GMA fluff a sign of the times

Title card used from October 22, 2007 to May 2, 2010. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What is with Good Morning America?

This morning I stumbled into the kitchen, following the smell of freshly brewed coffee wafting down the hall. Why is it that one certain spot--just a small area--in the hallway receives the strongest kitchen smells? The same is true when there is a fire in the wood stove; that same spot is where the burning wood smell is the strongest as well.

Once I poured my coffee, even before I took the first sip, I joined my hubby in the living room where he was watching Good Morning America. Almost as soon as I sat down, the first thing I heard was Dan Abrams being introduced. He was there, as he seems to be every day, commenting on the legalities behind some sensationalized story dealing with somebody's personal tragedy. I don't even know what it was about because I picked up my coffee and made my exit. I'd much rather sit on the porch and watch the birds or read real news on my computer.

Now I don't have anything against Dan Abrams--he is probably a wonderful person--who is very knowledgeable about legal issues. He is rather easy to look at early in the day too, but I just don't happen to care to listen to speculation over the minute details of some courtroom drama at 8 o'clock in the morning. Perhaps I could justify it if the outcome mattered to the country, or if it affected society at large, or would set a precedent for future legal battles, but those usually aren't what drives the coverage. Instead, it is generally some highly sensationalized case that should matter only to the parties involved in it. At least this morning he wasn't fighting with Nancy Grace. That is really over the top. If I wanted to hear bickering, I'd start a fight with my husband.

And why does a legal consultant need to appear every single day; sometimes more than once. Do other people like this stuff? Or is it just me?

If GMA isn't just emulating Court TV it is doing a take-off on Entertainment Tonight. If the dialogue was printed, it would probably read like The Enquirer. Enough of the mundane already!

I was upset about the way this show was going back when Charles Gibson and then Diane Sawyer left. That was when Robin Roberts, who had been an excellent sidekick, was given the co-anchor spot with George Stephanopoulos. I've been a big fan of Stephanopoulos for a long time. I thought he would be able to maintain the show's credibility. And as much as he could, he has tried to do that. He cannot carry it all by himself though, especially when clearly news isn't what the show's producers are after. Roberts may have been a good sports interviewer, but she is no Diane Sawyer or Charlie Gibson. She is a nice woman, but just can't perform as a credible journalist. The world fluff comes to mind when I think about the substance of this show.

I may be spoiled because I remember Good Morning America in its heyday, when it was anchored by David Hartman and Joan Lunden. There was quality reporting by professional journalists, but then that was a different time and place. Perhaps that is the problem. Where are the journalists. I find myself wondering that more and more these days.

I'm just not interested in more fluff and dribble on TV. The airwaves are filled with it. Perhaps the problem is that six media giants now control much of what is on television--GE, News-Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS--dominate up to 90-percent of the media, according to Upworthy.com. In 1983, there were as many as 50 companies that controlled the airwaves.

According to a graphic on the site, "232 media executives control the information diet of 277 million Americans." That is one media executive to 850,000 subscribers. In 2010, the revenue for the six companies was $275.9 billion.

Therein lies the problem. I'm just glad I have a computer.

Tell me what you think about this. Are you happy with the way things are going?

Palin disses President on Today! How dare she?

Out of curiosity, and I must be a fool with masochistic tendencies, I tuned into the Today Show.

It took about five minutes of Sarah Palin's high-pitched, whiny voice that said nothing of substance, to make me return to Good Morning America which for years has been my early morning news standby. Five minutes of commercial advertising caused me to turn that off too. 

As a side note: I did watch GMA yesterday. I found the addition of Katie Couric to be a breath of fresh air. Together with George Stephanopoulos and Jake Tapper doing the news was the kind of professional programming I want to see more of. 

Too many advertisements detract from the programming however, so if I want news, the internet is and will remain, my medium of choice. 

There, I can watch what I want and ignore that which I don't. Fortunately, I am smart enough to choose to read and/or watch even some things I disagree with. To me, the internet is a learning tool. It is not just an entertainment resource, although it does an admirable job of that as well. 

This morning, I saw a clip of the Today Show. To see what I missed, I listened as Matt Lauer interviewed Palin just prior to her taking the seat as his co-host. He asked her if she was happy that Mitt Romney would be the GOP nominee. She stonewalled him, just like she did Katie Couric so long ago. Lauer pressed her. Not only did she refer to the "lamestream media," but she referred to any GOP candidate when she said, "anybody but Obama." 

Palin's blatant rant really annoyed me. Perhaps it is because I once did news reporting for a living. When I interviewed someone, I always put my personal feelings aside. They have no place in professional news gathering. It wasn't always easy, but to me, credibility was much more important than simply spouting my opinion. (Perhaps this is why I love blogging.) There is a big difference between news and commentary. To me, both my personal opinion and news requires credible research, but that's just me. 

NBC, which was once a credible news outlet now has stooped to the level of Fox News, which is not news at all. It does little or no research on its news stories and obviously its television personalities require no credibility for which to derive their opinions. 

Back to Palin, the Fox News transplant to NBC's Today Show, I was appalled to see a co-anchor diss the President of the United States that I plan to erase NBC from my programming lineup.

It is frightening to think there is a relationship between the mundane NBC and the brilliant MSNBC, which is chock full of news and opinion that is really worth listening to. The difference here is that opinions on MSNBC are backed up by real facts, rather than the kind of made up stuff, like what is on Fox. 

The good stuff must come from the Microsoft portion of the arrangement. The NBC side must be the one that requires advertising for the Keystone Pipeline and the beauty of natural gas extraction or fracking. ARG!!! I feel as though my senses are being assaulted by these greedmongers.

If NBC wanted to have better ratings, which is obviously why it pulled this stunt to put Sarah Palin on the morning news, why didn't it just put out a better show?

I suppose eyes affixed with dollar signs simply cannot see what is plainly in front of them. 

The bottom line isn't really making money. The bottom line is earning money. Put out a good product that is worth buying and people will buy it.

Weighing in on Adam Lambert

I just can't help myself. I have to weigh in on the Adam Lambert performance at the American Music Awards Sunday night.

I was an Adam Lambert fan during the entire season of American Idol—despite runner-up adoration for Kris Allen, who is from my home state. I thought Lambert knocked the socks off Idol viewers everywhere. I was not impressed by his over-the-top performance at the AMA show either, but,...

Complaints, c'mon

That said, there is no way I find it difficult to believe that 1,500 people actually complained to the network about it. It is hard to believe so many people actually picked up the phone or sent an email to ABC to lodge a complaint. What is wrong with turning the channel?

Lambert's performance was no worse than the other freaks who performed, dangling jewelry over their crotch, grabbing at themselves or others, or dressing in ridiculous costumes meant to make them look naked or to accentuate erogenous parts.

Whatever happened to freedom of expression? Isn't music supposed to be art? Or are these the same kind of people who would cover up a naked statue or dress a nude painting? What's worse than the complaints are that anyone would listen.

I don't particularly like the kind of music I saw Sunday, but these performers are free to express themselves. It is the world we live in. If you dislike it, do as I will do, don't buy the music.

What is with Good Morning America?

What appalls me the most is the fact that Good Morning America canceled an appearance by Lambert scheduled for Wednesday morning. What is up with that?

Adam Lambert has amazing vocal ability. He could probably do a great rendition of Amazing Grace just as easily as any other music. Was GMA afraid his intention was to come on TV to rub legs with Chris Cuomo or go for an open-mouthed kiss with Sam Champion? C'mon on! The GMA venue is totally different than the AMA.

I think GMA made a big mistake canceling Lambert. I've noticed a downward slide for GMA as a news show—one that is more interested in entertainment than news. And, can we talk about how they have taken to pushing the Christian envelope? To me, that is just as inappropriate as Lambert sticking his tongue down some guy's throat.

My opinion

For what it is worth, Adam Lambert did himself a disservice. He is way too good—too talented to allow a performance to isolate any fans. His flamboyant behavior and appearance is probably a fleeting statement, an experiment to locate the boundaries. At least that is my hope. And, let's give the guy a break. He's young and he just found fame. He should be allowed a little leeway—a little time to experiment with what works for him. It is my hope that he will tone down the act in order to settle into a long-term career as he makes music that will serve him well.

We all know he is gay—so what. There is no more need to flaunt it. The shock value is done. I suspect Adam Lambert's shock value performances will be toned-down as well. Once he gets this out of his system, he can make his living off his extreme talent, performing music that has a wide range of interest. Personally, I can't wait.