Blog

So, last week had Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, and tonight, was A Charlie Brown Christmas. Aww. Tradition!

I watched the rerun of the first episode of “Commander in Chief” on ABC (House wasn’t on, and I couldn’t get myself to watch “Amazing Race”). Hmm. Looked really interesting. Kyle Secor as Rod, the First Spouse/ex-VP Chief of Staff (clearly frustrated to have lost out on the Chief of Staff job) – he’s always a good choice as an actor. Geena Davis ain’t so bad as President Mackenzie Allen. And, Donald Sutherland, as the Evil Speaker of the House. Ooh, he just oozes with evil. I’m thinking “He can’t become President; he’s Canadian!” (ok, in real life). And, really, can we have too many Sutherlands on tv – “24” returns in a few weeks, and it’ll be Keifer as Jack Bauer, ready to save America (maybe the world this time) again (while again getting through another Worst Day in his life).

I missed “Arrested Development” last night. Shoot. I have to tape the remaining episodes.

The NY Times came up with interesting articles on the hows and whys of ABC’s choice of Bob Woodruff and Elizabeth Vargas as anchors. And, I wonder – will it be “Vargas and Woodruff” or “Woodruff and Vargas”? Daily News’ David Bianculli raised interesting points, too – it’s more than about having two anchors, but about news in the 21st century:

Vargas, meanwhile, acknowledged her achievement in attaining the status of network broadcast-news co-anchor, an honor won by few females in TV history.

“I’m proud to be a woman in this post, which has been such a bastion of maleness,” Vargas said.

Together, they’re new anchors for a new era – an era where the traditional TV audience continues to shrink, and alternative-delivery systems sparkle with allure.

ABC’s announcement promises to work its new co-anchors to the bone, not only by having them anchor separate live versions of “World New Tonight” to three time zones but by having them write daily blogs for the ABC News Web site.

The network also envisions providing outtakes and expanded stories via the Internet, and even breaking some stories before the evening newscast itself – trying to reach viewers at their computers, mobile phones and other digital means.

It all sounds very 2006. NBC already has headed in this direction, with new anchor Brian Williams writing his own diary entries on the Web and “NBC Nightly News” available in its entirety as a streaming download. And with ABC going the double-anchor route, that leaves CBS free to try any direction it wants – one, two, maybe three anchors – without concern about breaking the mold too much.

The obvious and unavoidable truth, though, is that the network evening news format, up to this point, isn’t just a mold. It’s moldy.

Though audience levels have dwindled for the evening newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC, they’re still exponentially larger than the combined viewers of CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC and others. One problem is that the pool of potential anchors with Dan Rather-type gravitas just isn’t there. Another is that the commercial broadcast network newscasts haven’t responded sufficiently, to this point, to the changes around them.

The emphasis on blogs and complementary Internet materials, while sounding very modern and advanced, misses the real focus – a dangerous mistake for a news organization to make.

The networks, communally, messed up decades ago by not strong-arming affiliates into accepting a 60-minute newscast. If they make a similar mistake early in the 21st century, it’ll be to pay more attention to technological bells and whistles instead of providing what they alone have the resources to do best: in-depth coverage that explains as well as reports, that pioneers as well as recycles.

“BBC World News” is the best model out there for serious coverage in a tight TV format. The focus, for ABC and its network competitors, should be squarely on the over-the-air evening newscast. That’s the flagship, the fountain from which all reputations and fortunes spring. Blogs are fun diversions, but the news – and the newscast – is what matters. Now more than ever.

Hmm. Good points – Vargas as a woman (and a woman who has a Puerto Rican background), Bob Woodruff with the appropriate foreign reporting work (and he’s an ex-lawyer!), the age of blogging, and so on. Hopefully, we won’t have a Dan Rather/Connie Chung failure here, but well, this isn’t the Golden Age of Anchormen anymore either.

And, it ain’t the era of “Nightline” anymore.

“Doonesbury” – so this week’s storyline is back to the misadventures of crazy Uncle Duke. I never really cared for Uncle Duke (he’s a little too crazy for me). But, I thought last week’s storyline was quite something – a little bit of everything – humor, sadness, politics and so on. Sure, Alex Doonesbury came to Walden and met up with Jeff and Zipper (reminder to Jeff: Alex is your older half-sister’s daughter; your mom’s granddaughter; your half-niece! You can’t date her!; Zipper though think she’s his future wife – ah, the infatuation of crazy kids) – and it remains unclear if she actually sat in on classes (Walden College still has classes? I thought it lost its accreditation because they dropped grade curves to maintain student retention, or whatever other crazy stunt the President of Walden College did to keep his school running); Jeff and Zipper certainly don’t bother attending classes; Jeff’s still on his way to being a CIA agent who will have to torture people; and B.D. refuses to talk to Mike about the alcohol and other problems.

The Doonesburys’ visit to Walden, ended really somber last Saturday – with Sam, B.D. and Boopsie’s daughter, telling Alex, Mike’s daughter, that she’s getting scared of B.D. See, B.D. – the Iraq War veteran/amputee – has serious post-traumatic stress syndrome, such that he woke up with nightmares and once punched Boopsie. It’s scaring Sam – she feels her daddy will hit her next. Anything sets B.D. off. But, Sam tells Alex to not tell anyone this. Alex: “I won’t.” The next panel shows Mike and B.D. listening to the girls (is B.D. really listening?) – Sam: “Swear to God?” Alex: “Swear to God.” B.D.’s looking away, Mike’s glancing at him. Mike has the look of Grave Concern. Boopsie had asked him to get B.D. to go to the VA for help. B.D. has yet to end the paranoia though. Can he find a way to maintain a life again? Can Mike help? This is a storyline to watch.

Thanks for the birthday wishes, guys! I’m a year older, no more wiser!

Channel 13 is broadcasting “A Walk Through the Bronx” with David Hartman and Barry Lewis. I think the only borough they haven’t done now is Staten Island. (I missed the first half hour, so I’ll have to watch it another time! – but great stuff — if this doesn’t make you a PBS member, well, who am I say? Ok, I’m stepping off the soapbox now ;-)).

ABC has announced the new anchors of World News Tonight – Elizabeth Vargas and Bob Woodruff. Familiar ABC faces who are pretty professional and have been substituting for Peter Jennings, so the transition won’t be bad (please don’t change the theme song like you did to Nightline!). In their 40’s, so there’s time to groom them (and I believe they’re contemporaries of Brian Williams, so he won’t be the lonely kid on the block). And with having two, you can let one go once it seems like the American audience likes one more than the other (sort of what I’m hoping they’ll do to Nightline, because having three “anchors” is a pain; but maybe having two will be interesting? There hasn’t been two anchors on the air on nightly national news since MacNeil/Lehrer were both on). Sorry to Charles Gibson, who had rotated with Woodruff and Vargas in substituting for Jennings; Gibson’s only disadvantage was his age (you can’t groom a guy who’s doesn’t need the grooming, but then again, your audience won’t age with him if he’s already older than them). Well, good luck to Bob and Liz. Brian’s got the lead, so step on it!

And, speaking of Brian Williams – I have to say, NBC Nightly News’ Daily Nightly Blog is a fascinating piece of work. You get the behind the scenes look of the crafting of the news; Brian Williams has a nice voice (and his team seem like decent people, not just professional journalists). Is this the wave of the future – network news going the blog route? Hmm. (Personally, I remember the days back when Brian Williams was our local Channel 2 WCBS anchor man. So weird to realize that he’s made it quite big).

I’m almost up to date on “Grey’s Anatomy” on ABC. I like it more than “Desperate Housewives,” in that I actually like the characters on “Grey’s Anatomy.” (they’re a bunch of lunatics on “Desperate Housewives,” which is – I suppose – the point).

Wikipedia has to make a change… when Anonymous posts that John Seigenthaler, Sr., was behind the JFK assasination (which is ridiculous), it’s entirely understandable that Seigenthaler would want Wikipedia to change its rules on who posts what.

More snow…

I had no idea a certain population was that upset by a trend of commercialism that allegedly takes “Christmas” out of Christmas (ex., in ads, selling “holiday trees” instead of “Christmas trees”). Personally, I think if that if stores want to censor themselves (i.e., they seem to be aiming for inclusiveness by saying “celebrate holidays” instead of “celebrate Christmas”), heck, go ahead. It’s a concern when the government censors us, not when Walmart censors (gasp) itself (like I give a crap). (Then again, people forget that the government’s not supposed to endorse any particular religion while trying to be as inclusive as possible). The op-ed by Adam Cohen notes:

Religious conservatives have a cause this holiday season: the commercialization of Christmas. They’re for it.

The American Family Association is leading a boycott of Target for not using the words “Merry Christmas” in its advertising. (Target denies it has an anti-Merry-Christmas policy.) The Catholic League boycotted Wal-Mart in part over the way its Web site treated searches for “Christmas.” Bill O’Reilly, the Fox anchor who last year started a “Christmas Under Siege” campaign, has a chart on his Web site of stores that use the phrase “Happy Holidays,” along with a poll that asks, “Will you shop at stores that do not say ‘Merry Christmas’?”

This campaign – which is being hyped on Fox and conservative talk radio – is an odd one. Christmas remains ubiquitous, and with its celebrators in control of the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court and every state supreme court and legislature, it hardly lacks for powerful supporters. There is also something perverse, when Christians are being jailed for discussing the Bible in Saudi Arabia and slaughtered in Sudan, about spending so much energy on stores that sell “holiday trees.”

What is less obvious, though, is that Christmas’s self-proclaimed defenders are rewriting the holiday’s history. They claim that the “traditional” American Christmas is under attack by what John Gibson, another Fox anchor, calls “professional atheists” and “Christian haters.” But America has a complicated history with Christmas, going back to the Puritans, who despised it. What the boycotters are doing is not defending America’s Christmas traditions, but creating a new version of the holiday that fits a political agenda.

The Puritans considered Christmas un-Christian, and hoped to keep it out of America. They could not find Dec. 25 in the Bible, their sole source of religious guidance, and insisted that the date derived from Saturnalia, the Roman heathens’ wintertime celebration. [….]

Christmas gained popularity when it was transformed into a domestic celebration, after the publication of Clement Clarke Moore’s “Visit from St. Nicholas” and Thomas Nast’s Harper’s Weekly drawings, which created the image of a white-bearded Santa who gave gifts to children. The new emphasis lessened religious leaders’ worries that the holiday would be given over to drinking and swearing, but it introduced another concern: commercialism. By the 1920’s, the retail industry had adopted Christmas as its own, sponsoring annual ceremonies to kick off the “Christmas shopping season.”

Religious leaders objected strongly. The Christmas that emerged had an inherent tension: merchants tried to make it about buying, while clergymen tried to keep commerce out. [….]

This ethic found popular expression in “A Charlie Brown Christmas.” In the 1965 TV special, Charlie Brown ignores Lucy’s advice to “get the biggest aluminum tree you can find” and her assertion that Christmas is “a big commercial racket,” and finds a more spiritual way to observe the day.

This year’s Christmas “defenders” are not just tolerating commercialization – they’re insisting on it. They are also rewriting Christmas history on another key point: non-Christians’ objection to having the holiday forced on them.

The campaign’s leaders insist this is a new phenomenon – a “liberal plot,” in Mr. Gibson’s words.[….]

Other non-Christians have long expressed similar concerns. For decades, companies have replaced “Christmas parties” with “holiday parties,” schools have adopted “winter breaks” instead of “Christmas breaks,” and TV stations and stores have used phrases like “Happy Holidays” and “Season’s Greetings” out of respect for the nation’s religious diversity.

The Christmas that [Fox’s Bill] O’Reilly and his allies are promoting – one closely aligned with retailers, with a smack-down attitude toward nonobservers – fits with their campaign to make America more like a theocracy, with Christian displays on public property and Christian prayer in public schools.

It does not, however, appear to be catching on with the public. That may be because most Americans do not recognize this commercialized, mean-spirited Christmas as their own. [….]

And, Cohen notes how even Fox News still made the “error” of saying “Holiday Collection” instead of “Christmas Collection.” Honestly, let’s just celebrate and let each individual decide for themselves what’s the meaning of the holiday they’re celebrating (after all, Hannukuh is falling in the middle of the 12 days of Christmas this year). And, instead of wasting time on rather pointless boycotts, why not work on helping those in need and spreading goodwill and charity?

An early review of “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” sounds pretty positive.

Caffiene isn’t bad for you. At least, the natural kind found in coffee, tea and so forth. I think scientists are still trying to figure out the stuff in sodas.

Are we paying too much for bar review (and is a certain bar review company engaged in an monopoly?). Hmm. Fascinating article, I have to say!

And, last but not least, a story on the Rockefeller Christmas Tree’s star:

[….] Last year the old fiberglass star, decorated with gold leaf, was replaced by a 550-pound crystal star from the Austrian company Swarovski, a firm that, fittingly enough, hails from the country that bestowed upon the Christmas world the melody to “Stille Nacht” or “Silent Night.”

But for an object that sits so high astride such a plump Norwegian spruce, sometimes size and sparkle, dazzle and weight just aren’t enough to grab the viewers’ attention. So this year the nine-and-a-half foot star has been fitted with a secret weapon, a glowing light-emitting diode implant that will signal that the star is alive.

Perhaps the star was in need of an electric boost after so many years looking down as the tree’s 40-foot girth accumulated an increasing array of ornaments; most recently strobe lights have become a feature among the thousands of five-watt bulbs. After all, isn’t the star – the symbol of the light that guided wise men to Bethlehem – somehow more important than the fat tree it sits atop?

The Rockefeller Center Christmas tree is more than just a symbol of Christmas for New Yorkers alone. Through television and film it has become one of the defining images of Christmas around the world, towering over gawkers toting red and white shopping bags and Yuletide skaters performing loops on the ice below.

Undoubtedly, the star is more than just a souped-up Christmas decoration to the team at Swarovski; it’s a work of art that it takes very seriously indeed. And in future years the team hopes to adjust the star’s L.E.D. settings to enhance the effect in varied light and weather conditions. [….]

I’ve been listening to a lot of podcasts lately. This is my aural “watch” list:

ABC’s LOST: The Transmission
Adam Curry’s Weblog
Catholic Insider
Coast to Coast Program Feed
Engadget Podcasts
HawaiiDiner.com
HawaiiUP
Little Gray Books
Misadventures in Taiwan
NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Podcast | PBS
NPR: Food
NPR: Most E-Mailed Stories


Podchef Show
Reality TV Podcast – RFF Radio
Slashdot Review
Slate Explainer Podcasts
Slate Magazine Podcasts
The World: Technology from BBC/PRI/WGBH
To the Best of Our Knowledge
WNYC’s Please Explain with Leonard Lopate

On television:
Science Channel show “Hot Rocks: Geology of Civilization”: imagine Ringo Starr pronouncing the phrase
“domesticated cereals”: the first thing I thought of was Captain Crunch going legit?

Embattled PBS news show “The Journal Editorial Report” ended its run today to move to Fox Network. The right say that PBS affiliates either are not running the show or are putting it in late night time slots. The left points to the alleged unethical push for the show by ex CPB Chair Kenneth Tomlinson. I think that its always refreshing to check out different perspectives, for the same reason it isn’t redundant to read both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

But what does this country want? TV is no longer just a dozen or less broadcast channels; it is now hundreds of channels. Do we get diversity of opinion on each and every network, or do we get it by offering a diversity of channels, each with well-defined points of view?

Thursday night’s “ER” was actually interesting – Neela and Gallant get married. Aww. How nice. I like watching the tv characters I like take actual steps in their tv lives. Hopefully nothing bad happens to Gallant once he’s back in the army…

The Oprah Winfrey visiting Dave Letterman episode was curiously interesting. The hype got too much, I thought, but I did end up watching it. I liked how Dave tried to make a sincere conversation, and Oprah seemed pleased about that. Although, honestly, one wonders about what the heck was really going on with their “feud.” Was it really the whole Oprah-Uma thing, or Dave refusing to go on Oprah’s show (or his wanting to be on her show, but she didn’t invite him or his wanting her on his show, but her refusing? I don’t know). Slate’s Dana Stevens discusses the whole thing in an interesting manner. She also notes what really makes Dave such a curiously fascinating character – and no less so with Oprah:

It would have made for far better television if Dave and Oprah had discussed their obvious temperamental differences and how these affect their approach to their craft. Where she sees her show as a “mission” (a word she used in last night’s interview), mingling feel-good philanthropy with a near-pathological messiah complex, he is a deeply cynical, almost nihilistic figure, whose air of cold detachment only grows as he mires himself deeper and deeper in the world of show-business artifice. In fact, this abyss inside Letterman—the fact that, as he said almost proudly last night, he “isn’t close to anyone”—is the only thing that still makes him interesting to watch.

Oprah takes her save-the-world thing way seriously; Dave is bemused by it. That was certainly a fascinating part of the interview. And, to take it further, compare Dave to his late night rival – the big difference with Dave Letterman and Jay Leno – Dave obviously doesn’t care; the good interviews he does come when he’s interested in his guest (otherwise, it’s just a dumb interview with a dumb guest), whereas Jay kisses ass far too much for my comfort (and his jokes, while funny, don’t take the weird quirk direction Dave does). I’m not saying Jay Leno is bad or unworthy (the guy lasted as long as he did – he knows what he’s doing) – I just prefer Dave over Jay, but can see why most people prefer Jay. Dave is harder to swallow; Jay isn’t. But, if you get Dave, the payoff’s quite interesting. Oh well. At least it was nice to see Oprah on late night (well, she was obviously doing it to promote “The Color of Purple” musical that she’s promoting, but she knows how to be a showman (showwoman?) and to mix business and show business properly).

Newsday’s Verne Gay likes the new Nightline. He has a point – it’s live, which makes it more interesting (Ted Koppel has taped Nightline for quite awhile, so it wasn’t nearly as spontaneous as it used to be) and sticks with news. So, he feels it’s a respectable start. Ok, sure, there’s always room to grow. I’ll give the new Nightline that much of a benefit of a doubt. I just wished the transition would have been a bit more smoother, that’s all.

Oh, and by the way – the news media and on-line providing the audio recordings of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on the abortion law case this week was really fascinating stuff. And, I got to love those courtroom drawings they showed on tv to go with the audio – they were hardly caricatures, but they seemed to capture what it must have been like during the oral arguments. They may never allow cameras in the Supreme Court to show its inner workings, but it remains very interesting stuff.

Some TV shows:

Commander in Chief: timely discussion about the death penalty with the Virgina commutation of a death sentence. In reality, the U.S. President doesn’t have the power to commute a state crime such as murder, only federal ones.

Amazing Race, Family Edition: I’m finding it hard to follow what is going on. With 4 teams remaining going into the home stretch, you still have to keep track of 16 people, which is a lot more than you normally have at this stage of the race. Also, keeping track of the host Phil, who showed up at the end of the episode someplace in Arizona. Two teams ran themselves rugged to the mat only to be told by Phil that they had not reached the pit stop. It’s like, to be continued, here’s the next clue, see you at the end of the next episode. The groans….

Just one more thing — to the people who keep coming up with the slogan backdrops, like the one today for “Plan for Victory” — you are freaking out the public. What’s the next one, “War is Peace“?

Congratulations on renewing your domain, FC; may we continue enjoying the website!

The passing of Stan Berenstain, the co-creator of the Berenstain bears.

The new Nightline: well, it’s only been a few days. Cynthia McFadden from the Times Square studio; Martin Bashir did a story on deaf high school football players (very nice story from the Brit who did far too many Michael Jackson documentaries for my comfort); and Terry Moran from Iraq (doing a nice job so far as I can tell). ABC ditched the old Nightline theme song (boo! How can they do that and still call this show Nightline?) and I don’t really like McFadden. She’s a better anchor for Nightline than, say, George Stephanopolous, but she doesn’t give me a Nightline kind of feeling, even when, last night, she tried to interview the Roman Catholic priests about the Vatican’s policies on homosexual priests (McFadden’s no Koppel). I actually get a better feeling from Bashir (well, working on that; his interviews of Michael Jackson still haunt me – and not in a good way) and Moran (I’ve seen him enough to accept him, but I’ve yet to feel an air of proper authority or confidence in him). I do not like the multi-story format – too much to cover in a short period of time. Pick one or two – not three.

Oh, and last night brought back one Nightline veteran John Donvan (thank goodness! and what happened to the rest of Koppel’s crew?) – he did a story on the pro-life Christians who are praying, in front of the Supreme Court, that the justices will go their way. I miss the old veterans (heck, even Chris Bury, who had to put up with a lot in New Orleans during the Katrina disaster). And, I don’t like too much change too soon. Check out David Bianculli’s review in the Daily News; he pretty much voiced my concerns:

The trio of stories, while commendable in subject, were less so in scope. McFadden’s piece, the one most typical of a classic “Nightline” report, had her questioning priests on opposite sides of the debate about gay clergy. The interview, handled live, could have gone somewhere, but never got the chance. After five minutes, with the gay priest from Albany champing to respond to his colleague’s charge that homosexuality was “a disorder,” McFadden shut down the discussion.

“I’m sorry,” she said, “that’s going to have to be the last word for tonight.”

I’m sorry, too. I would have loved to hear his response. [….]

Dividing the “Nightline” turf by half, rather than thirds, would be a better compromise, if the new regime is insistent on picking up the pace. The correspondents shouldn’t mind waiting their turn, if the resulting rotation provides time for deeper, better reports.

Lock down the camera, and slow down the segments, and the new version of “Nightline” (at 11:35 p.m.) will deserve to retain its time slot – and stand a better chance of building on that proud journalistic tradition.

Hmm. Will ABC News listen to the critics and make adjustments accordingly?

And, speaking further about TV – last night’s “House, M.D.” – has to be the best episode of the season so far. All of Dr. House’s insane mistakes catch up on him (sooner or later, no one was going to tolerate his habit of not personally seeing patients and blackmailing colleagues to save lives); series continuity: we learn that Dr. Chase’s dad did pass away, and it may explain why Chase has been a strange one the last several months (and that House did honor Chase Sr.’s request that Chase not know Chase Sr. was dying of lung cancer) (and, if the timing of the flashbacks are correct, Chase’s mental instability – due to grief of losing an estranged father and issues of faith and things like that – came in the middle of House’s being pissed with him for giving in to Vogler, the ex-hospital CEO/antagonist – making Chase one seriously stressed m.d.); Dr. Foreman’s clueless (does he not realize that he’s the one turning into House, not Chase?); and Dr. Cameron’s really dim (didn’t she realize everyone would know she slept with Chase?); and Dr. Wilson and Dr. House really need real lives (playing with their quarters for a little paper clip field goal kicking with their thumbs – ok, I’m not describing the scene adequately, but it was a very funny scene). I like it when “House” gets into a wacky storyline arc – it can get hairy, but everyone gets a bit of character development, for better or worse.