What Turns You On?

A recent story about a male stripper performing at a nursing home made me smile, then pause.

Am I the only one whose excitement emanates more from within? I'm no "poker face." When I'm enthralled and engaged, it is blatantly obvious: My energy level is high and I feel intoxicated without taking alcohol or any substance. This is usually because those around me lift me up by their pure energy, love and respect. Some refer to this as being "empathic," and I am hard-pressed to disagree.

For the most part, I abhor the concept of strippers—male or female. To me, it is nether stimulating, nor enticing. I find myself way too embarrassed for the performer to enjoy their efforts. I know he's not turned on by me, we are unlikely to end up in the sack, and everything he does is part of his act—his way of making a living. Therefore I pass on such displays whenever possible.

I have never completely understood the "stripper thing" overall. Of course, I understand that men in particular tend to be visual beings more scintillated by a woman throwing herself on him, gyrating accordingly. It apparently makes him feel special. The fantasy removes him from his often mundane routine. Except he's paying quite the premium for the display. (Some, far higher prices than they—or those they love—could ever have imagined.)

How little one must think of himself to believe he has nothing to attract a woman except money in his pocket. Money he can often ill-afford—and the dancer is very eager to collect.

I don't believe I'm repressed or reluctant to let loose. In my younger days I spent many hours on the dance floor, letting my freak flag fly, letting each beat of the music filter through my body in movement and rhythm. To me, that is freedom; that is exciting. 

Maybe it's just another sign that I'm more of a "doer" than a "watcher."

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.

Overload

One of the downsides of having an empathic nature is that even TV shows and the trials and tribulations of their characters can leave me feeling for another's loss or pain. 

Then there's Flight MH370, the Seattle mudslide, recent fires in NJ (Pt Pleasant motel & Edison elementary school--both supposedly caused by a discarded cigarette), and the "little pockets of pain" all over the world that devastate families and communities. 

Sometimes being totally media aware can be draining. 

All we can do is pray, offer strength and hope, and thank God for every moment we have a semblance of peace in our lives.

And turn off the flow of information rushing at us--at least a few seconds.

All this being said, I still don't believe Joss is really dead.

Turning On is A Turn-Off

There's a preponderance of images riding the airwaves and so little of it is satisfying an itch. It's like getting a craving for something but you're not sure exactly what you want. You're only sure what you don't --and I'm getting plenty of that.

This William & Kate thing is so ridiculously overkill that it borders on the obscene. Not every woman grows up with a princess fantasy and many who do were probably buried in pink and chiffon since birth and never moved on. (Makes it quite difficult for the man who falls in love with her to grant every desire, since there's no magic wand.)

W&K appear happy, it all sounds like grand fun but let's just wish them well and let it play out.  

I'm a grownup. I don't need such trivial distractions from the brutal realities of life by living vicariously through people across the pond and monitoring their every breath. Instead of insisting I wake up at 4am to watch something I can easily DVR or watch in clips ad infinitum, constructively inform me about things that matter! It's five days before the wedding; I've already turned off all local and national morning news shows and watching reruns of Frasier instead!

Really, just who is making the decisions these days? The news business has cut back by firing talented veteran news professionals the past few years. People who became honored and credible journalists dedicated to bringing quality news to viewers and readers for decades. The money saved has been invested instead in making sure we know what underwear Kate's wearing on wedding night.

It's deplorable.

In America alone, we are intricately involved/engaged in several major wars; $5 gas prices have quickly become the norm; tornadoes have destroyed entire towns; we have yet to determine the complete economic, environmental and humanitarian impact of Japan's earthquake and nuclear disasters; we are continually told the economy is improving but can't figure out what we're doing wrong because all our cutbacks aren't helping our families stay afloat financially; and beautiful young women are vanishing without explanation. Emerging us in the royal wedding is … insulting.

Here's my initial television wish list:

- Don't bury me in tearjerker scenarios by exploiting the disadvantaged

- Stop trying to convince me that "Cougar Town," "30 Rock," "Mad Love," "Mr. Sunshine," and "Parks & Recreation" are quality television. Overly frantic or pot-induced scenarios do not equal funny or entertaining.

- More first-run episodes of current programming. There are some shows on their third play of episodes that were new at season's start.

- Use your brain and don't cancel a show with as great potential and star power as "The Paul Reiser Show" after two runs. Yeah, it needs a bit of tweaking but it's got much better bones than 75% of anything else making an appearance these days. (Such a bone head, knee jerk reaction to pull it.)

- Stop taking the lowest common denominator of female and focusing on their despicably vile behavior, then make sure they receive millions of dollars and unending attention for the effort

- Tell me how to stay sane in the most frightening of economies; with the most apathetic of authorities; the least inattentive and uncooperative of vendors, salespeople and service people; and help us understand why the most vigorous of us are ready to collapse in a heap on the floor from all the stress.

Just in case you think I'm no youngster and not hip enough to know what's worth viewing, I watch more television across the board and generations than most. It's people my age who are still watching television these days and should have some consideration in programming content. My voice can't be the only one shouting.

Ageism & Discrimination in the News Business

You would have to be extremely clueless to know the news industry and not see the rampant discrimination. Ageism has been par for the course for a long time. Does one need to go back to the Norville-Pauley days to recognize it? Norville essentially has since proven herself in many ways, although she suffered "reverse ageism backlash" more than most. (That was so long ago that Norville now has to be the one looking for the "little pishers" trying to edge her out of the way.)

Kaity Tong remains a reputable, likeable newsperson, as does Marchiano in Sports and even Watkins as an anchor. (Watkins' contract, BTW, has NOT been renewed.) Kaity can still hold her own anywhere. None of the people mentioned in the article really look their age. (Can Kaity TRULY be almost 60???)

This being said, WPIX news is a train wreck and has been for quite some time. I believe it's more technically-induced than anchor-initiated but something's not right somewhere. I have literally watched the 10pm news fall apart mid-cast and the spirit of the anchors along with it. Methinks letting Berlamino go was a wise move because of this.

I watch WCBS and WABC news most frequently and although WABC has been riddled with tech problems for a while (appears to be more switcher and automation related than anything), their reporting and anchors remain professionally solid. (Except for the major Good Morning America faux pas last week during which Robin Roberts spread the word that "26 billion--1 out of every 7 people in the world--will be watching World Cup Soccer events at some point over the next 30 days..." I had just woken up in my autoimmune-disease-fog-ridden-state and knew how out of whack such a stat was. There are less than 6.9 billion people in the entire world!! But I digress...)

At least WABC appears faithful to their "oldtimers" more than most stations. And with good reason. You'd be a fool to let go of solid journalists the likes of a Diana Williams.

WCBS seems to ask the most of their anchors (Mary Calvi & Chris Wragge especially) and they come through with flying colors. They're solid, likeable and I sure hope they're getting paid for keeping the local news afloat (and in Wragge's case, the The Early Show Weekend... he's anchored the 11:00 news on a Friday and manages to co-anchor network at 7am the next morning with style and professionalism).

I worked behind the camera in news for several years and I can tell you that the industry kills many of its most dedicated. It took the best years I had left. Because I let it. Dedication to this or any job at the sacrifice of your health and mental well-being (regardless of your desire to make an impact and do good for others) is a mistake. I still physically suffer now (SEVEN YEARS LATER) and hardly anyone I worked with has looked back--despite the fact that I sourced THREE emmy-award winning stories before I left and few have even whispered my name.

Am I bitter? No, I'm really not. I let what happened to me happen. All I needed to do was walk away. Instead I stayed until I could barely crawl away. A word of warning to all: Monitor your health. No story, news director, paycheck... nothing is worth your health. Just look at the list of wonderful news people (not just in the large markets) who died from cancer... When your body's talking, listen. Don't put off a doctor's appointment to share the next big story. Because the one after that could be YOUR obit.

But a healthy older person who still has the chops... There's no reason for them to be drummed out and shame on all who think that's the way to go. Hope it bites you in the a$$ but good. Karma's a sonofagun. I just may smirk as I see it do its work.

Now if only someone at PIX could explain why anyone thought the scandal-mired Mendte was a good idea... I really try not to be mean but he was a washed up blowhard way before he made his way across the East River to share his mindless drivel on the airwaves--and get paid for it???