Whatever one’s personal politics are, from an objective point of view, last week’s Democratic National Convention from Chicago was one the best and tightest examples of its kind produced for television. “Produced” is the operative word. Unless one streamed the entire day’s business on C-SPAN or other outlet, one missed the boring patches and gaffes that were visible when conventions were aired wall-to-wall throughout the broadcast day.
The DNC effort was polished. There was little downtime between speakers. Rather than have a chairperson or politician introduce speakers, the usual approach this time was to have a unseen voice “welcome” the orator to the podium.
The convention seemed orchestrated in most important ways. Again, politics aside, specific themes were tapped repeatedly. There was always a tribute to President Joe Biden, though he was treated shabbily in the timing of his valedictory speech on Monday.
There was praise for the Democrat nominee, Kamala Harris, and for her running mate, Tim Walz. There was contract expression of “joy,” “hope,” “optimism,” and other buzzwords with positive connotations. Let’s face it.
What appeared on primetime, or even from 6 p.m. if one streamed before getting to the A-listers, the affair was a lovefest and, from a television point of view, accomplished much of what Democrat leadership wanted to convey.
Rhetoric, generality, and the intended message overshadowed substance, but that is the rule for most conventions. The Democrats seemed particularly mindful of stressing newness, philosophy, enthusiasm, and rants against the opposition over the “how’s” that accompany the “what’s” and differences from the opposition they presented. National audiences rewarded the Democrat “do,” which frankly had more to reveal that the Republican affair last month, if only because Harris remains an unknown quantity while Donald Trump can’t refrain from indulging in what millennials and kids call TMI: too much information.
Television ratings for the four nights of the convention show the DNC attracted about 1 million viewers more than its Republican counterpart. The primetime average over the four nights was 20.2 million viewers for the Dems and 19.
1 million for the GOP. Thursday night ratings, the nights the vice president and Trump, gave their acceptance speeches, show a similar pattern, Harris garnering slightly less than a million more viewers on her big night than Trump. Several factors might account for that.
One is people haven’t seen the vice president deliver a major, comprehensive speech. I, for one, was curious to to see what her address would reveal. Nothing I wasn’t expecting, as it turns out, with one exception.
Harris’ voice sounding more fluid and resolute. Another was a rumor, started on TMZ, that Beyoncé would make a surprise Thursday night appearance. She didn’t, but I think the chance to hear Harris finally speak would be a draw on its own.
It was for me. Democrats, with their midstream change of candidates, needed to do more cheerleading and motivating that the Republicans. They realized that, both in knowing it was necessary and achieving their aim to rouse folks.
Some speakers were outstanding. Once more, love or despise the personality, some performances we’re extraordinary. The best I saw was Michelle Obama’s haymaker.
Barack Obama, who also did a creditable job, was right to note his wife is not an act for the fainthearted to follow. Hillary Clinton, Raphael Warnock, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes also did well. To me, the biggest disappointments were Minnesota Gov.
Tim Walz’s dull acceptance, and a spirited but rambling offering from Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. I was right, when I watched the convention live, to choose CBS and Norah O’Donnell as the outlet for me.
O’Donnell and company waxed enthusiastic at times, but their analysis was usually objective, and the team seemed knowledgeable. Among that team was Robert Costa, who grew up in Bucks County, and in commenting before Jill Biden spoke, said he wouldn’t be surprised if Biden expressed some vexation about her husband getting the bum’s rush. “She’s from Philadelphia,” Costa said, and Philadelphians tend to have an “edge” they don’t care if people from elsewhere don’t appreciate.
Jill behaved. As did all speakers. The DNC was like the range heard about in the famous song, “Never was heard a discouraging word.
” One note. I watched speeches I missed live on YouTube. (Must go to the movie and theater, you know.
) Most of the time, I chose the footage from PBS. It was clean and easy to watch, but the person typing the captions provided some hoots, especially when most mentions was Tim Walz’s name was transcribed “Walls.” Playfulness or slipping objectivity? I missed the KYW Newsradio anchor’s name, but she irritated me around 1:30 p.
m. on Wednesday by showing partisanship in her teasing and telling of a headline story. The partisanship was benign and possibly intended more out of dressing up news delivery rather than a persuasive purpose, yet it rankled me because I thought KYW was above such tactics, encountered regularly on CNN, MSNBC and the Fox News Channel.
The matter? Opening the lead story the lead story by mentioning Democratic vice presidential nominee as “Tim ‘Coach’ Walz” with a merry gloat, more than once, over the ‘Coach’ part. In doing so, the anchor showed a partiality for Walz that was might have meant in fun but sounded like support. As anchor, like a newspaper columnist, can have a favorite in a political race.
Unlike a newspaper columnist, the anchor is not entitled to express it, even it a seemingly harmless way. The columnist also needs a context and reasons for having the opinion. The offense is relatively minor, but it demonstrates the careless about objectivity and even-handedness in today’s broadcast news.
Channel 6 weather guy departs Chris Sowers steps away from Channel 6’s weather map after 13 years at “Action News.” He trades winter snowstorms for fall hurricanes and a much more pleasant November to March by taking his meteorological talents to WPTV in West Palm Beach, Fla. Making radio waves Lots of doings in the rivalry between sports talk stations WIP (94.
1 FM) and WPEN (97.5 FM), a rivalry ‘IP handily dominates, occurred this summer. You might a scorecard to follow them.
Radio’s personification of a revolving door, Mike Missanelli, returned to 97.5, popularly called The Fanatic, to take over the 10 a.m.
to 2 p.m. slot with Bill Colarulo as his sidekick.
They replaced Bob Cooney, who stepped into morning and afternoon host breaches for The Fanatic before the station released him. The morning personality Cooney originally replaced, Anthony Gargano, is now ensconced on the relatively new online platform, PHLY Sports, accessed via allphly.com.
John Kincaid remains in his now-established role as helm of The Fanatic’s morning show with Andrew Salaciunas as his micmate. Missanelli, in his midday role, competes with Joe Giglio and Hugh Douglas at ‘IP. The Fanatic’s afternoon show, modestly called “The Best Show Ever?” the question mark undercutting the brag, gains from the renewal of Ricky Bottalico’s contract.
Easily one of the most enlightening baseball analysts in the market, Bottalico continues to offer his insights to “Best Ever” host Tyrone Johnson. “Best Ever” alumnus Hunter Brody (a.k.
a. Brodes) is now heard all over the map on 94.1, often to my chagrin.
His opinions, voice and delivery tend to chase me to WRTI (90.1 FM), WPHT (1210 AM), or KYW Newsradio (103.9 FM) for refuge.
Alumna Jenn Scordo left The Fanatic in May. Meanwhile, WIP made the perfect move when it chose Rob Ellis to replace the retired Glen Macnow as host of its Saturday afternoon show with Mike Sielski. Like Macnow, Ellis has a wealth of information, is well versed on all sports, presents his points of view with reason, and conducts himself firmly but civilly with callers, something that at times requires a miracle.
Ellis and Sielski make a great combination. Just as good was a preview of things to come as Ellis began his Saturday tenure opposite the engaging Jody McDonald while Sielski was in Paris covering the 2024 Olympics. Tribute to Phil Donahue Phil Donahue earns a place in television history for re-creating, perhaps revolutionizing the TV talk show on two scores.
Donahue was the first talk host to leave the comfortable confines of the studio set, whether furnished with a desk or sofas, to venture out into his audience to take comments and enlist questions for his guests. Other hosts, such as Tom Snyder, had delved into the topical before Donahue, but Phil led the way to making television interactive. In doing so, he spawned a legion of programs using his model, the most memorable of the others being helmed by Sally Jessy Raphael, the most momentous and ultimately popular presided over by the most astute of all topical talk hosts, Oprah Winfrey.
Donahue’s other innovation was to me, and I think to television and society in general, a double-edged sword. I have a personal saying, “Everything is fire.” By that I mean that anything can be a friend or foe, useful or destructive depending on its use and the control with which it’s employed.
The maxim works for myriad situations. One affects my assessment of Mr. Donahue’s overall achievements.
Please keep in mind that in any “fire” analogy, benefit is weighed against harm, and the potential for either exists. Donahue took his show in a pioneering direction when he veered from celebrity interview and political subject, both of which he continued on occasion to address, to the personal plights of individuals coping, often with no recourse or resource, with diseases, disorders, injustice and abuse. His producers sought people having a hard time, and Donahue was adept at giving his guests their say and enlisting sympathy and action on their behalf.
Shedding light on conditions, behaviors, and issues that significant affect people and their quality of life is the upside of “fire.” The downside is society frequently took the cases Donahue exposed too much to heart. No one wants to see anyone suffer, and good came from Donahue and his staff obtaining help for people who could be in dire need and getting their lives back on a relatively positive track.
The problem, in my view, came when isolated or uncommon situations caught the public’s conscience, and the plight of one person became the worry or mission of many. Few matters in life affect a single individual. A benefit of Donahue’s show was to let people know they weren’t alone if they were feeling or experiencing thus and so.
The upshot, especially as shows like Donahue’s proliferated, to the point they dominated the pre-cable dial for most of the ’80s and ’90s, is the rare and personal received such attention, it was too often regarded as epidemic, the basis for law and regulation instead of relief for the handful dealing with similar issues as Donahue’s guest. I think it wrought a hand-wringing culture that saw bad and hardship, both of which were seen on Donahue’s show, as a norm instead of as an exception. This excited activists and motivated people to look into more than most cases required.
I think it was the beginning of a weaker, less resolute society that wanted to blame their lots on conditions rather than face them head on and conquer them. When I hear so much about emotional problems today, and the ratio of coddling in proportion to a good dose of “Get over it,” I think back to the programs Donahue generated, from the best such as his, Raphael’s, and Winfrey’s, to the bathetic, such as Jerry Springer’s or Maury Povich’s. It is telling that the Springer-like genre is the one vestige of this era that continues today.
In the long run, Donahue did admirable work in bringing torturing personal hardship to mass attention. Many were helped by this exposure. From another view, I think a habit of excusing weakness or relegating to a condition beyond an individual’s control was established from Donahue’s show and programs like it.
I met Donahue, who died last week at age 88, once, for an interview. I found him intelligent but guarded. Try as I might, I couldn’t do the one thing I usually succeed best at doing: coaxing someone from their on-air persona to talk to me conversationally in an off-air voice.
The opposite is true of Donahue’s widow, Marlo Thomas, who I talked to three times and found delightfully candid and funny. Donahue’s pioneering and depth as an interviewer supersede the consequences that evolved from his approach. His intention was to tell people’s stories, and he remains among the best of all time in doing that.
.
