|
BJs AT CHANNEL 5
Channel 5's top story at 10pm Thursday, January 8 (repeated at 10:30pm on Channel 38 and 1:05am on Channel 5) was about a sexual harassment class action lawsuit being filed against a Buffalo Grove company by over 100 women. Marion Brooks reported.
Here's the first sound bite in the story (it ran at 10:01pm): "I had a floor manager come up and rub his private parts on my back as I would sit at my chair and ask for me to give him a blow job in the back room." Two minutes into the report, Brooks read an excerpt from the lawsuit that was also written out on a full screen graphic: "...regularly asked her for blow jobs which she refused to perform." Wow. Chalk one up for NBC 5! A wimpy TV station would have a problem using the graphic slang term for oral sex, but not NBC 5! Channel 5 has a different kind of attitude. NBC 5 knows that news viewers get their fill of clinical sexual terms while watching ER, and they want to hear slang terms at 10pm. NBC 5 is run by men--REAL MEN--who like their news to be edgy and their sexual acts to be labeled in graphic detail. Meanwhile, the term is WAY too racy for the internet, as the soundbite is quoted EXACTLY--well, almost--on Channel 5's web site, with the offending term subbed out: "I had a floor manager who would rub ... on my back as I would sit at my chair and ask for me to give him (oral sex) in the backroom," God forbid they use that term on the internet--there might be children or families surfing around and we woudn't want to offend them! What the hell were they thinking? News Orgs went through how many months of the Monica Lewinsky thing using every possible euphemism in the book EXCEPT the term "Blow Job"? Is Larry Flynt running the station or Larry Wert? Is the loss of Dave Savini heralding a new era of unnecessarily graphic language at NBC 5? Did the Channel 5 newsroom ask for and not receive a thesaurus for Christmas? I'm stunned--and that's not an easy thing to do. The wheels are off the wagon. |
|
REVIEWING THE YEAR IN REVIEW
In the Wednesday, December 31 Sun-Times, Robert Feder recapped some of the more interesting and colorful Chicago media goings-on during 2003. It was in this column that I finally found out what exactly Channel 32 weatherperson Michelle Leigh said one warm summer morning that caused a slight stir.
"Oh, shut up: 'You can't rape the willing.' -- Michelle Leigh, Channel 32 space cadet, commenting on how difficult it was to deliver a weather forecast in the beautiful outdoors." I wasn't watching when she said it originally, though I did catch her mea culpa. I also don't recall Feder printing the exact statement in the days following but I could be wrong there. One thing's for sure--I laughed hysterically at it. I find it funny--in a depraved way, sure--but funny nonetheless because Leigh was taking/took improv acting classes at The Second City. I guess she failed her class on inappropriate humor. Another item in Feder's column caught my eye: "Pampered anchorwoman: Tamron Hall told WFLD-Channel 32 viewers that when she was a baby her mother would wipe her face with urine-soaked diapers to make the future TV personality more beautiful." When I originally wrote that in November, I explained it a little more because I didn't want to seem disrespectful to Tamron and her mom: "Overheard Thursday morning on Fox News in the Morning: When she was a baby, Tamron Hall's mom would wipe Tamron's face with her urine-soaked diaper. Tamron explained that this was apparently a custom in the city where she was born that when mothers did this to their baby, it would make them beautiful. You can't argue with the results, can you?" I think readers might conclude Tamron's mom was a bit crazy based on what Feder wrote. I don't think people who follow customs are weird even if the custom is. It just bugged me a bit. |
|
MUSINGS
Sun-Times sports columnist Jay Mariotti finished dead last in the Around The Horn Rotisserie Football League. He was 116 points behind Woody and 234 behind the Boxing guy. And he still thinks he knows better than any General Manager. Delusional. The final "ATH" Football standings are: 1355 for Max Kellerman (ESPN Boxing) 1269 for Tim Cowlishaw (Dallas Morning News) 1251 for Michael Holley (Boston Globe) 1237 for Woody Paige (Denver Post) 1121 for Jay Mariotti (Chicago Sun-Times) This year's local New Years Eve coverage was lacking. Channel 7's Janet Davies, sadly, opted for a very conservative look this year in contrast to the Mrs. Robinson/Sex kitten look last year…and I know I have that on tape somewhere. Meanwhile, Tamron Hall looked as lovely as usual on Channel 32. Okay, that's the Newsbabe update-now on to the content update. It blew. Channel 7's coverage continues to deteriorate. Janet and Mark Giangreco were the ringleaders, kicking to lame remotes around the city with Leah Hope, Bill Campbell and Lou Canellis. Essentially they would go to the remote where 5-10 people would be crowded around the reporter. As soon as they were on the air, they'd all be screaming and acting goofy while the reporter would talk about how "crazy' it was at that place and how everyone was having a great time. Meanwhile, in the background you could see a more subdued crowd of partygoers. Unless they were at an Ecstasy party, I very much doubt it was so crazy for so long at all of those places. That having been said, 45 minutes of "man-on-the-street" coverage sucks anyway. It's bad enough that News Directors continue to overuse MOS during their newscasts, but the last thing I want to watch on TV is a bunch of people acting like idiots at a party. The only exception would be if for some reason the Girls had Gone Wild or something. Yeah, that'd be cool. In a Wednesday, Jan 7 Weblog entry, Tribune columnist Eric Zorn writes about the ST teaser headline "HAS COLUMNIST PAIGE WISER GONE INSANE?" and the accompanying article. I think she's ALWAYS been insane. She & Mariotti. Nutty as fruitcakes. In Tuesday's Sun-Times, Mark Brown talked a little bit about a bunch of things. It was a very good column, though I have to disagree with something. Mid-column he writes: "Pete Rose deserves to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame -- about a year or two after he dies." Later, he writes: "With each new development in the Emerald Casino situation…" "...I am more and more in awe of the cunning and resilience of Mayor Don Stephens. You just watch: He's going to get that casino yet." I would have added this: "Rosemont Mayor Don Stephens deserves that casino - about a year or two after he dies. Here's to modern medical science and the hope that Stephens lives to be 150." Channel 9 starts their morning newscast at 5am as of last week. That's way too early for me, so I guess I'll watch something else. Last Friday, Eric Zorn mentioned a couple things from my column on his Weblog including this sentence: "The statement `Channel 2's news is up because of Diann Burns' is not really true because her newscast retained (fewer) 18-54 year old viewers than Channel 2 historically has while most of her viewership gains came in the 55+ age group." Which was originally written by me as: "The statement "Channel 2's news is up because of Diann Burns" is not really true because her newscast retained less 18-54 year old viewers than Channel 2 historically has while most of her viewership gains came in the 55+ age group." I freaked about the grammatical error for a while after seeing Zorn correct it so nicely inside those parentheses. When I finish writing the CME and email it out to email subscribers, I am well aware that there are going to be grammar errors. I usually find most of them and correct the web site over the course of the week. At first I rolled my eyes that I missed one. Then I re-read the item and realized that I did not make an error. Oh, sure--I technically made a grammatical error--but my writing style is a conversational style that pretty much parallels my speech. I make that specific grammatical error all the time. I also emphasize things--a lot. And I speak in fragments. Yep. So even though the grammar error bugged me, I'm fine with it and even more pleased that he didn't have to use "(sic)". |
