Being the continuation of InstaPunk and InstaPunk Rules
Has this particular play had a long enough Broadway run?
Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
Kaitlan Collins and David Muir
There may have been a day when the news broadcasters in television were reporters who found a lucrative niche in a new medium. People like Murrow and Cronkite and Brinkley didn’t become icons based on their looks. They were more like talking incarnations of Time and Newsweek and The Atlantic Monthly, news and culture journalists with a certain distinctive style and manner of speech.
Since CBS veteran Bernard Goldberg first blew the whistle on bias in mainstream network news organizations in 2001, millions (and millions) of words have been lavished on this controversial subject of how television journalism has become a partisan powerhouse in national politics rather than the ‘just the facts, ma’am’ diggers of truth they purport to be.
Funny how in all those millions of words, hardly any are devoted to the great divide between the mediums of print and television, which is much larger than the seeming uniformity of their political propaganda.
NYT, WAPO, WSJ, and whatever else remains of the old print shapers of national opinion are staffed with advanced degree holders from Columbia, Northwestern, and NYU. The CVs of television news anchors, on the other hand, represent a remarkably different kind of credential set. Despite some over-publicized exceptions, TV news hosts are not journalists at all. They are in a different business altogether. They are in show business.
It was always lurking there in the background from the moment newsmen met the prop of a television set. No, not just the device people out there were watching. The plasterboard and lights and staging designed to make a film studio look like an office. Murrow became the Bogart of early news broadcasting by smoking like a fiend on camera. This was all after World War II, mind, the era of explosive growth in American power, wealth, and confidence. Bigger was better, and the steady news organizations who had covered the war on radio or in documentary releases to theaters, then on Sunday television. I remember Cronkite’s stentorian narration of “The Twentieth Century” (1957-1966), which featured the Rock of Gibraltar as its signature image.
(This is tricky to get back here from.save it for the end of your reading.)
Transitions were underway, gradual at the beginning but gathering steam. Many years after I’d watched the Cronkite documentary series, I discovered, on late night UHF station in Philly another series called “Victory at Sea.” The show ran from 1952 to 1953 and then here and there in syndication for decades. It was a masterpiece of film editing, musical scoring, and narration. Real footage, not re-enactments. Richard Rodgers, not Lalo Schiffren (no offense intended, just you know). And Leonard Graves. Even in my twenties when I found it on my 12-inch TV, he sounded to me like the voice of God, stern and resolute but ineffably moved by the courage and suffering of young men confronting death in war.
I never once laid eyes on Leonard Graves. Didn’t need to.
Eventuallly, NBC released a summary version of Victory at Sea, condensed to movie length and narrated by Alexander Scourby. I was crushed. Scourby’s an outstanding narrator, but…
Anyhow, this was what the emerging technology of television had to bring to the news business. The tools of the movie studios brought into the once ramshackle environment of a big city newsroom. Clunky typer-writers and gumshoe reporters in cheap suits replaced by a classier, better equipped ambiance. Transformational. Not all movie production is John Ford and Irving Thalberg though. It’s also Bob Hope and Betty Hutton, with a lipstick boost by Diana Lynn, and even Jonathan Winters. Comedy, often slapstick, in addition to sober dramas.
The same year that gave us “Victory at Sea” was also the year in which the most importwnt event in the history of television news occurred.
It was two years after this that the NBC Tonight Show began, with a
similar mission for a late night audience, barring news per sē. Incest?
Dave Garroway was a product of local radio news station. He made a name for himself by seeking out spectacle. According to Wikipedia:
“Garroway began his broadcasting career at NBC as a page in 1938; he graduated 23rd in a class of 24 from NBC's school for announcers. Following graduation, he landed a job at Pittsburgh radio station KDKA in 1939. As a station reporter, he filed reports from a hot-air balloon, a U.S. Navy submarine in the Ohio River, and deep inside a coal mine. His early reporting efforts earned Garroway a reputation for finding a good story, even in unusual places. The "Roving Announcer", as he was known, worked his way up to become the station's special-events director, while still attending to his on-air work. After two years with KDKA, Garroway left for Chicago.”
He brought exactly that kind of derringer-do to the Today Show.
Which paved the way for Katie Couric, Willard Scott, and Bryant Gumbel
All pretty harmless, right? Not quite right. There were always dangers in the show biz charms of folksiness. Another movie from this formative period, based loosely on a real life model, was A Face in the Crowd, starring ‘Andy of Mayberry,’ aka Andy Griffith in his first screen role. The fictional protagonist was an unlikely radio talk show superstar, of which there happened to be one at the time, name of Arthur Godfrey. His show, on the air for hours every day, made him what some labeled “The Most Famous Man in the World.”
A big deal of a film, in 1953, directed by Elia Kazan from a story by Budd
Shulberg and co-starring Patricia Neal, Lee Remick, and Walter Matthau.
Reviews were mixed because there were some belovèd men with similar careers and massive followings. The problem in this production was that the Griffith character was a pure sonofabitch eventually done in by his own narcissism, lusts, lies, and hypocrisies.
In short, a lot of money was involved in the personal reputations of saturation-level media stars. As happens, life soon imitated art (if that’s what it’s doing), and Arthur Godfrey had his own spectacular fall from grace after years of idolatry by an intensely loyal radio audience. If anyone was aware that what could happen in radio might also happen in the TV universe of morning shows and marquee news programs, there’s no evidence from the time that people were worried about the dangers of a similar downfall occurring with the new breed of unscripted five-day-a-week TV hosts or self-scripted newsreader hosts.
Life often takes longer than art to wreak its havoc on reputations. I recall being a so-so fan of the Today Show during its heyday in the Seventies. An easy way to get the headlines and impending water cooler topics while getting dressed for work. My favorite was the guy who did the five minute straight news report every half hour. Frank Blair. Some leftover newsman from the old days. He always sounded like he had just gotten out of bed, maybe hungover from the night before, and I’m sure a lot of people in the Today audience related to him more than the tailored, professionally made up hosts and hostesses.
I was not a big fan of the nightly network news guys. Cronkite, Severaid, Huntley-Brinkley, John Chancellor, Tom Brokaw, Howard K. Smith, Mike Wallace, and company always seemed to be talking down somehow, not antagonistically but a mite too avuncularly, like a mature well-to-do relative putting in an appearance at a less affluent household in the family for a holiday dinner. Friendly enough but aloof and not to be criticized by poor relations.
Thanks to the Party Conventions, I got to see what they could be like outside the network studio. It became suddenly obvious at the 1864 Republican Convention when Tom Brokaw and John Chancellor were careening around the convention floor (crowned with Martian-antennaed headgear) seeming to provoke delegates with gotcha questions about Barry Goldwater. John Chancellor was actually ejected from that convention by the RNC.
Oh yes he was…
People talk about media “derangement syndromes” these days as if they began with George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump. There’s a good reason for that. The pattern is so engrained and predictable and repeated that it demonstrated the irrational bias of the television news media long before Bernard Goldberg ever wrote his book about it in 2001. Before the Goldwater Derangement Syndrome on display at the 1964 GOP Convention, there was Phase 1 of Nixon Derangement Syndrome after his razor-thin loss to JFK in 1960, when there was reason for a recount in Cook County IL. Nixon finally let it go, but the press didn’t let him go. They hounded him all the way back to California and delighted openly when he lost a bid for Governor, blaming the press for a tide of bad publicity during the campaign. He famously told them they “wouldn’t have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore.” Only he came back and really got destroyed the second time around during NDS phase 2 with obsessive media coverage of the Watergate burglary and the achievement of his resignation on the eve of a Senate trial.
Goldwater never had a chance, but his failure marked the birth of a spectacular political career by Ronald Reagan, who served two successful terms as California Governor before narrowly losing the 1976 nomination to Gerald Ford, the sitting (and sitting Duck) President who inherited unelected office from the Nixon resignation. Reagan came so close to beating out Ford that the media were lying in wait for him in 1980, when he finally claimed the nomination. The coverage of his campaign and the published polling made the “actor” candidate look like a huge underdog in the contest with Carter, even though the peanut farmer had been a lame duck himself since delivering his famous “malaise” speech in a cardigan sweater.
Interestingly, it was the professional news media who were most surprised by Reagan’s landslide win. I will never forget exactly where I was when at the end of a long workday I sat down with a friend to check in on the early returns on election night. By the time we turned it on, it was already over. The network anchors were calling the race for Reagan with only a tiny percentage of the vote in. We flipped from station to station, confronting the same long faces and tragic sighs on every channel. The news pros had all missed it and they were shellshocked. It was comical to see their deeply felt sorrow.
Then followed their 8-year attempt at revenge. Reagan was depicted as dumb, insensitive, blundering, and just plain not up to the job. It was in 1982 that the two biggest media stars of RDS emerged. Dan Rather on CBS News and Bryant Gumbel on NBC’s Today Show. Rather could have played the Andy Griffith role from Face in the Crowd. His folksiness was constant, an endless stream of cornpone Texas metaphors by the anchorman of America’s most powerful news network. Constant and nauseating. He had some of his own roots in Texas radio, as well as local newspaper experience, but no sign of academic attainments he scorned Reagan for lacking. Gumbel was a different case, but just as relentless. His ‘common touch’ came from sports, not down home geography, but he too prospered without the benefit of graduate level education in politics or journalism. This did not stop him from jeering at Reagan for every misstep and managing to twist every political interview on Today into an investigation of the malfeasance of the President and his associates no matter what the subject was. He got away with it. As did Rather. They weren’t alone in their scorn, just the most jaw-droppingly obvious about their antipathy.
This was the mindset that had made the Watergate nullification of a landslide Presidential election possible and also turned a handful of lucky news anchors into celebrities with all the trappings. There are probably still people out there who think Robert Redford is Bob Woodward and Dustin Hoffman is Carl Bernstein. Why they’re still able to write and sell slanderous books based on “anonymous” sources. They made it the new mission of journalism not to tell the truth but to “make a difference,” and the best way to do that is on TV with millions and millions watching. Suddenly journalism wasn’t about scruffy people drinking too much coffee in stinky newsrooms but becoming a star and a multimillion dollar brand to boot. “Journalists” getting paid like movie stars. Cool.
By this time, the essential profile of the news establishment in this country was well established in pretty much the same state it maintained until the advent of the Nemesis Trump. With a few interesting additional trends.
Despite (and arguably because of) Watergate, the print press papers of record have been on a long slow decline since even battered standards of journalism have been replaced by derangement syndromes as the foundations of “the narrative.” NYT, WAPO, WSJ, and their brethren are no longer the kings of anything but the narrative. Circulations have fallen, prestige has ebbed, and salaries of all the J-School valedictorians have become a joke compared to what can be earned by the stars of the TV network news organizations, who have rarely seen the inside of prestigious eastern universities. The new path to journalistic wealth is vastly different from that followed by the Murrows and Cronkites.
Thanks to the Today Show and its derivatives, local news stations across the country were taken over by “happy talk” formats featuring pretty girls and tolerable male faces, all boasting degrees in something called broadcast journalism, which appears to have been mostly about wardrobe, teeth whitening, and generically homogenized American accents. The apotheosis of this was the unexpected rise of Fox News and its dozens (if not hundreds now) of blonde smiling heads attached to nice legs. What Google shows you when you search for “the blondes of Fox News”:
I’d say something about them, but I can’t even read the captions with my glasses on.
Yes, the female invasion of the news business was a consummation that had been devoutly wished for by feminism since the mid 20th Century. It was a perfect arena for rapid conquest by ambitious women. You had to look good, you didn’t have to know much, but you definitely needed the gift of gab that comes with the XX chromosome set. Like dermatology and social work and HR managers, TV journalism was a perfect match with aggressive career builders of the female persuasion. DEI was nothing really new when it came along, just a formalization of what had been going on under the table and an adorable new category of highly paid make-work administrivia for women to climb the corporate with.
Of course, it’s not just the women who are hired for their pretty faces now. David Muir, the superstar anchor of ABC News, has very unexceptional academic background and has recently come a cropper trying to fact-check Trump in a debate he had promised not to fact-check. Which would have been wise. Since he knows no facts.
All of the above leads to the reason for being of this post, which was a brief news item published the National Pulse. I started to write a FB post, then all the other flotsam’s and jetsam nobody talks about came bumping into my brain and here we are. Blame it on this:
One of the MAGA conservative hosts (can’t think which one) says this Kaitlan Collins is
far and away the best looking news anchor on television. I have reason to doubt him. He
trashes her anyway. I’m pretty sure she’ll land safely somewhere. Megyn Kelly’s done fine.
We’ve been watching the same dumb show for a long time now. Maybe it’s time to come up with a new act, a new show, with new music and new faces. Waddya think?
This is what I call an omnibus post. That is, it will contain many links to what I have published here and elsewhere previously. Not going to apologize for that. I don’t mind asking you to read a variety of approaches to the same gigantic topic. It’s a topic so big we’ve all become accustomed (or trained ourselves) to deal with it only in pieces. But the pieces are all part of a larger whole that has grave consequences for the culture as a whole. A great many people aren’t going to like what I have to say here, but it’s time it was said. I won’t be mincing words. If you feel like contending with specific points I am making, you’re well advised to read what’s at the links before you cut yourself the easy break of dismissing this post as irrational or wrongheaded or over-generalized. It isn’t. It just won’t be popular. A word about the word ‘general’ as it used in vernacular expressions like ”in general” or “generally speaking.” We all do generalize, mostly without acknowledging that whe...
Conflicted identity and media image woes By now we know if you’re a Democrat, getting elected isn’t about who you are, what you’ve done or haven’t done. It’s about how people see you. The factors that can do in a candidate are often more subtle than the pundits of the professional wrestling circuit called the mainstream media. Why we think it’s time to help the world’s most uninformed voters about who to elect as their next nominee for President. We’re not going to get all racist and sexist about it. The decision points we’ve discovered are all based on the individuals involved, not the immaterial fluff like experience or political philosophies. We’ll start right at the top and give you one simple thing to bear in mind before you try to pick a winner for 2028. Kamala Harris Not about the word salads or the escort thing. Too Desperate. Gavin Newsom Too Lyle Waggoner. Times change. Bernie Sanders Too ‘Little Big Man’ AOC Too prematurely passé Gretchen Whitmer Too Lily-White J...
Did the District Attorney of Philadelphia propose blowing up Trump’s White House Ballroom and auctioning off pieces of the rubble to cut the deficit? The Answer Provided by Google’s AI Assistant: Yes . Our topic today is Larry Krasner and his record as the District Attorney of Philadelphia and apparent higher political aspirations. Our purpose, though, is not purely political. It is to provide a demonstration of how Artificial Intelligence applications can be used in personal research that goes deeper than the media ever do. It is also to show the pitfalls of relying on such applications without a dogged determination to be thorough. The programmers behind the computer “intelligence” are always there, and they are just as human and political as, well, the elitist geeks who write the code. There are always two big questions to answer before undertaking what will be a long and complicated post on a complicated topic. First, Can I do it? And second, Do I really want to do it? This t...
Invocation of Nemesis by the Summoners Click on Rosie. Thought I’d get this part out of the way right up front. I’m reminded of Oscar Wilde’s famous quip about the upper class British sport of fox hunting: “The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.” As it happens, I’m working on two different posts at the same time this morning. This one and another one about the sad PR plight afflicting the unfortunate middle child of the three worst First Ladies in American history. . What the posts have in common is that the dominating element of both stories is a function of female psychology and can only be understood in those terms. There’s also the irony that Wilde’s jibe can be applied with some justice to both predator and prey in the two posts. Because I’m going to admit at the outset what most of the MAGA faithful won’t. You are right that Donald Trump is responsible for much of the imminent danger we are facing as a nation. Without his arrival on the political scene 11 years ...
Yeah. Click on the blue headlines. There are two precursor posts to this, both still in-process. I’ll finish and link them later. One is about the death of the historical novel, which mirrors a lot of other deaths in our culture. The other is about divorce, an absolutely transformative and deadly factor in what has become of us as a nation. What does that leave us with? The end result of our progressive devolution, largely invisible to all, because it is a function of the variable we tend to think of as a constant, human consciousness. Which it isn’t. I’ve written quite a lot about the consciousness problem over the years, and Instapunk Returns, as well as a couple other of my blogs, contain 5+++ years worth of thoughts on the topic. I’ll be sending you to those posts here, providing you with an excerpt, usually the lede, a sample graphic or two, and a link. The order is roughly chronological. I’m not going to give you any particular setup from piece to piece. The relevance to the main...
Happy Independence Day No. 250! I’m planning to do my part for the year-long celebration of the still remarkable birth of the United States of America. Just starting to realize that the number of us who remember the last big anniversary in 1976 is getting smaller every day. Why I have some special ideas about focusing on the moment of transition, that is the tick of the clock last night when the 249th year became the 250th. A kind of time capsule that may be buried now but dug up later to see who were way back when you were still as young as you think you are now. My credentials for the job. Quite a few actually, but the most important one today is that I was a working participant in the official Bicentennial celebrations back when I was still young. I wrote a post about it almost 10 years ago, ancient history in today’s 24/7 chronometer dial. In honor of the ones no longer with us from that time, I dug up the old post from the Wayback Machine and put it back together here a...
I accidentally discovered an apt new term to describe what’s going on right now. I was having fun with a recent Breitbart post referencing one of CNN’s duller voices. Atheocracy. Kind of perfect. Nailed home by the sudden leftist welcome of support from the Satanists in opposing the Texas Abortion law. Not to mention Cher’s redefinition of democracy as anything which enables a woman to get her way in every way she desires. A simple definition of Atheocracry. Every belief system involving the divine is non-scientific, worthless, and necessarily to be crushed out of existence. So we can all always do whatever we want, no matter who gets hurt. What happened? Dr. Doolittle’s Pushmi-Pullyu. Often Characterized as a sexual stalemate. Men and women have battled for control of society forever. Both sexes (there are exactly two) have competed for power for over thousands of generations. Thurber’s War Between Men and Women. Jeez. That’s been a while ago. Feminists believe ...
It’s kind of a big deal when the NYT slips a story through the paywall. Why this one? I was going to leave this story alone or tag it with a quip at Facebook when I first read about it at Gateway Pundit. They’ve already dumped it from their morgue of recent posts, but there were two more stories this morning that changed my mind. One at Breitbart about an on-air TDS one-liner at Fox Sports and another about the hairdresser’s lawsuit in the sports newsletter leaked through the paywall of the New York Times. The Times piece is excerpted above. The Breitbart post is a mere throwaway item, located far down the Main Page of the website with no names mentioned. Here’s a quick clip of the show Breitbart was referencing: I think both publications sense that something significant is going on here, but they just don’t quite know what it is. That’s when the title of this post occurred to me. “Tempest in a Foxhole.” Mixed metaphor obviously. Tempest in a teapot is a standard dismissal....
Mad Max as you’re supposed to want her Having finished my Mad Max post yesterday, I realized I had confined my discussion of the ‘Instant Gratification’ problem to the MAGA fainthearts. Their inability to look far enough forward to envision consequences is far less than that of the whole half country full of Democrat apologists and Trump haters. Shouldn’t I address that fact in some comparable terms to what I just wrote? I guess so. The easy answer is referencing the two recent Mad Max sequels provided to us by Woke Hollywood. But I haven’t seen them. I had no interest in paying to see them in a theater. At one point I did put one of them, Furiosa I think, on my IMDB watch list. I received a notification that it would be briefly available on one of the streaming services and I did tune in to watch. Lost interest about 15 minutes in, by which time the old rules had it a good movie should have you hooked. I was not hooked. It was just the same cinematic backdrop as the Road W...
Comments