Self-Worth Good, Inflated Ego Bad

As a woman raised "old school" by a hard working "DQI" (Don't Question It) family, working my butt off is not a foreign concept. I have done more than my fair share of all-nighters and 16-hour-plus workdays.

But since the economic downturn circa 2008, making a decent living seems to have become more of a herculean task. The survivors of downsizing often question whether they were really that lucky to hold on to their jobs at all, because they're now doing the work of two or more of the laid-off employees.

Usually "higher-ups" only seem to know what they don't want but never seem to know exactly what they do want.  Their beleaguered employees suffer in the fallout, trying to satisfy their conflicted bosses; personal lives and health suffer, raises of any significance appear now a perk of the past.

Experience, expertise and aging are frequently the kiss of death. Instead of being paid for an acquired skillset and years of focusing on their jobs, worker bees are either forced to work for far less than they are worth or are shuffled out of a job so "young blood" can skulk in and work for (comparable) peanuts. (Except, of course, the young'uns utilize the job for the bare minimum of skills they need to move elsewhere as soon as they can.) 

Longevity and dedication to a job, industry, or business is simply not rewarded like it was even a decade or so ago.

Everyone is replaceable. Whether you want them to be, or not. If you don't think so, take a look at the entertainment/news business.

One of the most over-inflated egos to hit the morning news-entertainment genre is Josh Elliott. His entrée onto Good Morning America was scattered and teary after saying goodbye to his buddies at ABC "brother station" ESPN. He appeared to be a super-sensitive doting father and overall loveable big lug. But there was so much more brewing under the surface—and not much of it good. (If you want the gossip about his personal exploits, just Google it—it's there in volumes and at least some of it has to be true.)

At a time when my friends in the news business have sacrificed nearly every semblance of normalcy to stay in the industry for which they have been honing their skills, they're lucky to make half of what they were making ten years ago. That is, if they have a job at all. Largely because many of their fresh-faced newbie counterparts who think they know it all can afford to work for less because they are probably still living at home with Mom and Dad. They then milk the job for contacts and status and quickly move on, without little afterthought.

Many think—just like Oprah—they're going to be a household name. (Lara Spencer gave it a go at The Insider after she first left GMA, only to return. While her re-debut was a bit frenzied, with some uncomfortable moments with Elliott as they initially tried to outdo each other for attention, she has settled in much more comfortably and quietly re-signed her contract. She'd already learned her lesson.)

The idea of being a household name is an almost laughable notion, considering the fact that many viewers can't remember anchor-reporter names half the time. Then a lot of media outlets tend to have a clone-closet of similar-looking alternates (e.g., the Berman-Tapper-Harris-Stephanopolous quadruplets and Golodryga-Faris-Vargas triplets on ABC). 

Not that an astute or attentive person couldn't tell the difference among each of these reporter-anchors as credible, skilled journalists, but they all physically resembled each other to the point that ABC hoped you didn't care enough to appreciate each of them for the unique individual journalists they are. (Eventually Berman and Tapper moved on; Faris doesn't seem to be returning after maternity leave and is not currently listed in the ABC News list of talent.)

But taking all this into consideration, adding the chaos that is the television business, and Disney's historic penny-pinching ways, Elliott had the unmitigated chutzpah to ask for $8 million during his new contract negotiations when his present salary had been $1.2 million.  Nearly six times his going rate to watch an almost-creepily-child-hugging, daughter-obsessed clod shuffle around GMA everyday? He's just not cute enough to make up for his downside.

No, thank you. As a former journalist myself, as well as a loyal viewer who watches seven days a week (pretty much since the show debuted), I'm thankful GMA didn't take the bait. So off Josh goes to NBC Sports. (The rumors he was going to be a regular Today Show anchor—reportedly planted so that GMA would cave to his asking price—have since been verified by Today to have not been based in fact).

News hit Twitter Sunday night (3/30/2014) that Elliott was joining NBC. He didn't even bother to return to GMA for a classy goodbye come Monday. (Was he afraid he'd cry? I'm sure he would have—at least for the cameras.) ABC simultaneously announced Amy Robach—a proven news pro and survivor on so many levels—would be taking his seat on the anchor desk.

Ultimately my choice would be Ron Claiborne, who in my opinion, has the class, style, charm, credibility, and chops to "fill the man void" and keep GMA from looking like The View with poor George trying to keep the girls in line. (Although I wish they could have held on to Sam Champion, who is has left a huge hole in their morning crew.)

The moral here is where I started: Everyone can be replaced. And unlike Charlie Sheen replacing Michael J. Fox on "Spin City," giving Elliott the old heave-ho is an excellent move by ABC/GMA. 

Maybe ABC will now throw some of the cash they saved into the pockets of their behind-the-scenes production staff. They've earned it.

Update: GMA continues as #1 in morning news/entertainment shows sans Elliott, with numbers rising ever higher. Paula Harris has returned from maternity leave and continues to contribute.

What's *Your* Agenda?

Okay. I admit it. There’s an ulterior motive as to why I blog and tweet and Facebook. I have an agenda: Help others benefit from many of my life experiences without having to make all the mistakes I’ve made. Someday I might have a product to market. So I put myself out there and share. A lot.

Republicans claim Democrats/Obama have a Socialist agenda. Democrats claim Republicans have a partisan, conservative, big money agenda. Politics is pretty much “all about” agendas; look in the dictionary under “agenda” and there are likely to be pictures of a donkey and an elephant.

Then there’s television. ABC pushes Disney both overtly and subtly (e.g., "General Hospital" character Brook Lyn sang "When You Wish Upon A Star" during Karaoke night at the show's pub); NBC makes equally sure they endorse things “Universal-ly.” If you have network Video on Demand, you know they unabashedly push their programming and you usually can’t fast forward/rewind your way around it.

Inasfar as the programs themselves: There are some that receive my full attention and others are background noise while I’m online. An in-between were Bravo’s NY & NJ Housewives series. Then I realized: EVERY cast member had an agenda. It was one thing when it was about a family business and a little shameless self-promotion but then everyone “went Hollywood.” Now this housewife sells jewelry, that housewife sells clothing, another is selling sex tapes, the most classy is selling a disco song/video, and as a subtext, they’re *all* selling Botox. Their vicious attacks and backbiting left me empty and sad at how far (especially) women will go to embarrass and humiliate themselves (and each other) for airtime. I stopped watching the shows before their respective first seasons ended.

The “Bachelor[ette]?” More background noise. If the goings-on were anymore slimy, I’d have to staple myself to my seat. Every participant is out for something and it’s rarely love. Most sickening of the recent dregs is Frank Neuschaefer—one of the last three bachelors vying for Ali Fedotowsky. He had a "sudden epiphany" and realized he was still in love with his "ex-girlfriend Nicole."

In full view of the TV audience, Nicole played into a sickeningly phony love scene with Frank as they declared their revived love for one another. He then flew to Tahiti to let Ali know about his change of heart and left the (vulnerable?) Bachelorette momentarily heartbroken. (Who was only too ready to tell all on Jimmy Kimmel and George Lopez.)

I mean… Seriously? Who freakin’ does these things? Is there anything at all minutely real about TV at ALL these days? These people make my skin crawl at first sight. How could anyone find them remotely interesting/marketable? Sadly, someone, somewhere is likely to take the Frank & Nicole storyline and turn it into something. Or maybe that is how Frank will attempt to accelerate *his* agenda—making it as a screenwriter—which was reportedly his sole purpose for being on “The Bachelorette” in the first place and was never really estranged from Nicole. (Translation: Nicole knew Frank was going on the show to further his agenda, supported him in the effort to be something he is not so he could be something he wanted to be. Ewwww.)

I initially thought Jake (the last bachelor) was "the real deal" and was disgusted when he chose Vienna because she was so unlikeable. Then he went on "Dancing with the Stars." When that didn’t give them enough airtime, he and Vienna very publicly broke up and I realized they actually deserved each other because they both had equally high yuck factors. (Chris Harrison is applying for a Ph.D. in relationship counseling--or sainthood--as I write this.)

Then, of course, "Bachelor Pad" debuts August 9th on ABC. Or as I like to call it: "Invasion of the Bachelor/ette Bottom-Dwellers." The most despicable cast members (like country singer Wes from Bachelorette Jillian episodes) play Twister for money as they behave badly/provocatively. (Jillian, BTW, has now officially split with fiancé Ed.)

Yeah, I know… Stop watching if it annoys you. And yes, I know it says something about me that I watch at all. Stupid. I can’t even claim “ignorant” because I *do* know better. (But then what would I write about?)

It has never been clearer that virtually everyone in public view has a price and to further the value, an agenda is designed.

Writing about this subject was prompted by today's New York Daily News article about a poll that declares life is downhill for women after age 31. That, after age 31, women lose—or believe they start losing—their looks and sense of self.

Admittedly, my reaction is skewed because I’m way on the over side of 31 and I’ve had a stick up my butt for a while since the world seemed to stop listening to me altogether when I turned 50. But that’s personal. (Doesn’t keep me from having a voice and using it to scream from the highest mountains—or setting fingers to keyboard—to get my point across.)

Supposedly 2000 women were polled by QVC—a television/internet shopping network that sells beauty, vanity, and fashion for a premium. You know, the shopping channel whose agenda it is to make sure that we 31+ women (more likely their target consumers than our younger counterparts) realize we’re useless without them? Hence, we must become their uber-consumers and take advantage of their fabulous products so that we can ease the pain of merciless aging, lest our remaining 50-years-or-so be rendered totally and utterly insignificant.

In a world full of (eventual) karmic reconciliation, those of us with an agenda will answer for whatever actions we’ve taken to exploit our agendas. So far so good for me. QVC—which cannot possibly be doing as well in these lean financial times as in the past—will hopefully find they've viciously and self-servingly attacked women’s vulnerability to its core (while doing everything within their capacity to cultivate that vulnerability) and will have a serious karmic debt to pay.

BUT… in the meantime… They’ve lost me as a customer. There’s a lot I cannot control in this world. (Painful to admit and sometimes harder to accept.) This I can.

Care to join me?