What, me worry?
Posted on 03/02/2002 2:43:42 AM PST by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:04:22 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
March 2, 2002 -- "Nightline" host Ted Koppel is being torpedoed off TV's radar screen - by his own network.
A vacationing Koppel was stunned to learn that ABC is maneuvering behind his back to woo his replacement - David Letterman.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
It used to be the only show on that had serious discussions of the day's political news. But with cable and the internet, people can get what they want without having to stay up until after midnight.
And I never could understand why ABC never advertised the content of the evening's show. I can remember years ago staying up until midnight to see what was on Nightline only to be disappointed that it was not on the day's hot story, but rather it was a half hour dedicated to 'whether adopted children are as accepted by parents as children raised by their biological parents.' [or some other nonsense]
My wife and I would get pissed... "We stayed up for THIS?" So we quit watching.
Well, at least Bill Maar and the joke he calls a TV show is headed to the dust bin.
That's a ray of sunshine..
Why, yes indeed - that is a ray of sunshine! A reason to smile all day long! :-)
The world will be taken over by comedy for young halfwits.Did you notice that Opra Winfrey conducted significant interviews with both former VP Gore and the president in 2000? Opra Winfrey is a journalist. She is officially classified an entertainer, whereas Ted Koppel is not--but the truth is that the journalism can "buy ink by the barrel"--can be politically significant--only if it makes money from the public by entertaining it.
The situation has now created an even bigger rift between ABC's entertainment and news divisions.Journalism entertains the public in no small measure by flattering it that it is paying attention to serious business. To an "objective news" division, rather than always to mere "entertainment". It's all entertainment, and that's why it all has leftist overtones--the rules of drama, and all that . . .
chalk this up as a FR win
Letterman is less entertaining than Koppel -
I thought my pc was slow, loading the frame - so I scrolled and scrolled ......
Buh-bye!
I can hear him saying that exactly as you described.
The only win I chalk up is when broadcast journalism--journalism in general--loses respect. Journalism is negative and superficial because it is designed to entertain. Superficial negativity is cynicism, and cynicism is anticonservatism.
The licensing--and censoring of the unlicensed--functions of the FCC would be blatantly unconstitutional if applied to print. You will say, "But broadcasting could not exist without that." And I say, "Exactly. Broadcasting as we know it is a creature of the government."
The First Amendment forbids the government to have anything to do with print--but the government has everything to do with broadcasting. And people stopped reading newspapers (bad as they are) in favor of the "evening news." Say what you will about Campaign Finance "Reform"--but to actually reform politics would require the actual removal from politics of government-regulated broadcasting. It would, that is, eliminate the broadcast political advertisements as CFR would--but also eliminate the news broadcasts which tell you nothing that you need to know to go about your daily life, and to vote a time or two each year.
If you put all broadcasting on a tape delay of a week, Rush Limbaugh would still make sense--there are actually "best of" shows broadcast from time to time as it is--but the evening news would look as ridiculous as in fact it already is.
Extremely well said, cIc.
My reaction too. I think ABC decided years into the Clinton administration, they would not cover the scandals in a dedicated way. (CNN's boss decreed the word "scandal" would not even be used). ABC was more subtle, but just as favorably inclined on stories detrimental to Clinton.
That's when Ted & NIGHTLINE turned from reporting on the big story of the day, to covering social and cultural issues... pregnant women in prison, world hunger, AIDS in Africa, child labor, capital punishment, etc. NIGHTLINE came into existance because it wrapped up the big event of the day for viewers. When the hostages in Iran were returned, and NIGHTLINE went to puff ball subjects, they lost their reason for existing in the first place.
And back when NIGHTLINE was new, Peter Jennings on ABC Evening News show would always promo that night's NIGHTLINE. Back then, people watched Peter and his promotion of the show mattered. Not any more. NIGHTLINE had a jumpstart on the advent of cable news....they blew it.
Okay, okay. I admit it. I said it.
In other words, he's screwed.
Well, at least no more Bill Maher making Coppel look like a right-wing genius either. Pinch me, I must be dreaming.
Now if they would just fire Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Cokie Addict, Spock...er, I mean Sam Donaldson... hmmm, imagine a world that is Liberal Talking-headless...
You may sa-a-a-ay I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...
Oh, I just remembered, these guys work for FOX owner Rupert Murdoch. They're from the "More sex, more violence!" party.
It doesn't matter what channel is on the TV when I get up. When I turn on the TV even before the picture comes on I am keying in the FOX NEWS channel. heh heh
There's one thing I'll always remember about Koppel. When TWA Flight 800 went down, for about two days, ABC and Koppel seemed to give more air time to the missle theory than any other media outlet. Then right in the middle of the unfolding news story Koppel went "on vacation" for two or three days. When he came back, Nightline was all in line with the "no evidence of foul play" line everyone else was putting out.
I'll always wonder who Ted talked to on those two or three days he was away. And I'll always wonder what was said.
Maybe if Koppel is mad enough he'll write a juicy tell all...
Mark W.
You are exactly right Miss Marple, these people have driven their viewers to the cable networks in order to find out the real news and now they're wringing their hands because they are drawing the "wrong demographics". People don't trust the network news anymore. I keep hearing that news departments are not supposed to make money......tell that to FOX :o)
1. People may like comedy but there simply aren't enought funny people in the world to provide many tv hours of same.
2. If CNBC ever gets out of the news business Brian Williams will have lots of stiff-collared shirts and no reason to wear them.
Better comedy for young halfwits than drivel masquerading as factual news for halfwits of all ages.
Oh, Mama! Be careful what you post -- you'll end up deleted! Now, I've got to go take a cold shower!
One of the many reasons why I stopped watching. I used to look to Nightline for in-depth analysis of the day's news only to hear Koppel whine about how the sitcom "Friends" didn't have any blacks on or some other such liberal nonsense.
The world will be taken over by comedy for young halfwits.
Sounds like Enron.
Nightline is a fraud. The producers decide what they want said, then they find guests to say it.
Several years ago Rush said that he was invited to be on if he would say certain things. I turned the show on that night and low and behold a guest repeated exactly what Rush said he was told to say.
Ted's daughter is Andrea Koppel. I do not know if she worked for Dukakis campaign. But she is one of those network TV reporter who get a lot face time. I think she was a CNN correspondent stationed in Beijing. She may still be. Journalism tends to become family business over generations like Medical doctors. If daddy do it, his children will do it, too
First of all, I can hide behind the fact that I haven't seen it in two months. First, ABC changed its time slot, and even when I heard about it, I forgot to change my viewing habits. (ABC knew what it was doing; whenever the network "suits" want to slowly kill a show, they change its time slot, because they know that a lot of people will forget to, or will be unwilling to make the move.) BTW, if I'm not mistaken, it's supposed to reappear for its last seven episodes on Mondays, beginning March 4.)
With that said, you may accuse me of lawyering for this, but I saw less "sex" than eroticism. Eroticism has a sexual feel to it, because it's about desire. But eroticism is almost always about (as yet) unfulfilled desires. (I recall now, that early on in the first season, when the two protagonists were courting, there was lots of sex.) The show is full of desire, but when I was still watching regularly, there wasn't much s-e-x.
"You say psychotic, and I say erotic ...
Psychotic, erotic, sclerotic, myopic,
Let's call the whole thing off!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.