On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 9:46 AM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > I have no problem with a journalist who interviews both serious news > makers and popular culture figures of note. 60 Minutes has at times done a > very good job with that (you dont have to go back to the 1950s). This list > itself is a testament to the value of giving popular culture serious > reflection. I would love to see a thoughtful, serious interview with Patty > Jenkins (Director of Wonder Woman). I don't really know much about the > Kardashians, but an interview with one of those girls that touched on the > appropriation controversies surrounding one of them, and the kind of > mean-spirited bullying another one of them has been getting because of the > poor play of her Cavalier husband in the NBA playoffs (touched on during > Game 4 by Jeff Van Gundy) could be worthwhile. > > My problem is: > > 1. I don't see any evidence that Megyn Kelly has the chops to do these > kinds of thoughtful, long form interviews. I don't understand Steve's > response to my earlier expression of this point; of course Walters had > research help - why doesn't Kelly? I freely admit my exposure to Kelly so > far has been very minimal. Her highest profile interview to date was with > Candidate Trump near the end of their "feud", which seemed to me a complete > fail on every level. Most of the rest of what I have seen of her work are > the kind of 4 minute hit-jobs in which she manipulates the interview to a > place where she can make a headline grabbing point and then cuts to > commercial. Maybe she can do more thoughtful work in longer interviews, but > as far as I can tell the jury is still out on that. > > 2. Good journalism requires that the journalist retain editorial control, > which is not really possible in live or live to tape interviews. They have > to be able to ask the same questions several times, interrupt, rephrase, > back-up - all of which make for bad TV, and an only be done when the > interviewer knows the messy parts can be edited out later. WIthout that, a > savvy subject can run out even a 60-minute clock with evasions and > generalities and head fakes. > > It is interesting how NBC is trying to use Kelly. It is now really clear > they want her to be the new Katie Couric, not the new Tom Brokaw. A mid > morning talk show will have to feature soft news and "lifestyle" issues, > and a Sunday primetime show with that kind of interview can only ever be > fluffy, regardless of the person being interviewed. Despite the fact that > they both eventually (and horribly) anchored the evening news, neither > Walters nor Couric were ever really solid hard news journalists (yes, I > know about Katie's days at the Pentagon). I guess I thought they wanted > something more from Kelly. When she was at Fox News was she regarded as a > journalist or one of the infotainers? >
Kardashians: they exist as a brand before they are humans. As a result anything in the media about them has to build the brand and they have publicists to enforce that. A story about bullying, while worthwhile, would have to be done without their active participation. Point 1: From what I can tell, Kelly's body of work is political interviews, and Republican-leaning at that. Point 2: In live interviews I was thinking about talking to leaders during a major news event like Katrina in New Orleans. When an official becomes available for an on camera interview the journalist has to be able to come up with good questions on the spot. If there is prep time then your point is correct. When I wrote about TV news hosts being in a bubble about which kinds of stories they choose to cover, I would cite John Oliver as someone who finds interesting stories outside of that bubble. Even if the Megyn Kelly prime time show is female-skewing it would be awesome if she would do a story like Oliver's Miss America story without the jokes. I don't expect it. At Fox News I think the only well regarded journalists are Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace. So Kelly would be an infotainer. -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
