Miss Fortune, Miss Take, Miss Management, Miss Apprehension

I know, I know: generalities are verboten. Blanket statements about any one group are worse then unfair—they’re silly. Felix Unger was right: when you “assume” you make an “ass” out of “u” and “me.” So if you assume that “those people” are all alike, you’re a fool.

You know the ones I’m talking about! Those people. Those (fill in the blank) people. We all know about those people!

OK. But grant me the wisdom (ahem!) or forty years in television news when I say that in my experience as a news director AVOID ANYONE WHO HAS EVER WORN A SASH! Hiring “Miss Whatever” is a MIS-TAKE! That's not a generality: remember, I speak from (painful) experience.

Have you noticed how many Miss America and Miss Universe (and Miss Cowchip Toss) contestants say, “I want to be a television news anchor”? When was the last time you heard one of them say “I want to be a reporter.” Or “I want to stand in a freezing drizzle waiting to interview the Mayor.” Or “I want to roll out of bed at 3:00 a.m. to cover a fire.” Or “I want to master the intricacies of reporting on health legislation”? Never, right? Everyone wants to be a star. No one wants to pay the dues.

We got the bubble-headed bleach-blonde who

Comes on at five.

She can tell you ‘bout the plane crash with a gleam

In her eye.

It’s interesting when people die.

Give us dirty laundry.

Ouch! Don Henley has it right, though.

But it wasn’t always that way.

There was a time when people were hired for their journalistic credentials first and foremost. If they happened to be halfway decent looking, so much the better. Remember Jane Pauley, who left Indianapolis for a big-time Chicago anchor job at the age of (if I remember correctly) 26? She was criticized as being all fluff. But I worked at WISH-TV in Indy just after she left—and to a person everyone respected her as a hard-working journalist who paid her dues, happened to be smarter than anyone in the room . . . and just caught a break. No one who worked with her thought of her as a “bubble-headed bleach-blonde.”

So my rule is “TRASH THE SASH!” Every time I’ve interviewed a “Miss Congeniality” or a “Miss Okie from Muskogee” who had that “special light” in her eyes, it didn’t take long to realize it was the sun shining through her ears!

Don’t get me wrong. This isn't about looks. I’ve worked with some great-looking people—women and men—who were real pros. Just to name a few attractive women in my recent experience—some former WBRE colleagues—Dia Wallace, Candace Kelly and Charlotte Deleste. Dia is an experienced and aggressive investigative reporter. She works part-time now because she’s raising a (large!) family. Candace, while young and beautiful, is smart as a whip and an aggressive reporter: she's earned her success. Charlotte is now anchoring mornings in Madison, Wisconsin—just had her second son a couple of weeks ago—and is a multiple threat and a hard-worker. She's as dedicated as she is good looking, and was a joy to work with. Oh, and Laurie Monteforte on WYOU is a hard-charging kid with unlimited potential: keep your eye on her.

There are many other "lookers" that I’ve respected and treasured as colleagues over the years. I’m not prejudiced against beauty. I’m prejudiced against SASHES! If you’ve been “Miss Congeniality” or "Miss Anything," in my experience you’re 99% likely to be impossible to work with. For the rest of you in television—admit it, you've got stories of your own about dumb divas.

One of the biggest and best talent agents, Ken Lindner & Associates, bills itself as “THE PREMIER NEWS AND HOSTING AGENCY.” That says it all. These former Miss-Whatevers can be reading the news or turning letters on a board or hosting the infomercial for the colon cleanser—it’s all the same to them as long as the makeup and hairstylists make them look great and the wardrobe consultant sees to it that the clothing allowance is spent on fancy red jackets. Oh, and as long as they can make the big bucks!

Well, I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here.

I just have to look good, I don't have to be clear.

Come and whisper in my ear,

Give us dirty laundry.

Let me carry this forward to a possibly illogical conclusion. When Sarah Palin was named as John McCain’s running mate, my first reaction was, “Who?” When I heard she had been “Miss Congeniality” in a long-ago Miss Alaska pageant I thought, “Uh-Oh.”

And when I heard the Republican National Committee had bought her $150,000 worth of new clothes I thought, “ANCHOR DIVA!” I think she reads off the prompter pretty well. She drops too many “Gs” for my taste (bringin’, goin’, doin’, drillin') and says “betcha” and “didja” and "gonna" too often to be a solid anchor—maybe that’s why she didn’t last long as a sportscaster. And they obviously didn’t have expensive makeup and hair consultants for her in the mid-80s.

Did you notice the eyes? Sort of a "moose caught in the headlights" look. But we apparently demand more of our sportscasters and anchors than we do of our heartbeat-away-from-the-presidency political candidates.

Don't get me wrong. I don't wish the woman ill. But anyone out there who says "I saw her and she's one of us" or "I identify with her" or "I know what she stands for" has just been boondoggled by The Pageant Wave and her saucy wink. You know The Pageant Wave: "Elbow, elbow . . . wrist, wrist . . . cross your chest . . . and then you switch."

I don't want the possible leader of the free world to be "saucy". And although I don't know enough about the Iranian culture to be truly informed, I worry that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can't differentiate between a "wink" and a "blink." I don't want a Veep who blinks.

So I say TRASH THE SASH!

Now Hear This

I did a little reading on the radio this morning . . . sort of.

I've volunteered to read news stories for the blind as part of the "Pell Radio Reading Service," a not-for-profit arm of the local Association for the Blind. Every day volunteers clip the local newspaper and read it aloud for the visually impaired.

The audience is really almost miniscule: just 400-or-so local residents equipped with special radios. You see, the signal is carried as a sub-frequency of the local public radio affiliate. So who knows how many are actually tuned in.

I bring this up because this morning--my first behind the mic--was a real eye-opener.

My more-experienced partner and I took two copies of the morning paper and clipped just about every story. I took the even-numbered pages, he took the odd (the "jump" pages proved a special problem). Then we stacked them into a rough running order and took turns reading them: two hours worth of back-and-forth, with two two-minute breaks and one ten-minute break. And it's hard work! Those narrow newspaper columns with all those hyphens make it difficult to get into any kind of read-ahead-rhythm. Try it sometime!

But I was struck by the fact that over the years newspapers have adapted to the changing times by writing more and more like television! The copy I saw had short, crisp sentences. They were still written, roughly, in "inverted pyramid" form, with the good stuff close to the top. But the idea that the five "W"s and the "H" had to be in the first sentence has gone by the wayside.

And the stories were short: many TV length.

It also turns out Walter Cronkite was right years and years ago when he said that all the copy in a half-hour TV newscast wouldn't fill three columns in a newspaper. I guess I knew that, but I didn't know it until this morning!

And the topic we devoted the most time to, and took the most care with? Obituaries. For a shut-in audience, the obits are important. Attention must be paid, so we paid attention to the lives and the passing of the big and small in our local communities.

I guess it's not like delivering late-breaking news on a 50-thousand-watt clear-channel AM powerhouse, reaching 10 or 12 states each night: but I performed a service this morning, I feel good about it, and it made me feel OK about the news business. I haven't for a long time now.

It was what it was--a simple, pure, straight-forward news delivery system. Go tell that to your demographics!

Passing Notes

The passing of Paul Newman reminds me of the time I ran into him--literally--in a New York City art store, turning a corner around a counter. I remember thinking, "That's the skinniest man I've ever seen." And he wasn't all that tall either.

Now, New Yorkers are cool (even transplants like me): they're not going to make a fuss over anything or anyone, no exceptions (that I know of). It was interesting, though. He left the store before I did. When I left, and turned to walk down West 57th Street, he was about 25 yards in front of me. No, I was not following him!

Here's what I noticed. You know how a powerboat cutting through the water leaves a wake? Water spreads out to either side and behind the boat. Paul Newman left a wake! No one was going to rush up to him or try to talk to him, or even acknowledge him (where he could see it). But off to the side and behind him there was a spreading buzz. "Bzzz-bzzzz-bzzzz-that was Paul Newman."

Bzzz-bzzzz-bzzzz. All down 57th Street.

I've been out and about with celebrities, people who got noticed, but never anyone on a level with Paul Newman. I wondered then, and I wonder still, if that sort of fame is more curse than blessing.

A couple of people I know had contact with him over the years: media professionals who dealt with him in the world of acting or in the world of motor sports. The spoke of him as a solid, decent guy. His charity work bears that out. And I'm hard-pressed to think of an actor who appeared in more flat-out entertaining films, ever! Butch, and Hud, and Fast Eddie and Luke. We can repeat lines from all of them.

Just a quick remembrance, nothing special. But apparently he was very special.

By the way: anyone out there know that he was from Cleveland? His family founded and ran the first large sporting goods store in the city, Newman-Stern, for many years. It's gone now. Paul Newman, too. Thanks.

Myopia

Bad news. I think I lost an old friend this week. We had a knock-down, drag-out fight over media bias; specifically his contention that in this election year the "Mainstream Media" have chosen sides. I said I just don't see it.

I may be myopic, even delusional, but I just don't see it.

Now, I'll admit that this year is far more confusing and contentious than any election year I've ever seen. Or maybe it's just that, in my semi-retired state, I've got more time on my hands to do something I've never done before: pay attention to what Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are saying.

Here's a bias I do recognize and admit: they make me sick--almost physically ill. I can take them in four or five-minute doses; and I have to be careful while driving to switch away before I drive straight off a bridge! The hate speech that passes for informed discussion these days is truly frightening. I'm not talking about their politics, I'm talking about their polemics. Add to that the Internet (a wonderful source for totally accurate, guaranteed opinion-free factual reporting, dontcha think?), and we're bombarded on all sides with hate, with bitterness, with divisiveness.

Rush is always talking about the "Drive-by Media." The one thing he doesn't mention is what I'm going to call the "Agenda-Driven" media. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I keep hearing the opinion, the one-sided opinion, and nothing that conflicts with that opinion. Agenda-driven.

Here's where it gets more complicated this time around. It was one thing when Rush had hate-speech all to himself. It was a bit more worrisome when the Rush wannabes started clogging the radio airwaves and the blogosphere. I thought it was a horrible development when the folks at Fox decided there must be an audience out there for a right-tilting cable news network. Ugggghhh!

Now, this year, in a move I absolutely deplore and condemn, MSNBC has decided that there's an audience to be served and money to be made by tilting left. Hey, that in and of itself is OK. In the world of "narrowcasting" they can pick their target audience and program for it in any way they want. Trust me, if there's money to be made programming strictly to Croatian cross-dressing serial killers, someone will aim a program (or a network) at them.

But here's where it gets ugly. The MSNBC folks decided to drag NBC News along with them. Respected, trusted, voice-of-reason folks like Tom Brokaw and Andrea Mitchell have been sitting next to shrill shills like Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews. NBC execs argue that the audience can tell the difference between NBC and MSNBC, between objective journalism and commentary. Like Hell!

Poor Tom. Poor Andrea. Forced to walk like ducks and quack like ducks and dilute their franchise, which up to now has been based on fair, factual journalism. I can't blame anyone who wants to see NBC News as tarred with the MSNBC brush. I don't care if MSNBC goes diving for dollars in the media pond. And I didn't mind when Tom and Andrea and Tim Russert were guests on Don Imus' old MSNBC program. Imus never tried to pass his schtick off as journalism, but MSNBC is trying to pass its political activism off as journalism: I think it's dishonest and I think it's called into question NBC's objectivity. Walk like a duck? NBC News is getting soaked.

This is the first Presidential election since 1968 that I've watched from the sidelines, so I think I can speak with some authority about media bias. I just never saw it. Maybe I'm myopic.

"The Meed-ya" make a convenient target for sleezy pols. The Nixon White House practiced "The Mushroom Theory:" Keep 'em in the dark and pile on the manure. Later, I think it was Repubican strategist Lee Atwater who coined the term "Liberal Media" and made it not just a label, but an accusation. The idea was to keep reporters off balance by accusing them of disloyalty if they had the temerity to ask a question of the candidate. We've seen that carried to a new level this year--with Sarah Palin not being allowed by her handlers to say much beyond name, rank and serial number.

Am I sounding like a liberal? In my defense, let me paraphrase something David Brinkley said years ago. It's easy to mistake journalists for liberals: we both want to ride in on a white horse and save the world.

I'm sitting this one out--but in close to forty years in TV news, I've written stories, produced newscasts, assigned reporters, coordinated coverage. Print out my body of work and lay it end to end--and you'd never have to buy toilet paper ever! And you'd also never find any trace of a personal opinion.

Now, I've got opinions. Damn right! You can't spend as much time as I have rubbing up against the major issues of our day as I have and not have formed a personal opinion. What do I think about the race for the White House--or abortion--or the immigration issue--or gay marriage--or capital punishment?

NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

That's because I've always made it my business not to let my personal opinions creep into my work. It wouldn't be fair. And I know what fair is. Why do some people think it's so difficult to recognize your personal opinion and keep it out of your news copy?

If you look at journalism as a service we provide on behalf of our fellow citizens, than you know why all this talk about liberal media bias infuriates me so. When people talk about the media being unfair, most often their complaint boils down to, "It's not fair that you're asking my candidate tough questions."

Close to forty years and I can honestly say to you that I've never seen or heard any of my colleagues pushing a personal agenda. Oh, I've seen my share of "gotcha" journalism: but I've always looked at it as "bulldog" journalism. When a responsible journalist--and by that I mean someone working for the three TV/radio networks, local affiliates and major newspapers--is on the job, he or she is like a bulldog going after the mailman. If the mailman stands his ground he doesn't get bit. If the pol starts to bob and weave, duck and dodge, and tries to pull away--the bulldog chomps down and holds on. So I've seen plenty of people get bloodied trying to mislead and flee the media--and I regret nothing.

Bias? I never had any political pressure brought to bear on me by my bosses. Just for fun (and for clarification) I recently talked to my old WABC boss, Cliff Abromats, and asked if he was ever made aware of some hidden agenda on the part of his ABC corporate bosses. He told me that there was an agenda alright--but it wasn't hidden: "Get more viewers so we can make more money." Every once in awhile corporate would meddle with a personnel decision, but Cliff told me no one at the network level ever told him what stories to cover or how to cover them.

An anecdote I find amusing and telling at the same time. At the height of Watergate I was producing the 6:00 and 11:00 p.m. newscasts for the old WWJ (now WDIV-TV) in Detroit. Between newscasts, whenever possible, I'd take viewer calls; a "pulse of the people" sort of thing. One night I took two calls pretty much back-to-back.

WHAT DO YOU #$#%&% THINK YOU'RE DOING? YOU'RE TEARING DOWN RICHARD NIXON, THE GREATEST PRESIDENT THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER HAD, AND A TRUE PATRIOT. I HOPE YOU'RE PROUD OF YOURSELVES!!!!!




Next call...

WHAT DO YOU #$#%&% THINK YOU'RE DOING? YOU'RE DEFENDING RICHARD NIXON, THE WORST PRESIDENT THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER HAD, AND AN OBVIOUS LIAR AND CROOK. I HOPE YOU'RE PROUD OF YOURSELVES!!!!!




And I thought to myself, I must be doing something right.

In the few years before and the many years since I've never once been asked to or ordered to slant the news. The only political conversations I've had with my general managers have been "cost of coverage" not "kind of coverage." Their concern is that we got bang for our bucks--and covering politics can be expensive. For example, at my last station we covered every minute--every second--of every single appearance by the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates in our area. We blew out a lot of programming (and commercials!) but we felt it was important to give our viewers more than the standard :30 sound bites.
_________________________________________
Damn...what was I thinking...I've buried the lead again.
_________________________________________

Here's the lead. The friend I lost--after thirty years--accused me of being a lackey for the conservative establishment. His take was that the owners of the mass media are, for the most part, Republicans; and they have (he's convinced) dictated a kid-glove policy when it comes to covering John McCain and Sarah Palin. He wrote, "How many questionable decisions based on bucks have you made? Are you a newsman or a lackey?" Hmmm. Maybe he's right. I haven't heard anyone in the "MSM," the "Drive-By Media" asking McCain tough questions, now have I?

???????????????????????????

He wrote, "The Truth, like the news, is for sale."

I told him to pound sand!

Because--now get this: this comes from a man who worked as a tape editor for several New York TV stations! I guess he didn't check his mailbox the day the political agenda was passed out. He must have missed the auditions for the "media chorus."

I reminded him that I missed the time he nailed his "95 Theses" to the station's (glass) door. But no, he insists, he wasn't a collaborator: "I never had a position of responsibility beyond my individual projects which were never 'HARD NEWS' (that was for you intelligent pundits). I did not have a vote on anything put into the daily broadcast. You on the other had, did, and must share the blame for sucking up to those cretins who signed our checks."

Yeah, he just cashed the checks!

So there you have it. I'm part of the great conservative media conspiracy! Don't hear that one often, do ya?

I guess truth is in the eye of the beholder. Me? I'm biased against people who see a media bias under every rock. I'd conspire against them--but I don't know how to organize a good conspiracy! Most journalists can't organize a good three-car parade. The ones I know have a simple mission. They think knowing a lot is better than knowing a little, and they want to give you the information you need to know to make informed decisions this election year.

You gotta problem with that?