The latest film from "Independence Day" director Roland Emmerich doesn't feature space aliens trying to destroy humanity.
Whew. . . .
Instead, God does the job. And much more thoroughly than the space aliens, who could only blow whole cities up.
Oops. . . .
You see, God can blow Los Angeles up and then make it slide into the sea. While bringing down the Vatican on top of Catholics praying for salvation. While wiping out the Eastern Seaboard with a giant tsunami and dropping the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy on top of the White House.
My God is an ironic God.
This isn't a new meme for Emmerich -- in "The Day After Tomorrow," a new Ice Age followed California tornadoes, Tokyo thunderstorms with football-sized hail, a massive New York tsunami and a flash-freezing, 150-below vortex sweeping across the Northern Hemisphere. On the other hand, it may be the end of the line -- where can one possibly go with this genre once you've destroyed the whole freakin' planet?
WHAT I WONDER, though, is what all this means? Not the whole "End of the World: 2012 . . . Because the Mayans Said" phenomenon -- we've had such and Nostradamus, too, for ages -- but instead Hollywood's (and our) fascination with catastrophe on a global scale.
What does it mean that this persists in the aftermath of 9/11, when we got to see the real thing "up-close and personal"? And when we got to see how horrific that is when removed from the sanitary confines of films like Emmerich's.
Why the continued fascination? I ask this as a self-confessed aficionado of "blowed up good" movies who finds this latest one to be a collapsed bridge too far.
In 1998, columnist and author Peggy Noonan tackled a similar cultural meme in a piece for Forbes ASAP:
Here goes: It has been said that when an idea’s time has come a lot of people are likely to get it at the same time. In the same way, when something begins to flicker out there in the cosmos a number of people, a small group at first, begin to pick up the signals. They start to see what’s coming.
Our entertainment industry, interestingly enough, has plucked something from the unconscious of a small collective. For about 30 years now, but accelerating quickly this decade, the industry has been telling us about The Big Terrible Thing. Space aliens come and scare us, nuts with nukes try to blow us up.
This is not new: In the ‘50s Michael Rennie came from space to tell us in “The Day the Earth Stood Still” that if we don’t become more peaceful our planet will be obliterated. But now in movies the monsters aren’t coming close, they’re hitting us directly. Meteors the size of Texas come down and take out the eastern seaboard, volcanoes swallow Los Angeles, Martians blow up the White House. The biggest-grosser of all time was about the end of a world, the catastrophic sinking of an unsinkable entity.
Something’s up. And deep down, where the body meets the soul, we are fearful. We fear, down so deep it hasn’t even risen to the point of articulation, that with all our comforts and amusements, with all our toys and bells and whistles . . . we wonder if what we really have is . . . a first-class stateroom on the Titanic. Everything’s wonderful, but a world is ending and we sense it.
I don’t mean: “Uh-oh, there’s a depression coming,” I mean: We live in a world of three billion men and hundreds of thousands of nuclear bombs, missiles, warheads. It’s a world of extraordinary germs that can be harnessed and used to kill whole populations, a world of extraordinary chemicals that can be harnessed and used to do the same.
Three billion men, and it takes only half a dozen bright and evil ones to harness and deploy.
What are the odds it will happen? Put it another way: What are the odds it will not? Low. Nonexistent, I think.
A LITTLE LESS than three years later came the horror of 9/11. You'd think that would have changed us somehow -- at least culturally. You'd think we would have emerged from that Lower Manhattan dust-and-debris cloud a little more serious . . . a little more selfless . . . at a minimum, a little less seriously devoted to the utterly unserious.
If anything, we're even worse. Consumed by Kanye, M.J., Jonandkate and David Letterman's stupid-human tricks, now our depraved popular culture is cinematically hurtling toward the Apocalypse.
I wonder what that's saying about our cultural subconscious, circa 2009?
Well, if I had to hazard a guess -- and I'm operating in full-Noonan mode here -- I'd say that maybe Peggy was off just a little bit. Maybe we're not afraid it's all going to end, and perhaps us with it.
Instead, maybe we want it all to end -- and perhaps us with it.
OH, OF COURSE we have John Cusack, one of 2012's stars, quoted about how the film celebrates people transcending their "normal capabilities and normal morals" in difficult situations.
But isn't that the case with every single disaster flick? Besides, you don't have to spend nine figures to make a movie about the transcendent power of the human spirit.
No, if you want to call 2012 (and the deep cultural current that spawned it) anything, call it a death wish by a terminally ill culture looking for God -- or the cosmos -- to assist in its suicide. Could it be that's the deepest subconscious desire bubbling to the surface of the Superfund site we call a culture?
Otherwise, what percentage would movie execs see in what amounts to a $200 million snuff film?
As I write, Glenn Beck probably is giving a Fox News Channel camera the crazy look as he misspells things on his chalkboard and says something like this:
"You need to look at who Barack HUSSEIN Obama surrounds himself with and realize that he, as we speak, is imposing a radical COMMUNIST agenda on this nation. . . .
"That's right, Barack HUSSEIN Obama is imposing a radical communist agenda on the United States. . . .
"I said IMPOSING a radical COMMUNIST AGENDA. As I speak. . . .
"The president, if he is indeed the president, is RIGHT NOW effecting a COMMUNIST TAKEOVER . . . RIGHT NOW . . . as I speak. . . ."
(crickets)
CUE THE waterworks in three, two, one. . . .
HAT TIP: First Read at MSNBC.com
Once upon a time, to make it in entertainment, you had to bring something to the table.
Now, it is sufficient to be able to boast loudly enough about what you say you bring to the table. Is what I'm sayin'.
Here's to "once upon a time." And to Tony Bennett, whom we hear this week on 3 Chords & the Truth.
Would you rather listen to 3 Chords & the Truth right now, or would you rather mix up a batch of earthen plaster to do some interior work on your house?* The SubdudesTHERE'S MORE, of course, but you get the picture of what awaits you on 3 Chords & the Truth.
* Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass
* Tony Bennett
* Ella Fitzgerald
* Frank Sinatra
* Chicago Transit Authority (Dude! Bummer about the Olympics.)
* Bela Fleck
* Tragically Hip
* Theresa Andersson
* 15 gallons of 1/16th-inch sifted sand.WHATEVER you'd rather do is fine with me -- listen to the Big Show or be elbow deep in cow s***. It's your choice.
* 5 gallons of clay.
* 5 gallons of fresh cow manure.
* 8 cups of wheat paste.
* Cattail fluff to preference.
It's 3 Chords & the Truth, y'all. Be there. Aloha.
Hey, Mac! You have GOT to come see what PC is up to now!
Really, Mac. Look at this instructional video for playing host to a Windows 7 launch party later this month. The only thing they left out are the Windows 7 pocket protectors.
I MEAN, this isn't a really kewl launch party for a really neato-keen operating system that locks up on you 15 percent less than Windows XP if the wind is blowing right and you don't actually run any Microsoft applications. No, this is your church youth group with the possibility of adult beverages.
My God, it even has the same kinds of "activities."
And when all the party hosts get the bright idea to play Windows 7 "sardines," it'll be easy enough to find where everybody's hiding.
That would be the Apple Store.
HAT TIP: Crunchy Con.
Sweet and Sassy Salon, Spa and Celebrations for Girls was gearing up to be pre-concert headquarters Friday night, then the star got sick.AND FOLKS in Detroit think they have it tough. Our new Chinese overlords have no idea the kind of dis-feng-shui-nal situation they're getting into."Unfortunately, we were the news breakers for some people, so we had one woman cry; one woman called us a liar. Some reactions weren't good," salon owner Marie Yakes said.
Other moms took the news in stride, changing their plans to the new date.
"Tuesday night's really not bad for us, but a little inconvenient the next morning for her to get up and get ready for school," parent Annie Kircher said.
Parents immediately have concerns about how they'd deal with the new schedule. When Cyrus performs, as herself or as Hanna Montana, she draws big crowds. But Tuesday is a school night, and it may put her legions of fans into flux.
Still more parents respected the performer's decision to postpone the show.
"Miley is only what, 16-years-old? I'm amazed at the schedules they keep anyways. They're just going to get sick like the rest of us sometimes, so we'll just deal with it and be glad to go on the 13th," mother Karen Sumpter said.
Yakes said most moms eventually learn to deal with it.
"They calm down, then they reschedule, and I would say 90 percent (reschedule,)" Yakes said.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
BAUCUS IS being disingenuous.In a vote with far-reaching political implications, senators writing a health care overhaul Wednesday rejected a bid to strengthen anti-abortion provisions in the legislation — which could reach the Senate floor in the next two weeks.
The 13-10 vote by the Senate Finance Committee could threaten support for the health care bill from some Catholics who otherwise back its broad goal of expanding coverage. But women's groups are likely to see the committee's action as a reasonable compromise on a divisive issue that is always fraught with difficulties.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, argued that provisions already in the bill to restrict federal funding for abortions needed to be tightened to guarantee they would be ironclad.
But his amendment failed to carry the day. One Republican — Olympia Snowe of Maine — voted with the majority. One Democrat — Kent Conrad of North Dakota — supported Hatch.
(snip)
A major concern for abortion opponents — including Catholic bishops — is that those underlying restrictions have to be renewed every year.If Congress fails to renew the ban one year, plans funded through the health care overhaul would be allowed to cover the procedure, abortion opponents contend.
Abortion rights supporters respond that adding a permanent restriction on abortion funding to the health bill would actually go beyond current federal law — in which such curbs have to be renewed every year.
"This is a health care bill," said Baucus. "This is not an abortion bill. And we are not changing current law."
First, we need to recognize that part of the problem in being neutral is that health care reform would introduce some new features so you really can't just freeze the status quo. Instead, one has to look at general principles. In general, the federal government is currently prohibited from directly paying for abortion but allowed to indirectly support abortion.
Indirect support happens in a variety of ways. For instance, the federal government set up the Medicaid program, pays for much of it, and then allows states to pay for abortions. The government provides support to hospitals, which perform abortions. The government gives money to family planning clinics for maternal health care, even though those clinics might also do abortions. In each case, the primary purpose of the spending is not encouraging abortion but by supporting institutions that also, with their own money, do abortions. That's the status quo.
First, let's apply this principle to the "public option" -- a new, government-backed insurance plan that may or may not be included in a final health reform bill. Congress could decree that the basic public insurance option doesn't include abortion but then offer consumers the ability to buy, with their own money, a rider to the policy that would cover abortions. Then the full direct cost of abortion coverage would be unambiguously carried by the consumer who chooses it.
Would there be an indirect subsidy? Yes, in the sense that the whole structure wouldn't exist without government support, but since the purpose of the structure is providing health care in general, not promoting abortion, it seems like a valid indirect subsidy consistent with the operating principles of the status quo stalemate.
Some pro-choice folks might say, well, no one plans an unintended pregnancy so it's not realistic for people to make that choice when buying health insurance.
But I don't plan on having auto accidents and yet I buy car insurance; I don't intend for my house to burn down, yet I buy homeowners insurance.
And perhaps there's a way of having this special abortion rider also include extra benefits to pay for contraception. That would give a second reason to buy the plan, and might even prevent more unintended pregnancies and abortions.
WHY CAN'T "reproductive-health insurance" be something offered "offline" at reasonable cost by private insurers? Why must federal funding be inextricably enmeshed (And if it's not, what was the problem with Hatch's amendment?) with an issue so morally grave, culturally contentious and politically radioactive?
Personally, I'd favor a simple, single-payer system of national health insurance. After all, if it's good enough for my mother and every American over 65. . . . That is to say this issue isn't political for me or for a lot of others, particularly many Catholics -- and especially for the country's Catholic leadership.
It's moral. And the religious worldview which compels me to see the immorality of a system where Americans can go without health care -- or be financially ruined by accessing health care -- is the same worldview telling me it's fundamentally immoral to finance the killing of helpless innocents in the process of "doing good."
There is no justice here, and there can be no compromising with people so dead set on blurring the lines on federal funding of abortion.
In fact, the Democratic leadership's stance against an explicit ban on federal abortion funding not only will doom health-care reform in the eyes of people like me and the Catholic bishops, it will cost it the support of at least 40 House Democrats.
Nobody is trying to undo Roe v. Wade in this. That's a fight for another day. This is a fight about being compelled to bankroll somebody's "right" that half of Americans -- at least -- see as dead wrong.
This is about violation of conscience. And this is about the Democratic House and Senate leadership seeking to ram abortion down the throats of taxpayers, and even down the throats of Catholic health-care workers and Catholic hospitals.
And see where that ultimately leaves health care if Catholic bishops, pushed beyond the bounds of complacency, start to grow spines and begin to shut down hospitals that care for 1 in 6 American patients.
I have been reliably informed there's been a Brother Jed and Sister Cindy sighting at the the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. And memories from three decades ago come flooding back. . . .
You know, I don't hold with their theology and methodology (about a step above the Rev. Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps), but you have to give the street-preaching couple props for sheer longevity and ability to take abuse from college kids.
Back in the day, Brother Jed Smock and Sister Cindy Lassiter (this was before she married Jed) told me and a bunch of Louisiana State "whores" and "whoremongers" that we were all going to hell. And then Cindy hit me in the head with a Bible.
OK, so I had ever-so-slightly lifted the hem of her granny skirt to see whether she was wearing granny boots, but still. . . .
IT WAS ALL great street theater, and everybody seemed to have a good time (except for the Catholic nun Cindy assaulted one day for being . . . Catholic) but I don't think anyone was particularly edified.
Or converted to any faith that showed poor sinners Christ as He might wish to be understood.
As a matter of fact, the one-two punch of religious buffoonery gave a lot of us two more excuses to stay the hell away from this Jesus nut and His nutty-ass spokespersons. I wonder how many of us gave the Galilean another chance once Sister Cindy had bellowed "the lake . . . of . . . FIIRRRRRRRE!" one last time and moved on to the next campus on the itinerary.
For me, it was the better part of a decade -- as I neared the end of a rope called "My Own Devices."
Nevertheless, I don't think Jed and Cindy would be pleased in any way, shape or form about my encounter with the living God. In fact, I'm pretty sure they think I'm still aiming to do some napalm wakeboarding.
You see, I became a Catholic.
And if Cindy lays hands on another nun. . . .
I've been to nine SEC stadiums. (I'll go to a tenth next season at Georgia.) I've seen the grove at Ole Miss, experienced the Gator Chomp, the Mississippi State cowbells, been a part of Alabama football in both Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. I've been called "Tigerbait" in Baton Rouge and experienced some pretty good hospitality in South Carolina.
I've said hello to the folks at Illinois and Minnesota. Felt September heat in Tempe, AZ.
Been to Manhattan, Lubbock, Austin, Stillwater and College Station. College Station was probably the best. Folks say "Howdy" when they see you. And they say "welcome."
Haven't been to the Horseshoe, the Big House or Happy Valley. Nor have I seen Touchdown Jesus.
But I've been to College Football Nirvana.
It's located in Lincoln, Nebraska.From the time we touched down ("Welcome to Lincoln," the police officers doing the escort said) to the time we left the stadium ("Thanks so much for coming, have a safe trip home. We hope you'll come back again") every Cajun fan felt like a guest.
That's right. A guest. Not the opposition...not the enemy....a guest.
Check into the Cornhusker Marriott, not far from campus. Fans of Big Red Nation are already there. Smiles, handshakes....welcome to Lincoln. Good luck tomorrow.
Board the bus for dinner. Arrive at Misty's, Lincoln's famous steakhouse (I mean, you gotta eat a steak, right?). There were about 25 in our party. We had to wait about twenty minutes for them to get everything ready. No problem. As soon as the patrons saw the Cajun gear, they wanted to talk...introduce themselves....welcome to Lincoln....thanks so much for coming. Hope you enjoy the game.....
Is this for real??
And, it continued throughout the evening and into the night. We made lots of friends. We Cajun people make friends pretty easily, but it's even easier when folks want to be friends.
In Lincoln, they all want to be your friend.
Gameday is different in Lincoln. They tailgate, sure....but it's tougher because, well, there's just not a lot of tailgaiting spots. But they do open the soccer field next to the stadium. Families can let the kids roam free. Nebraska radio does a pregame show there. And, a band plays during the commercial breaks.
I did an interview at the soccer field with the Nebraska radio folks. And then, had a pretty good trek to the media entrance. At each gate, the sight was the same. Hundreds lined up, waiting for the gates to open so they could get into the stadium and watch their team warm up.
By the time Nebraska came out, about 45 minutes before kickoff, the stadium was about 65% full. There was no "hey, let's stay outside and pound a few more beers."
Because it was gameday. And they came to see football.
By the time the band was ready to come out, 86,000 strong were in their seats. They stood and clapped along when the Cornhusker Band played "Fight on Cajuns" to honor their guests. And when the band played "There is no Place Like Nebraska" I knew that the statement was true.
WALKER GETS IT. Nebraska is a special place, and game day in Lincoln is something akin to the concentrated essence of a state.
And, at least in Nebraska circles, the Louisiana blog post has gone viral. It's even featured on Huskers.com.
I think I know what came over the Cajuns' radio guy. It happened to me in 1983.
Actually, it really started in high school in Baton Rouge, when a Nebraska-native buddy would sing the praises of his home state at every opportunity. And it built a few years later when -- as a student at Louisiana State -- I started following the Cornhuskers in addition to my LSU Tigers.
I was hooked in Miami at the 1983 Orange Bowl, when the Huskers beat LSU 21-20 and I couldn't quite decide who the hell to pull for. But I was awfully happy Nebraska won and knew I had to get to this special place out on the Plains.
THAT YEAR, I took some time off from college and -- somehow -- landed a spring and summer reporting job at the North Platte Telegraph. There, I made friends for life and got the equivalent of a graduate degree in community journalism before I even had finished by BA at LSU.
Out in the Sandhills, I fell in love with Nebraska and knew this place would someday be home. It didn't hurt that I fell in love with the Telegraph's wire editor.
And one fine day in early August, I asked her to be my wife. In Lincoln. In the shadow of Memorial Stadium. At NU's football picture day.
So, I married the pretty wire editor in North Platte on the day we packed up a red Nissan Sentra with Nebraska 15-county plates and a red Chevy Vega with a Louisiana plate and an NU window decal. We then headed south for my final 27 credit hours at LSU and her introduction to culture shock, Tiger football . . . and a year of lame jokes about the state tree of Nebraska being a telephone pole.
Sometimes in Baton Rouge, life can be one big "Tiger bait!" when you're "not from around here." Even when you're nowhere near Tiger Stadium.
SOME 26 YEARS LATER, Nebraska is home. Has been for the last 21 of them -- just like I knew it would. And it all started with Big Red football . . . and with the classy fans who so love "dear old Nebraska U."
As folks say today, Nebraska fans "represent." No matter where they are, they make present what is so special about this place we call home.
And you never know where something like that will lead.
P.S.: Thanks for coming, Cajun fans . . . happy to hear y'all passed a good time.
Come again soon; bring andouille. I'll get the gumbo started -- best in Omaha.
And because your play-by-play man is such a stand-up fella, this LSU grad will never call UL-Laf(ayette) "You'll Laugh" again. Nebraska is wearing off on me.
It's hilarious to hear these folks puff themselves up with talk about being the Fourth Estate, performing some valuable public service for readers—when in fact the real customer has always been the advertiser, not the reader. That truth has been laid bare in recent years. As soon as papers got desperate for cash, they dropped their "sacred principles" as readily as a call girl sheds her clothes. Ads on the front page? Reporters assigned to write sponsored content? No problem.IF THERE'S ANYTHING I dislike more than puffed-up pontificators of pompous pablum (See 'ya, Mr. Safire), it's puffed-up pontificators of pompous pablum holding forth from the Emperor's New Boutique. Does this guy really think Newsweek will last as long as the metropolitan dailies he so wants "out of the way"?
Now, new companies with names like Politico and Huffington Post and The Daily Beast and Gawker are beating newspapers at their own game. The new guys are faster, and often better. They're leading, with newspapers chasing behind. If the old guys really want to retain their chokehold on the news business, they should consider buying up the new guys. Problem is, the old guys waited too long, and now they're too broke to make acquisitions. Whoops.
Sure, nobody has yet figured out how to make loads of money delivering news over the Internet. But that's partly because there are too many old newspaper companies, stumbling around like zombies: creatures from another century, clinging to their lame old business model, surviving but not thriving—and sucking up money that Internet companies could put to better use.
Instead of giving newspapers bailouts, we should be hastening their demise. The weak papers need to die. The strong newspapers need to go into bankruptcy and restructure their businesses with smaller staffs and lower cost structures. Yes, it will be painful. But journalists will find jobs — and they'll be working in a better, faster medium.
THOSE FOUR DECADES-PLUS would include five national championships and two coaching legends -- the late Devaney and Tom Osborne, now a former coach-turned-congressman-turned-NU athletic director. Those decades also would include the Steve Pederson/Bill Callahan years, when we wondered not whether the sellout streak would end but after which embarrassing loss. Lincolnite Mike McDannel planned a special outfit for this day. The 49-year-old wore a red velvet blazer and matching fedora, a red tie with the word “Nebraska” embroidered in white and socks with tiny N's covering them. His retro digs once were worn by his father, Donald, who passed away in 2001.THAT VIGNETTE gets to the heart of what Nebraska football -- and Nebraskans -- are about. A son turning out for the home team yet one more time, honoring not only a statewide love affair but also a father long gone.
Dad and Mom Caroline introduced Mike to the passion behind Husker fans years ago. The then-Grand Island family bought season tickets with their vacation money.
Mike's first NU game was in 1968. He might have the ticket to prove it, he said as he took off his fedora and flipped it upside down. Seven ticket stubs were tucked inside the cap's sweatband. Some dated to 1971, when the admission price was $6.
Mike and his mom grabbed spots at the nearby coffeehouse patio to watch fans file in, another tradition they've kept for years.
Some fans were dressed in vintage wear — including skinny neckties; red-and-white-striped overalls; and even one red-and-white go-go dress — but mostly they wore Husker shirts.
“It's really a sight to see,” said Caroline, who has been attending games since the 1950s.
Less than four months into Mayor Jim Suttle’s term, the Omaha police union conducted a poll that gauged whether the public would support a recall of the mayor.I HATE IT when people do things so brazen and bullying that it forces me to stand up for Jim Suttle. We can only hope that the police union has at long last badly overplayed its hand:
It was just one of several topics in the 25-minute telephone survey conducted this month, said Aaron Hanson, police union president.
The bulk of questions posed to 350 likely voters focused on police services, the police pension system and Omahans’ priorities on city programs.
Hanson declined to release the results on the question about Suttle and other politician-related questions.
Hanson said the police union has taken no position on whether it would support or oppose an effort to remove Suttle from office because no formal recall attempt is under way.
He also declined to say whether the poll was an effort to gain leverage in often-intense police labor contract negotiations, which currently are under way.
But asking the recall question, Hanson said, was fair game.
“The buzz is there,” he said. “There’s been discussion in certain circles.”
Overall, Hanson said, the Omaha Police Officers’ Association “wanted to take the pulse of the city of Omaha on a multitude of issues that are high priority today.”
Suttle had not seen the survey results as of Friday, said Ron Gerard, the mayor’s spokesman.
I AM a union kind of guy. I am not, however, a union-thug kind of guy. And the Omaha Police Officers' Association has been nothing if not thuggish -- not to mention brazen -- in its attempts to put local pols under its thumb.Some City Council members speculated that the poll was taken to strengthen the union’s bargaining position in the ongoing contract discussions.
Councilwoman Jean Stothert, a Republican, was among those who distanced themselves from any talk of a mayoral recall attempt.
She said she and her council colleagues were given the poll’s findings — minus any questions and responses about politicians.
“It seemed like it would be counterproductive ... to ask about a recall,” Stothert said.
Council President Garry Gernandt, who is a Democrat and a retired police officer, said he thought the survey’s purpose was to measure public opinion about city government priorities and police performance.Had he known about the inclusion of a recall question, Gernandt said, he would have done what he could “to stop it.”
An official of the Douglas County Republican Party also said he did not want to talk about a recall.
Put me in jail because the government isn't going to dictate the terms of my existence.AND THEN there was this:
This admin is out of control. To FORCE ME to buy health insurance in their program, when I don't want it, and if I refuse, they will put me in JAIL?!?!?! What country is this, Iran? Russia? China? What happened to freedom of choice, I thought that was the liberal battle cry!
While doing some recent research on the news business, I came upon this remarkable fact: Katie Couric’s annual salary is more than the entire annual budgets of NPR’s Morning Edition and All Things Considered combined. Couric’s salary comes to an estimated $15 million a year; NPR spends $6 million a year on its morning show and $5 million on its afternoon one. NPR has seventeen foreign bureaus (which costs it another $9.4 million a year); CBS has twelve. Few figures, I think, better capture the absurd financial structure of the network news.I DON'T THINK any further commentary is necessary. Except, perhaps, the above clip from Broadcast News.
This is not a new development, of course. It’s been unfolding since 1986, when billionaire Laurence Tisch bought CBS and eviscerated its news division in order to boost profits. (For a sharp, first-hand account of this process, see Bad News: The Decline of Reporting, The Business of News, and the Danger to Us All, by former CBS correspondent Tom Fenton.) But the issue seems worth revisiting in light of the recent naming of Diane Sawyer to replace Charlie Gibson as the anchor of ABC’s World News. We don’t yet know how much Sawyer is going to be paid, but it will no doubt surpass Gibson’s current estimated salary of $8 million. Sawyer will thus be perpetuating the corrosive, top-heavy system of the network news.
What’s striking is how little notice this received in the flood of coverage of Sawyer’s appointment. With the notable exception of Jack Shafer in Slate, who cheekily urged Sawyer to turn down the job “and persuade ABC News to divert the millions it ordinarily pays its anchor and spend it on 50 or 80 additional reporters to break stories,” the press treated her ascension as a dramatic milestone.
