume (until proven otherwise) that Leno will be a pattern disruption for viewers and thus we will need to do more direct teasing to stories in our 11pm, particularly prior to 10pm. We see it as a potential opportunity for our 11pm, as our best thinking (or maybe it’s wishful thinking) is that Leno at 10pm may have the same viewer retention challenge as his show at 11:35pm did.
"One thing that I haven’t heard a lot of discussion about - that we are considering - is the potential opening for a 10:30pm news presence.
"We currently produce a 10pm half-hour newscast for our MyTV9 duopoly station…if Leno shows any inability to carry his audience through the hour, we would have to take a look at moving our 10pm down to 10:30pm as an opportunity to catch viewers defecting early on Leno."
A West Coast ABC news director:
“Personally, I think 10pm Leno will hurt NBC's late newscasts. I'm sure they'll move heaven and earth to try to make those last 15 minutes really entertaining, but I think they'll be fighting decades of viewing habits which dictate that talk shows peter out after the first half hour. Will that help us at CBS? Doubtful. I don't really see people flipping over to catch the last half hour of our dramas at 10:40 or whatever. I think most Leno viewers will just go to bed once the monologue and first guest are done.”
If the consensus is that NBC stations are in danger of losing lead-in audience to switching and turn-off: What should stations do?
Graeme Newell at 602 Communications has some advice for the NBC stations:
“For those of us in the 11 o'clock news game, his show presents some gigantic challenges. Lead in is our biggest viewing driver. Without that, we are forced to rely on habit to get people to the newscast.
"What this means is that your in-show night-to-night marketing will be critical. Most newscasts still treat themselves as an island. The shows are not produced or marketed as a nightly habit. My recommendation is that the promo team create an in show promo that masterfully teases tomorrow night's show.
"We also need to do more in-story marketing on the big stories that will continue from day to day. That means reporters must craft marketing to embed within their stories that talks about how they will cover the continuing developments of that story, the next day."
Similar counsel is coming from the AR&D consultants. They're feeding NBC clients ways to hope and cope with a Leno lead-in. Looming large, of course, is the local station challenge to hold the audience throughout the Leno hour and get viewers to their newscasts. As the AR&D playbook warns:
"Stations must be fully prepared in the first internal break to sell their news assets very effectively. They have to convince viewers to watch late news regardless of whether they continue to watch all of Leno or not. The break immediately following the number one celebrity guest is another significant opportunity and stations must seize it. Tune out is high during this part of the program, so stations must find ways to: Make a strong coverage promise about timely news (no repetition from earlier newscasts)."
Jim Willi, AR&D's lead consultant on the Leno project said, no matter the Leno numbers, "even the best lead-in won’t guarantee NBC stations sure-fire numbers." Willi recalls how “Fox learned the hard way with 'Idol' that it’s not easy to carry viewers into your newscasts.”
The one big mistake the NBC stations can make, Willi says,"if they (the NBC stations) try to alter their newscasts to entertainment material – softer materials at 11p.m...I think that’s suicidal.”
So, come September, local station managers will know if Leno’s comedy can deliver a punch line to their local newscasts – ratings.
I wouldn't bank on it.#
Something Smells Wrong about the Latest 'As The World Turns' Stunt Casting
Today is the 108th anniversary of the birth of prolific soap creator Irna Phillips (on TV alone, she concocted “Guiding Light” and “As the World Turns”, and had a hand in “Days of Our Lives” and “Another World”, among others). An appropriate time, then to ponder the incredibly strange happenings at stalwart soap “ATWT” (you know... the CBS golden oldie soap that isn’t going off the air Sept. 18th).
With “GL’s” impending end, there is no denying that the entire soap genre -- especially “ATWT,” given its anemic ratings -- is in danger of extinction while Obama is still in the White House. One would think that CBS and Procter & Gamble (which owns the 53-year-old soap) would be circling the wagons and crafting compelling, character-driven drama and romance for its current cast, designed to keep longtime fans watching and, just maybe, attract some lapsed viewers.
One would think.
Unfortunately, that’s not the case. The past few years have seen an outbreak of stunt casting at “ATWT,” including an unseemly number of former “General Hospital” stars making less-than-memorable impressions on viewers.
Today brings news (via Soap Opera Digest) that Emmy-winning former “General Hospital” star Stuart Damon (ex-Alan Quartermaine) is joining ATWT in a new role. “ATWT” needs a lot of things -- but one of them isn’t another “GH” actor in a new role.
The soap has almost ten actors on contract with more than 20 years experience -- how about telling stories for those characters (and their kids) rather than cast a big-name actor from another network in a role that no one cares about?
Call me old-fashioned, but this trend of bringing on big names in new roles (which, to be fair, isn’t limited to “ATWT”) reeks of “Celebrity Apprentice” or some other attempt to revive a foundering reality franchise.
I’m mixing my catchphrases, but the tribe has spoken -- and we’re not happy.
What Fox Should Do About the Paula Abdul Situation
Based on my conversations with some Fox insiders and others close to the situation, here's the skinny:
A number of folks at Fox were pissed when Abdul went public with her negotiations.
Personally, I think Fox is playing with fire by not re-signing her. Yes, as the show's former showrunner, Nigel Lythgoe, has said, 'American Idol' is really about the contestants and their aspirational dreams, and the audience's connection with that.
And, as Lythgoe has also pointed out, "Idol" has been successful all over the world.
But...there have been other shows that have basically tried the 'Idol' format here and have failed. How much of the success of the show is because of the chemistry between the original three judges, Randy Jackson, Paula Abdul and Simon Cowell? And clearly that love/hate thing that Abdul and Cowell have going on is palpable in our living rooms.
When I mentioned that to one person close to the situation, here was the response: "Yeah, but Paula's incredibly polarizing as well."
This person was doubtful that an accommodation will be made with Abdul to re-sign her at this point.
Indeed, another person close to the situation said that, "The list of people who have called the 'Idol' producers to take Paula's place would make your head spin. It's a Who's Who of the music industry."
Wow. That's quite a statement. And maybe it's true. Let's assume it is.
If so, here's what I think Fox should do. One of the key elements that makes 'Idol' successful is the input we viewers have. Ultimately, we choose who wins.
So even though Fox didn't ask our opinion about how important we thought it was or wasn't to keep Paula, now that we're affected by this mess, they should ask us to help them clean it up.
Give us a list of potential judges, give us which phone numbers to call to vote for them (or text our vote if we're with AT&T---hey, let's not miss a sponsorship opportunity on this) and America will decide.
Let's have some fun. Hmm, who's gonna be on the list? Who's called Fox already? Maybe pop vet Tina Turner. Cyndi Lauper's name has been bandied about. Is Fantasia available? Beyonce? Is Bette Midler still in Vegas?
It doesn't necessarily have to be a woman. What's Snoop Dogg doing? Or Jay-Z? Is Berry Gordy available?
And why limit it to folks in the music biz? The only reason 'Idol' is on American TV at all is that Rupert Murdoch gave it the high sign after hearing from his daughter Elisabeth, who had seen the U.K. version and said she thought it would be terrific here.
If they know something about music--and who among us would say we DON'T--wouldn't we love to see a Murdoch on the judge's panel? I don't know about you, but I'd actually pay to see Simon mix it up with Rupert.
What's Warren Buffett doing? Or Warren Beatty? Or Warren Moon? Warren G? Is Lesley Ann Warren busy? I KNOW Nikki Finke has strong opinions.
Can Condoleezza Rice make it out here to Hollywood a few days a week? I know that Sarah Palin can.
You get the idea.
Fox, the next move is yours. Get us a great list together, put it out there, and let us vote. America will get you the next judge on "American Idol."
This idea has got to be incredibly seductive to anyone at Fox. No business plays the blame game better than people in Hollywood.
But this way, if 'Idol' now tanks, when Chase Carey goes looking to take it out on somebody and give him or her their walking papers, everyone at Fox can say, truthfully, "Hey, I didn't pick the judge. America did. Go fire them."#
Why Ellen Degeneres is a Great Choice For 'Idol'
Anyone who is complaining about the decision to add Ellen DeGeneres as the fourth judge on “American Idol” doesn’t understand show business.
It doesn’t matter whether or not Ellen is some kind of expert on singing, though, as an entertainment professional for her entire adult life, she likely knows a lot more about the subject than some are giving her credit for.
Her abilities as a judge of talent have nothing to do with her hiring. She was hired for the simple reason that she happens to be one of the world’s most popular and likable personalities on television. That’s it — you don’t really have to spend too much time analyzing it further.
She’s hugely appealing and at the top of her game. Sure, we’ll all miss kooky Paula, but Ellen DeGeneres? It’s a no-brainer. Whoever did the deal to land this huge star deserves a bonus.
'I'm A Celebrity' May Have Killed My Love of Reality TV
I'm not one of these TV critics that loathes most reality television.
Sadly, I watch more of it than is probably good for my soul or my waistline.
I'm the guy who watched Fuse's "Redemption Song" and Fox's "Hells'
Kitchen." I've sat through entire seasons of CMT's "Gone Country" and
The CW's "Sylista." In other words, I have developed a high threshold
for having my chain yanked by manipulative editing and cheesy dialogue.
I tend to suspect everything I see is staged and that nothing is quite
the way it appears on the screen.
And yet, after only four episodes I find myself throwing up my hands and
surrendering on the idea of making any sense of the creative train wreck
that is NBC's "I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out Of Here!" I'm not quite sure
what show the network thought it had on its hands at this time last
week. But after four surreal and awkward episodes, it's a show that
manages to be both outrageous and often oddly boring.
I'm a fan of the concept for the show. I enjoyed ABC's take on it
several years back, but that network had the same problem encountered
this time around by NBC. Odds are that any celebrity willing to spend a
few weeks in the rain forest probably isn't being fully utilized by
Hollywood. Which may explain the peculiar mix of quasi-names that
inhabits NBC's version. Not to be cruel, but if one of the biggest
"stars" in your show is Stephen Baldwin, then something has gone
horribly wrong during the creative process.
Most of the week's press coverage has centered on Spencer Pratt and
Heidi Montag-Pratt. They're best known for appearing on MTV's "The
Hills," and I would assume that NBC's deal with MTV to re-air episodes
of "I'm A Celebrity.." has something to do with their appearance on the
show.
The Pratts have been a force of nature in the first four episodes. And
by that I mean that they've created a lot of hot air and damage to
everything surrounding them. They threatened to quit twice before the
first live segment even aired, and that included a surreal phone
conversation between Spencer Pratt and NBC's Ben Silverman. The couple
then returned to the show, then quit again. They then asked to return
and are now involved in some odd set of "rules" that require their
former cast mates to vote them back onto the show.
If all of this makes your head hurt, then welcome to my world. I
certainly can't figure out how much of the events are legitimate and how
much is just some weird mind game perpetuated by the Pratts’ and/or NBC.
In many cases, the events have been so strange that I can't decide if it
would be worse for it all to be fake or actually true. Is Spencer as
really as big of a windbag as he appears? You would hope not, but if it
is an act, why would he think this approach is good for his career? If
this quitting-then-returning-then-quitting routine isn't sincere, then
what sort of idiot thought it would be a great way to manipulate the
audience? So Daniel Baldwin shows up as a new contestant, and
Spencer/Heidi still come back anyway?
At some point, all the erratic twists and turns just seem pointless and
manipulative. And NBC's decision to hold off the final 'will they
return' decision until next week was the final straw. I understand that
"reality" TV may not be scripted in the traditional sense. But like its
scripted TV brothers, all good reality shows have recognizable plot arcs
and a somewhat believable back-story. "I'm A Celebrity" is just a mess,
and since I can't trust anything I see on the screen, what's the point
of watching anymore?
At this point, I wish the show's producers would just come on the show
Monday evening and lay it all out there for the audience. If the Pratts’
erratic behavior is legitimate, then show some of what's been going on
off-camera. And if it was all some awkward attempt at building buzz for
the show, then throw out some mea culpas and get back to the show.
Either way, I just want to go back to my semi-cynical belief in reality
TV. I don't mind being lied to. I just want the lies to be believable
enough that I don't feel like a chump for continuing to watch.
Read more Rick Ellis at Allyourtv.com.
OurTvSpace.com commented on
