Wow! It’s Going to be Colder Tomorrow!!!

Unfortunately for the viewing public everywhere, not just in the Philadelphia area, weather “news” has overwhelmed the typical TV newscasts today more than ever.

Back in the 1960′s, this writer was a member of the Channel 3 “Eyewitness News” team.   We were the first of the “Eyewitness News” shops.  News Director Al Primo is credited with launching it.

As part of the new Eyewitness News, Channel 3 built a new studio/newsroom set.  It likely was the first time a television newsroom actually was in the studio.  More about this below.  If you are a senior citizen, you probably saw this studio in your youth.  This was where Ernie Kovacs did his network show.

Last night, on the 11 p.m. news (I usually watch my former station, Channel 3), the news had not been on for long when the “weather girl” was introduced.  Forgive the sexism but the “weather girl” has been a TV news staple since Trudy Haynes did the weather on TV news in Detroit.   Trudy moved to Channel 3, Philadelphia, not as a weather girl, but rather a reporter.

The television bosses don’t want to read items like this,  but rest assured or at least informed:  they want the babes doing the weather.   It is assumed you know why.   This is not a sexist statement but I think you also have noticed there are a lot more news bunnies today.  Some people will say that’s a good thing.  I would prefer that if they must be of the feminine gender, they ought to be able to show the professionalism of, say, Marge Pala, of Channel 3.   I think the high number of females in TV news has enabled the continuing softening of “hard news”, and I believe the station executives prefer it that way.   Some day I will have a lot more to say about this on thishere blog as this is nothing directly personal ”against” the women of today in TV news.   In large part, they are unable to fulfill a full commitment to journalism not due to their gender, but rather the policies of their bosses.   But this yarn is about….. lessee….oh yeah….the local weather!!

Last night, what was the reason the weather bunny was on almost at the start of the newscast?   It was to get 20 degrees colder “tomorrow”, i.e.,  Sunday (today, as I write this).  My, my, as I write this in the early afternoon, the temperature is 31 degrees.  The low today was 23.  The weather lady more or less suggested by her tone and commentary that weather terror was just ahead (“tomorrow”).   It may go below 20 tonight.  My, has that ever happened before???

It should be pointed out here that it would be the same reporting and emphasis situation if all the weather reporters on TV were men:   their bosses still would use weather as a major news item, even with a sprinkle of rain.  This is because most broadcasting executives are not journalists and want to stay as far away from journalism as they can. 

This also is because TV stations have conducted research of news viewers like you.  They have asked, in effect, why do you turn on the news?  To my chagrin, a most prominent response is to get the weather.   I would have preferred that you tuned in to find out the latest news.  But nowadays, it seems they mostly cover the “safe” stuff like fires and murders.  Their investigative pieces not infrequently are stings… or setups… such as the recent Channel 10 series catching pedophiles.   There are alot of murders in Philadelphia, and Mayor Street says he is concerned about that. 

But anyway, about that newsroom in a studio.  Back in the 1960s’, the Channel 3 sportscaster was Jim Leaming, who sat right behind me in the four tiers of news desks.  Jim was in the last row, I in the third tier.

Whenever I was doing a “cut in” on the six o’clock news, I would be seated at my desk, with Jim behind me.  We were part of the wide shots’ ambience during the newscast. 

Down below us, Bill Kuster would be doing the weather in the weather set portion of the floor level where the newscasters stood in front of a high table (where the late Ernie Kovacs once performed).

It was Jim’s almost nightly routine to whisper to me while Bill Kuster was on.   “Hey John!”

“Hey John!”.   I would turn around and Jim would say:  “Call WE 6-1212″.   And we would laugh.

The first time he had done this, I had asked him why.   

He replied:  “You can find out what he’s (Bill Kuster) talking about in 30 seconds.” WE 6-1212 was the phone number to get the weather forecast.
Now the phone company charges for this service.  I would not be surprised if the reason for the charges in part was because TV and radio people complained that the phone company was competing with them.

It would frustrate Jim that so much time was devoted to the weather, and so little to his sports.   You couldn’t cover the sports in 30 seconds, but frankly, you could take care of the weather with the 30-second forecast. 

When he first started at Channel 3, he was working two blocks down the street at Radio Station WIP where he did the late afternoon sports amidst a disc jockey show.  After his last radio broadcast, he would walk to KYW-TV and do the sports at 6:25 p.m., just before the Huntley-Brinkley Report.

After doing the radio sports in the afternoon, he had most of the sports news in his head, so he didn’t require alot of preparation for his little two-minute bit on TV. 

But this is my point:  most times, the newsroom’s assignment editor would not give Jim a crew so as to film a sports story earlier in the day.  

In other words, even in the 1960′s, the emphasis was to give nearly 10 minutes to the weather, two minutes for sports.  They didn’t want to give sports more time so why waste time and money on film stories that would mean you would have to take time away from the weathercaster.  

  
In a major sports town with major and minor pro sports and five major colleges, two minutes was ridiculous.  (Alas, sometimes even today the sports on the local TV news is a blip.)

Subsequently, Jim Leaming fought for more air time and sometimes got it.  He even got film crews.  One day, he asked me to “sub” for him and go down to the Spectrum (this was 1969)  and interview the new kid on the Flyers who, the night before, had scored his first NHL goal.   I never forgot that interview with Bobby Clarke.  I came back to the studio with the film and Jim came in and asked:  how long is the interview?  I replied it’s one minute and 23 seconds; three questions.   Said Jim:  I’ll use it all.  And he did.

That evening, Jim told the Channel 3 viewers this 19-year-old kid is going to be a big star.

Of course, Jim was right.

I was sad to hear of Jim’s death a few years ago.  I do not have to tell anybody who knew him:   Jim was a gem. 

His material, if he had been given the time, would have been better than one of those Bermuda highs.

As a postscript to all of this, all three local (network-affiliated) stations with early evening Sunday news led with the weather this evening.   I submit this is pathetic.   DANGEROUSLY COLD said Channel 3.   Channel 6 used the wind chill factor to say that it feels like 11 degrees.

Lemme see, now.   Doesn’t it get cold in the winter?

Nowadays, weather has become the lead story on many occasions, both summer and winter and even spring and autumn.  Hot and cold.  It is at the expense of good television journalism.

I submit to you that you are living a dull life if you pay attention to those Bermuda highs.

 

Arabs Having Ownership at Six American Ports

Let’s see.  The story is that a company known as Dubai Ports World had just about completed a deal,  a $6.8 billion acquisition of a British company, Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company.  Dubai Ports World, of the United Arab Emirates.  That one.  This is where Tiger Woods wins golf tournaments  (Dubai). Oh yes, the same one that made it into the 9/11 Commission Report when the United Arab Emirates biggees were playing footsy (going hunting?) with Osama Bin Ladin.

Yesterday, the news secretary for President Bush, Scott McClellan, said:  ”In hindsight, when you look at this and the coverage that it’s received and the false impression that is left with some, we probably should have briefed members of Congress about it sooner.”

As the great, learned Harvey Diltitcher once said, PERCEPTION IS REALITY.  The deal looks dead.

Is it dead?   At least many people think so.   Don’t hang on every word here:   there may be something more to the whole story, and we may never hear of all of the devils in the detail.

Many people are dumping on the deal.   Unfortunately, and this is the only obvious conclusion that can be drawn thus far:   the Bush administration did not umbrella the deal properly for public consumption.

It depends on what damage control develops, and whether the possible underlying aim of the deal, if any, is impossible to achieve now.

So now we have to wait two or three years for somebody to write a book exposing what was happening here.

The problem is basic.  It is the taint.   The perception.  President Bush says the United Arab Emirates is a good ally of the U. S. especially in the fight against terrorism.  The U. S. was doing the deal under the radar, it seems, because incorporated in it was an agreement for DP World to reveal records on demand about “foreign operational direction” of its business at  six U. S. ports  (Philadelphia,  New York,  Baltimore,  Miami, New Jersey and New Orleans). 

It is confusing that the White House says President Bush did not know about the deal until recently.   You have to proceed with the conclusion that Scott McClellan does not dispense lies in any situation.  This would seem to indicate nothing about terrorism was below the surface. 

Probably nobody except one of those CIA whistleblower guys (traitors, maybe) will reveal whether the deal included a method of the U. S. to infiltrate more of the Middle East.   At least this time, no whistleblower apparently surfaced this deal, but that’s beside the point.

Because Homeland Security was the lead agency in shepherding the deal, it seems to me there was more here than the perception of Arabs running six U. S. ports. 

On his radio talk show this morning, Michael Smerconish (Radio Station WPHT, Philadelphia) spent most of his three hours going over Pages 137-138 of the 9/11 Commission Report.  There, you can read the account of how Richard Clarke somehow queered a plan to bomb Osama Bin Ladin in 1999.   

The account tells about the planned attack on a hunting camp where Bin Ladin was in the vicinity of the Sheikh Ali camp in the desert south of Kandahar, Afghanistan.  The attack was called off, according to the Commission report, because a United Arab Emirates prince also was there, along with others from the UAE.   A UAE airplane had brought the hunters to the desert camp.   The CIA not only did not want to kill a UAE prince, they were not convinced they could be sure of getting Bin Ladin.  It doesn’t take one of them there rocket scientists to conclude that some Arabs from the UAE were enjoying some leisure time with the world’s Number One terrorist.

We are in a war.   It is a peculiar war because our enemies do not wear uniforms.   However, we may have to keep reading between the lines on the port story.   It does not seem very logical that the U. S. government would be doing a deal with Arabs during a war  unless there is something there under the radar we don’t know about.   

After all, we do not want our U. S. government to broadcast the location, date and time of our next “attacks” against terrorism.

Maybe a method of fighting terrorism has been killed.   If so, it is unfortunate, and another casualty of war.  But obviously, the President’s news secretary was right yesterday:    they didn’t do it correctly …. because

 ……….   Now most people think it was wrong.