Yesterday I was as close to Ryan Seacrest as I'll probably ever get. I was quoted in a story in the New York Times about rumors Seacrest might succeed Matt Lauer as host of Today on NBC. The celebrity beat is not my normal bailiwick, but the Seacrest story raises some serious questions about Comcast's commitment to news.
A year ago, when Comcast was pushing through its multibillion-dollar mega-merger with NBC (with an assist from future in-house lobbyist Meredith Attwell Baker), the company promised that it wouldn't interfere with the news operations. It didn't say anything about possibly abandoning them altogether.
Ryan Seacrest might be great at shilling for Ford and Coke in between warbling amateur musical segments, and he seems to be a decent stand-in for Casey Kasem on America's Top 40. But are we really supposed to believe that qualifies him to interview presidents and national leaders? Is Seacrest going to anchor from Kabul or Baghdad or lead coverage during moments of crisis like terrorist attacks?
No question Matt Lauer does the soft-focus Hollywood interviews and cooking segments, too. But at least he has some track record as a journalist.
There's already far too much shallow, horse-race coverage of politics and issues of national importance. Instead of worrying about this trend and what it might mean for the health of our democracy, the new owner of NBC seems determined to take an already shrinking news division and turn it into a reality-TV set. I assume it's just a matter of time before Paula Abdul rolls her chair in next to David Gregory on Meet the Press.
Comcast was singing a different, er, tune last year when it was trying to get government sign-off on the NBC takeover. The company even won support from the deal in part on a promise to help support local news nonprofits. This was a calculated move to get the deal approved, but Comcast does seem to be supporting some worthy partnerships. Still, as my colleague Josh Stearns has detailed, these arrangements hardly outweigh the damage of that deal to local news and independent voices.
So which story tells us more about Comcast's priorities -- Seacrest or the nascent nonprofit partnerships? Well, imagine if instead of wooing Seacrest, Comcast-NBC took all the money he'll make and redirected it to newsgathering. How many investigative projects and foreign bureaus could that cash fund?
I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that Comcast thinks Seacrest is a natural fit for the newsroom. After all, Comcast also thinks Chelsea Clinton, who has always shied away from the press, is qualified to be a reporter because she's the daughter of a former president and the current secretary of state. And for balance, Comcast has Jenna Bush and Meghan McCain on the payroll, too.
Why stop with Seacrest? Once upon a time in the 1950s, NBC let a monkey co-host Today with Dave Garroway. And the ratings were way better back then.
J. Fred Muggs, call your agent.
Follow Craig Aaron on Twitter: www.twitter.com/notaaroncraig
The anxiety over Ryan Seacrest joining The Today Show makes no sense. The Today Show is no more a news show than a reality show is about reality.
Seacrest will do just fine.
Mind you we are talking about filling the role as the lead interviewer for The Today Show. To sit and make the assumption that a person, who happens to host a pop show inherently means that they are unfit to even be considered for a news program, even if that program is The Today Show, is about as clear an example of your irrelevance in any discussion as I can come up with.
Last I checked, Anderson Cooper got his first break as the host of "The Mole" on ABC and a fill-in for Regis Philbin.
Yes, Seacrest doesn't have the "journalistic chops"; according to Wikipedia, he went to UGA, to study journalism, for all of one year.
Still, the man's been in the radio business for 20 years, learned the craft from a relative "who's who" of talents and been successful, and he's proven to be an effective producer, of content, in his own right.
To argue that his skills, particularly his successes in radio, are not fit to even be considered for the lead interviewer role on The Today Show, just because he hasn't had the experience of being shot at, as an in-bed journalist in some moribund country, clearly demonstrates that you're noting more than a foolish person, disheartened with the fact that your "status" leaves with nothing more than a half-inflated reach on HuffPost.
It must really suck, to never have experienced being successful at anything.
That happened in 1996. It was a very heated ethical debate. Today, most producers at that level aren't anywhere near the ballpark of the capability doing that kind of story.
Now if you would have told me back then that in only 15 years, we would have gone so far down the rabbit hole that an entertainment host in the same category as Mario Lopez could be handed a key network broadcast journalism position, I would have said you were crazy.
The trick is to not rely solely on any one news source. They all have some gaping shortcomings. Instead, take the time to consume several sources and keep a watch for the BS they all dispense from time to time.
Everyone is on a tranquilizer or something ?