Tuesday, March 8, 2011
America's Next Sick Baby--Only On NBC!
It is appalling and grotesque that Nightly News continues to exploit sick children just for the sake of gaining a few ratings points. Sunday's "Making A Difference" report about people who volunteer to hold sick babies in L.A.'s Children's Hospital did not contain a shred of actual news. But it did contain plenty of close-ups of sick babies. Here a sick baby, there a sick baby, everywhere a sick baby. This is a recurring theme on Nightly News. The sick children stories. They show them over and over again. Just like the rescued animal stories and the feeding-the-homeless stories. The purpose of these stories is not to provide information, but to cause a strong emotional reaction in viewers. And, as the Nightly News producers well know, emotional reactions cause viewers to bond with a broadcast and tune in again and again. Sick babies are like crack. Viewers have to get their fix. It's like a soap opera or a Lifetime movie. But the difference is that we expect a soap opera or a Lifetime movie to be exploitative. We don't expect that from a news broadcast. Exploiting sick babies for ratings is shameful and unethical. The Nightly News producers should be ashamed of themselves. But they're not. They're too busy scouring the country for more sick babies to exploit on future Nightly News broadcasts. Maybe NBC should start a reality show called "America's Next Sick Baby". That way, Nightly News would have a steady supply of sick children to exploit. Wow--I just thought of something. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but what if the Nightly News producers were actually poisoning babies or infecting them with diseases just so they could film them for "Making A Difference" stories? Someone should investigate this. It sounds like a good plot for "CSI: 30 Rock".
Reruns On Nightly News
On Saturday's Nightly News, Lester Holt spent 25 seconds narrating a "news story" about how a team of scientists, engineers and pilots used 300 helium balloons to lift a 16' x 16' house 10,000 feet in the air--just like in the movie "Up"--for a National Geographic special called "How Hard Can It Be". On Monday's Nightly News, Brian Williams spent 25 seconds narrating a "news story" about how a team of scientists, engineers and pilots used 300 helium balloons to lift a 16' x 16' house 10,000 feet in the air--just like in the movie "Up"--for a National Geographic special called "How Hard Can It Be". Did we really need to see this story twice? Did we even need to see it once?
On Sunday's Nightly News, Anne Thompson reported on refugees at Tunisia's Djerba Airport who had fled the uprising in Libya and were now waiting to fly home to their native countries. Thompson hitched a ride on an American Air Force C-130 transport plane that was taking Egyptian citizens back to Cairo. She interviewed Navy Lt. Cmdr. James Stockman and showed footage of Marine Major Adam Lefringhouse using his Arabic language skills to welcome the Egyptians onto the plane. Everyone made it safely to Cairo. On Monday's Nightly News, Anne Thompson reported on refugees at Tunisia's Djerba Airport who had fled the uprising in Libya and were now waiting to fly home to their native countries. Thompson hitched a ride on an American Air Force C-130 transport plane that was taking Egyptian citizens back to Cairo. She interviewed Navy Lt. Cmdr. James Stockman and showed footage of Marine Major Adam Lefringhouse using his Arabic language skills to welcome the Egyptians onto the plane. Everyone made it safely to Cairo. It was the same story on both days! Did the producers think we wouldn't notice that Thompson was wearing the same clothes in both reports? Sunday's story was simply repackaged as a "Making A Difference" report for Monday. Why is Nightly News re-running the exact same stories more than once? With all that is going on across the country and around the world, how can the producers justify wasting the viewers' time airing the same story twice? Instead of reporting unimportant things twice, why don't they report important things once? This is why Nightly News is a joke.
On Sunday's Nightly News, Anne Thompson reported on refugees at Tunisia's Djerba Airport who had fled the uprising in Libya and were now waiting to fly home to their native countries. Thompson hitched a ride on an American Air Force C-130 transport plane that was taking Egyptian citizens back to Cairo. She interviewed Navy Lt. Cmdr. James Stockman and showed footage of Marine Major Adam Lefringhouse using his Arabic language skills to welcome the Egyptians onto the plane. Everyone made it safely to Cairo. On Monday's Nightly News, Anne Thompson reported on refugees at Tunisia's Djerba Airport who had fled the uprising in Libya and were now waiting to fly home to their native countries. Thompson hitched a ride on an American Air Force C-130 transport plane that was taking Egyptian citizens back to Cairo. She interviewed Navy Lt. Cmdr. James Stockman and showed footage of Marine Major Adam Lefringhouse using his Arabic language skills to welcome the Egyptians onto the plane. Everyone made it safely to Cairo. It was the same story on both days! Did the producers think we wouldn't notice that Thompson was wearing the same clothes in both reports? Sunday's story was simply repackaged as a "Making A Difference" report for Monday. Why is Nightly News re-running the exact same stories more than once? With all that is going on across the country and around the world, how can the producers justify wasting the viewers' time airing the same story twice? Instead of reporting unimportant things twice, why don't they report important things once? This is why Nightly News is a joke.
Spelling And Reading
During Monday's "Education Nation" story about tenure for teachers, one of the people Rehema Ellis interviewed was National Education Association president Dennis Van Roekel. Unfortunately, a Nightly News graphic identified him as "Dennis Von Roekel". So in a story about education, the producers misspelled the name of the NEA president. Does anyone else see the irony in this? Spelling is an important part of education. It's too bad the Nightly News producers don't seem to understand this.
On Sunday's "Making A Difference" story about hospital volunteers who hold sick babies, Dr. Philippe Friedlich of Children's Hospital Los Angeles was identified in a Nightly News graphic as "Dr. Phillippe Friedlich". Is anyone at Nightly News paying attention?
On Saturday's broadcast, Lester Holt introduced that night's "America at the Crossroads" segment by calling it "America at a Crossroads". Good reading skills are also an important part of education. Someone needs to let Lester know this.
On Sunday's "Making A Difference" story about hospital volunteers who hold sick babies, Dr. Philippe Friedlich of Children's Hospital Los Angeles was identified in a Nightly News graphic as "Dr. Phillippe Friedlich". Is anyone at Nightly News paying attention?
On Saturday's broadcast, Lester Holt introduced that night's "America at the Crossroads" segment by calling it "America at a Crossroads". Good reading skills are also an important part of education. Someone needs to let Lester know this.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
A Pander And A Panda
I would like to sincerely thank the Nightly News producers for wasting more than twenty minutes of air time with this week's "America At The Crossroads" series. Could someone please explain to me what the point of this series was? It was comprised of five generic non-news stories that could have been shown (and probably were) any time in the past 20 years. The next big thing in hi-tech innovation? Apprenticeship programs? The hard times that have fallen on Reading, PA? Foreign entrepreneurs who want to stay in the U.S. but can't? Women in the workplace? Give me a break. And that last story was particularly absurd. Nightly News has been doing the same story for years. In fact, Anne Thompson did the exact same story on 9/3/09. Friday's "women in the workplace" story seemed like nothing more than an excuse to show clips from "Leave It To Beaver", "Nine to Five", "Working Girl", "The Devil Wears Prada" and "Mad Men". These clips took up the first 25 seconds of the story. And what's the deal with "Leave It To Beaver"? This was the second time this week (and the fifth time in the past five months) that Nightly News has used clips from "Leave It To Beaver". Does Brian Williams own a piece of the show? Does he get royalties every time a clip is shown? And why is Nightly News using graphics that are clearly ripped off from "Mad Men"? Can't the producers come up with some original graphics? Maybe the Nightly News graphics are so stale because all the talented foreign workers from Reading have been forced to go back to their native countries and there aren't enough women in the Nightly News apprenticeship program.
This was Brian's comment after Wednesday's story about Reading, PA: "Reading's a great place--whole lot of people cheering for it." I will say this about Brian: He knows the value of pandering. Practically every city or state he mentions on his broadcast is preceded by the word "great". Obviously, Brian knows that one way to attract viewers is by pretending that he really cares about where they live. Also on Wednesday's broadcast, we saw a story about the secret lives of animals--what they do at night when no one is looking (they should have attached a "Breaking News" banner to that one). That story included lots of footage of the giant panda, so viewers got to see a pander and a panda on the same broadcast. Great work, guys. Keep it up.
Of course, Nightly News completely ignored this week's story about the assassination of Pakistan's only Christian cabinet minister. All the so-called experts agree that Pakistan is the most volatile country in the region, but Brian didn't feel that this story was important enough to make it onto the broadcast. However, Brian found time this week to air a story about Charlie Sheen and another story about how Continental Airlines is eliminating snacks on all flights. I'm sure glad that Brian knows how to prioritize news stories and decide what's really relevant.
This was Brian's comment after Wednesday's story about Reading, PA: "Reading's a great place--whole lot of people cheering for it." I will say this about Brian: He knows the value of pandering. Practically every city or state he mentions on his broadcast is preceded by the word "great". Obviously, Brian knows that one way to attract viewers is by pretending that he really cares about where they live. Also on Wednesday's broadcast, we saw a story about the secret lives of animals--what they do at night when no one is looking (they should have attached a "Breaking News" banner to that one). That story included lots of footage of the giant panda, so viewers got to see a pander and a panda on the same broadcast. Great work, guys. Keep it up.
Of course, Nightly News completely ignored this week's story about the assassination of Pakistan's only Christian cabinet minister. All the so-called experts agree that Pakistan is the most volatile country in the region, but Brian didn't feel that this story was important enough to make it onto the broadcast. However, Brian found time this week to air a story about Charlie Sheen and another story about how Continental Airlines is eliminating snacks on all flights. I'm sure glad that Brian knows how to prioritize news stories and decide what's really relevant.
Nightly News Producers Just Don't Care
During Tuesday's Nightly News story about the HPV virus, a woman was identified by an on-screen graphic as "Dr. Anna Guiliano" of the Moffitt Cancer Center. Her name is actually Anna Giuliano. It would have taken one of the Nightly News producers or editors about five seconds to google Dr. Giuliano. But that would mean that the people at Nightly News actually care about getting names right. Clearly, they don't.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Brian Williams--The Most Biased Anchor Ever
Brian Williams just can't help himself. It seems that every time he goes on a talk show, he has to make some sort of reference to genitalia. A year ago (2/5/10) he told Jimmy Fallon that the luge uniform is "the most package-enhancing outfit". Last Jan. 3, on David Letterman's show, he made repeated references to his "shmegegge" and "Dave and the twins". And now he's at it again. On Letterman's show Monday night, Brian had this to say about his hybrid car: "...when it's not running it's fairly neutering 'cause it just turns off..." Again a genital reference. Howard Stern doesn't make as many genital references as Brian does. What's up with that? Is there something Brian wants to tell us? Actually, I'm not sure I even want to know.
But I have to give Brian some credit for honesty. After Brian evaded some of Letterman's questions (claiming neutrality for the sake of journalistic integrity--a joke for anyone who is familiar with Brian), Letterman said he was going to continue to ask questions in the hope that he still might learn something. Brian responded, "I doubt it very highly--I'm just not terribly smart." Finally--the truth comes out. Kudos to Brian for admitting it.
Actually, Brian's appearance on Letterman's show seemed to be a promotional appearance on behalf of Chevy. He mentioned Chevy by name twice (including the Chevy Tahoe). He also said, "It reminds you why Detroit is great and why we drive American cars." Minutes earlier, Brian wouldn't answer Letterman's question about the importance of labor unions in Wisconsin, but now Brian is running off at the mouth about Chevy and the superiority of American cars. Excuse me, but Brian covers the auto industry on Nightly News. He reported frequently on the accusations of sudden acceleration in Toyotas. Are we supposed to believe that someone who is so partisan towards American cars would report this story neutrally? It seems obvious in retrospect that Brian and his producers intentionally made Toyotas appear dangerous in order to boost sales of American cars. He won't comment on labor unions, but it's okay to promote American cars over foreign cars? This is unbelievable bias. During the worst part of the economic crisis a few years ago, Brian often went out of his way to talk about what a great value American cars were. Nightly News was like an adjunct dealership for Ford, GM and Chrysler. Brian said everything except, "What do I have to do to put you in this car today?" And he has the nerve to go on Letterman's show and claim that he's neutral on important issues? That's a joke.
And Brian certainly isn't neutral when it comes to promoting his favorite films. This season, of course, it's "The King's Speech". Brian seems to have a personal stake in making sure that movie sells tickets. Nightly News has done four "news stories" on "The King's Speech" in the past three months. That's called promotion. On Monday's story about the Oscars, Lee Cowan did not even mention the name of a single movie other than "The King's Speech". The only movie clips that were shown were from--you guessed it--"The King's Speech". We saw a clip from Melissa Leo's R-rated acceptance speech, but Cowan didn't even tell us which film she won the Oscar for. We saw Charles Ferguson (winner of the Best Documentary Oscar for "Inside Job") note that despite the economic meltdown, not one financial executive has gone to jail. But Cowan never mentioned Ferguson by name and didn't even tell us the name of his Oscar-winning film. More than half of Monday's Oscar story was devoted to just one film--"The King's Speech". And most of that was about the screenwriter, David Seidler. A day earlier, Nightly News had done a two-and-a-half minute story on Seidler. Monday's story was just a rehashing of what we had already seen on Sunday night. So instead of mentioning any of the other winning films, Cowan and his producers chose to rerun parts of Sunday's story on Seidler. It's obvious that Brian Williams's fingerprints were all over this story. Can you imagine any other network news broadcast doing a post-Oscar story and only mentioning ONE FILM by name? They didn't even show Natalie Portman! That story was a joke. But by far my favorite part of the story was Brian's introduction. The very first thing he said was that the Oscar ratings on ABC were down 9% from last year. I can guarantee you that if the Oscars had been on NBC, Brian never would have talked about the ratings decline. He only talks about a ratings decline when it happens to other networks. (But if an NBC show has a ratings increase, he can't stop talking about that.) The Grammy Awards on Feb. 13 had their best ratings in a decade, but of course Brian never mentioned that because the show aired on CBS. Again, if the Grammys had aired on NBC, Brian would not have shut up about the great ratings. Of the three network news anchors, Brian Williams is by far the most biased. He may be the most biased network news anchor ever. He relentlessly promotes the things he likes, and trashes (or remains silent about) things he doesn't like. But he has the nerve to tell David Letterman that he can't talk about certain topics because he has to maintain his neutrality ("I can't give opinions," he said). Does anyone else find this incredulous?
But I have to give Brian some credit for honesty. After Brian evaded some of Letterman's questions (claiming neutrality for the sake of journalistic integrity--a joke for anyone who is familiar with Brian), Letterman said he was going to continue to ask questions in the hope that he still might learn something. Brian responded, "I doubt it very highly--I'm just not terribly smart." Finally--the truth comes out. Kudos to Brian for admitting it.
Actually, Brian's appearance on Letterman's show seemed to be a promotional appearance on behalf of Chevy. He mentioned Chevy by name twice (including the Chevy Tahoe). He also said, "It reminds you why Detroit is great and why we drive American cars." Minutes earlier, Brian wouldn't answer Letterman's question about the importance of labor unions in Wisconsin, but now Brian is running off at the mouth about Chevy and the superiority of American cars. Excuse me, but Brian covers the auto industry on Nightly News. He reported frequently on the accusations of sudden acceleration in Toyotas. Are we supposed to believe that someone who is so partisan towards American cars would report this story neutrally? It seems obvious in retrospect that Brian and his producers intentionally made Toyotas appear dangerous in order to boost sales of American cars. He won't comment on labor unions, but it's okay to promote American cars over foreign cars? This is unbelievable bias. During the worst part of the economic crisis a few years ago, Brian often went out of his way to talk about what a great value American cars were. Nightly News was like an adjunct dealership for Ford, GM and Chrysler. Brian said everything except, "What do I have to do to put you in this car today?" And he has the nerve to go on Letterman's show and claim that he's neutral on important issues? That's a joke.
And Brian certainly isn't neutral when it comes to promoting his favorite films. This season, of course, it's "The King's Speech". Brian seems to have a personal stake in making sure that movie sells tickets. Nightly News has done four "news stories" on "The King's Speech" in the past three months. That's called promotion. On Monday's story about the Oscars, Lee Cowan did not even mention the name of a single movie other than "The King's Speech". The only movie clips that were shown were from--you guessed it--"The King's Speech". We saw a clip from Melissa Leo's R-rated acceptance speech, but Cowan didn't even tell us which film she won the Oscar for. We saw Charles Ferguson (winner of the Best Documentary Oscar for "Inside Job") note that despite the economic meltdown, not one financial executive has gone to jail. But Cowan never mentioned Ferguson by name and didn't even tell us the name of his Oscar-winning film. More than half of Monday's Oscar story was devoted to just one film--"The King's Speech". And most of that was about the screenwriter, David Seidler. A day earlier, Nightly News had done a two-and-a-half minute story on Seidler. Monday's story was just a rehashing of what we had already seen on Sunday night. So instead of mentioning any of the other winning films, Cowan and his producers chose to rerun parts of Sunday's story on Seidler. It's obvious that Brian Williams's fingerprints were all over this story. Can you imagine any other network news broadcast doing a post-Oscar story and only mentioning ONE FILM by name? They didn't even show Natalie Portman! That story was a joke. But by far my favorite part of the story was Brian's introduction. The very first thing he said was that the Oscar ratings on ABC were down 9% from last year. I can guarantee you that if the Oscars had been on NBC, Brian never would have talked about the ratings decline. He only talks about a ratings decline when it happens to other networks. (But if an NBC show has a ratings increase, he can't stop talking about that.) The Grammy Awards on Feb. 13 had their best ratings in a decade, but of course Brian never mentioned that because the show aired on CBS. Again, if the Grammys had aired on NBC, Brian would not have shut up about the great ratings. Of the three network news anchors, Brian Williams is by far the most biased. He may be the most biased network news anchor ever. He relentlessly promotes the things he likes, and trashes (or remains silent about) things he doesn't like. But he has the nerve to tell David Letterman that he can't talk about certain topics because he has to maintain his neutrality ("I can't give opinions," he said). Does anyone else find this incredulous?
Charlie Sheen, Muammar Khaddafy and Duke Snider
Once again, a Nightly News anchor has intentionally misled the viewers about the exclusivity of a "Today Show" interview. On Feb 8, Brian Williams told us that Michelle Obama would be appearing "exclusively" on the next day's "Today Show". In fact, Mrs. Obama also appeared on that day's "Live With Regis and Kelly". Then, on Sunday night, Lester Holt ended the broadcast with a 20-second plug for Charlie Sheen's "exclusive" appearance on Monday's "Today Show". However, Sheen was also interviewed on Monday's "Good Morning America" (on ABC). In fact, Sheen seemed to be all over TV and the internet on Monday. So his "Today Show" appearance was hardly an exclusive. It's shameful that Brian and Lester (and their Nightly News producers) would intentionally lie to the viewers just so they can boost the "Today Show" ratings by a few micropoints. Don't they have any integrity? Don't they have any conscience? Are they really willing to lie so blatantly? And if they would lie about the exclusivity of an interview, doesn't it follow that they would lie about other things? Clearly, the answer is "yes".
How about that Christiane Amanpour? First, she scores an interview with Hosni Mubarak. Then she gets an interview with Muammar Khaddafy. So who will be her next mega-awesome interview? Osama bin Laden? Jimmy Hoffa? Why can't Richard Engel or any other NBC correspondents get the same access as Amanpour to the superstar dictators? She's the rock star of foreign correspondents. Meanwhile, it's obvious that Brian must have been fuming. I thought I saw smoke coming out of his nostrils (which is very bad for his surgically-altered nose). I'm sure that everyone at Nightly News was green with envy over Amanpour's scoop. When Nightly News showed a clip from the Khaddafy interview on Monday, they used the BBC feed, not the ABC feed. That way, the on-screen credit was attributed to BBC, not ABC. Brian and his producers were so angry and jealous of ABC's scoop that they refused to even acknowledge the network's involvement (except for Andrea Mitchell, who briefly mentioned ABC). It's like refusing to talk to someone because their score on the math test was higher than yours. Talk about petty.
Let me make sure I understand this. On Monday's Nightly News, Jane Russell got a 30-second obit. Frank Buckles, the last surviving American WW I veteran, got a 40-second obit. On August 9, Ann Curry read a 45-second obit for Brian Williams's father. But Duke Snider, one of the greatest baseball players of the post-war era, only got a 25-second obit. Snider had more home runs (326) and more RBIs (1031) than any other player during the 1950's, but he only gets a 25-second obit. Where's the justice? I'm curious: How many home runs and RBIs did Brian Williams's father have?
How about that Christiane Amanpour? First, she scores an interview with Hosni Mubarak. Then she gets an interview with Muammar Khaddafy. So who will be her next mega-awesome interview? Osama bin Laden? Jimmy Hoffa? Why can't Richard Engel or any other NBC correspondents get the same access as Amanpour to the superstar dictators? She's the rock star of foreign correspondents. Meanwhile, it's obvious that Brian must have been fuming. I thought I saw smoke coming out of his nostrils (which is very bad for his surgically-altered nose). I'm sure that everyone at Nightly News was green with envy over Amanpour's scoop. When Nightly News showed a clip from the Khaddafy interview on Monday, they used the BBC feed, not the ABC feed. That way, the on-screen credit was attributed to BBC, not ABC. Brian and his producers were so angry and jealous of ABC's scoop that they refused to even acknowledge the network's involvement (except for Andrea Mitchell, who briefly mentioned ABC). It's like refusing to talk to someone because their score on the math test was higher than yours. Talk about petty.
Let me make sure I understand this. On Monday's Nightly News, Jane Russell got a 30-second obit. Frank Buckles, the last surviving American WW I veteran, got a 40-second obit. On August 9, Ann Curry read a 45-second obit for Brian Williams's father. But Duke Snider, one of the greatest baseball players of the post-war era, only got a 25-second obit. Snider had more home runs (326) and more RBIs (1031) than any other player during the 1950's, but he only gets a 25-second obit. Where's the justice? I'm curious: How many home runs and RBIs did Brian Williams's father have?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
