Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Bay Area TV Anchors lack Passion; I got a Problem with that--do You?

Question: Where's the passion in the Bay Area's TV News anchors?

Answer: What passion?

Bottom line, we are a vanilla market. We have very good solid anchors, don't get me wrong, but they're all pretty much cookie-cutter.

They have been marginalized and fed toast points by the consultants and managers so much to the degree that they rarely show any emotion even on the most passionate of stories. There's nothing terribly wrong with that and nobody's suggesting one or so of the readers to actually do something radical but doesn't there come a time when you, the viewer, want some raw emotion, some degree of anger, some frustration? I miss a little bit of that from the late Pete Wilson. He was good at that without being a dick. When there was a story of particular rage and heat, Pete would show the necessary angst, but it wasn't phony or contrived--it was real, damn the teleprompter and notes.

Today's Bay Area news readers are, for the most part, just reading lines. That's not to denigrate their work, necessarily, but it does illustrate the new world of local TV news. Dammit.

*Follow me on Twitter

17 comments:

  1. Pete wilson, champion of the endless audible sigh, was a smart fellow and a good debater. However, the opening churn monologues on his radio shows, were read from a script he had prepared. You can always tell if someone is reading, as opposed to speaking directly. There is also nothing wrong with reading something, as long as you tell people, in advance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Err, all anchors and reporters read almost everything every night. You think they keep all that stuff in their heads?

      Do they tell you in advance.

      Delete
    2. radio talk hosts express opinion..news anchors read from teleprompters. Some radio hosts write little essays and then read them...pretending that they are just speaking freely, without copy. YOu can always tell. I read off the teleprompter when I was an anchor..occasionally adding a bon mot. But that is an environment where the segments are tightly timed and from which cues are taken to roll tape. Talk radio is utterly different, or at least should be. I sometimes read from a story, but I always cite the reporter and the publication. That's the difference. use your noggin. Gene Burns could barely see, didn't read from a cheat sheet..It came from his fabulous brain, including the phrasing, the eloquent words, and the sentiment.

      Delete
    3. Who cares if Pete Wilson read his openings? Radio was his second job and his openings were just that, invitations to join him for an hour for some of the best, most genuine give-and-take heard on radio. I miss him, I miss his fair-mindedness, I miss his sincerity.

      I don't miss anyone else.

      Delete
    4. when you read something you've written on the air and pretend that you are speaking directly, that's a contrivance. It is the opposite of "genuine".

      Delete
  2. I think the shot callers have them handcuffed. Dan Ashley is network material.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pete was ok. He had the Bill O'Reilly like chip on his shoulder of thinking they were so much smarter,and clearer on every issue.
    I thought Ken Bastida was evolving into that position,..then boom- he was made part time. I thought he had the Matt Laurer vibe.
    Right now..your right,nobody stands out. If anybody has a public affairs show(showing they have a brain too)...its the females. Cheryl Jennings,Jessica Aguirre,Roberta Gonzales some years. I would bet on Raj to be a host of some kind..but so far nothing. Maybe local male anchors are afraid of the Ted Baxter effect..be exposed. Who knows?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pat T. reads. Ronnie Owen reads from his techie devices. I can go on. They have low attention span just like their fan base,

    ReplyDelete
  5. If I have a choice between the two, I'd rather have an unemotional anchor than the contrivance and pandering to the audience. Not many anchor people I've seen can pull it off.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rich,
    I agree and wish you'd taken this post a step further and said what is obvious, simply that in the land of tolerance, we are not very tolerant. The reason why most reporters/anchors "lack passion" is because passion is an emotion. It differs from person to person and can be controversial depending on the issue at hand. This region of the country is diverse but even more important, its incredibly thinned-skinned. News organizations see that conveying too much outside of a cookie cutter presentation is a material risk that they do not wish to take on.

    As a kid in the 80's and 90's, I watched the news because it was...good tv to me. Nowadays, I don't let what little intelligence I have be insulted by what is broadcast locally. It's watered down, fluff that offers no depth.

    There used to be a segment on a local radio station called "Half Ass News". My wife thought it was great and I tolerated it if we were driving together. It was a novelty. Today, it's the standard. Incredible? Yes. Sad? Yes. Shocking? Not if you understand the squeaky wheel populous here in the bay area.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rich, I think part of what you're getting at- is the obvious distance between the anchor and what he/she is reading. Many anchors once wrote most of their own lead-ins and stories. And if not, they edited them heavily. It allowed them to have an actual connection with the story. Most anchors had very strong reporting backgrounds, and insisted on that kind of involvement. It's part of what contributes to their credibility. Now, more often than not, there are much less experienced people, many without strong reporting resumes, writing the anchors' copy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't care about passion. ANYONE can have passion for something. It doesn't make it their forte. I want intellect and knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmmm, what are you talking about? News folks or politicians?

      Delete
  9. All true. When I produces for Pete Wilson on KGO radio I called it The Pete Wilson Editorial Sigh. As Christine indicated, he'd say a lot without actually saying a word. Well placed, honest emotion. Gene is the real deal, too. I hope to hear him soon. As for TV, blame the networks and consultants. When I was at KPIX a decade ago, Bastida was clearly a rising star. So was Kessler. And Kohara. And Roberta. I wish Dan Rosenheim had the ability - or will - to tell CBS to stay the fuck away from talent and let him run the show. If he had, KPIX today might be as successful as KRON when he ran it in the 90s. As KGO Radio boss Mickey Luckoff always said about the station's O&O status: "We are owned, but not operated, by Disney." Damn, I'm glad to be a freelancer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hate anchors who sigh. Suzanne Shaw and Leslie Griffith also used to do it after a grim story.

      Dennis Richmond was always praised for not showing emotion.

      Delete