Monday, October 1, 2007

Roh roh, Raggy! Rotten Rodcast!

One of the occasionally unpleasant parts of my job as a journalism teacher are some of the moments when a student asks me, “Do you think I can be successful at this?” That’s not an inherently awkward situation, as at least some students do in fact possess the talent to go on to illustrious careers. However, the ones I really dread are the kids who want to be sportscasters.

“Okay, here’s what you need to do,” I want to say. “Start be becoming a professional athlete. Learn to pronounce that last word with an extra syllable: ‘ath-a-lete.’ Have a career for a few years. Being a big star helps a bit but isn’t essential. Just be sure that you end up washed up, gain 50 pounds or so, and buy yourself a large collection of ugly ties that don’t go with your suits. Now you’re ready for the local news, ESPN, or any other announcer’s job that might come your way.”

Up until now, similar advice has been largely unnecessary for other journalism realms. Political commentators don’t need to have been politicians. Pundits don’t need to have done anything with their lives besides punditry. And if you want to be an entertainment journalist, it actually seems to help if you’re Ms. or Mr. Nobody-in-Particular. Just as long as you’ve got a big, toothy smile and you aren’t too fat.

But now a new danger to entertainment journalists has emerged, a threat so insidious that it could easily make the path of the sportscaster look like smooth sailing. Press junkets were never exactly the most challenging of interview opportunities, but now Entertainment Tonight has reduced them beyond absurdity. Instead of using real, live reporters, the show is now employing the M&Ms. Movie-plugging celebrities are now being interviewed by computer-animated, talking candy.

As if being an ex-jock isn’t hard enough. Now some aspiring journalists have to find a way to become imaginary pieces of chocolate.

Even more nightmarish is the notion that eventually even more high-minded news operations will tumble to the advantages offered by CGI characters. People like them, and the importance of popularity can’t be underestimated in a time when Paddy Chayevsky’s Network has gone from farce to documentary. And they’re cheap. You don’t have to provide them with health insurance or a pension plan. They don’t eat much, either.

Thus it’s only a matter of time before we see a scene like this:

VO:   This is the CBS Evening News, with the Green M&M.

GREEN:   Good evening. Tonight’s top story: more bloodshed in Iraq. Insurgents continue attacks on US and Iraqi forces in Baghdad. For the complete story, we go to our chief Iraq correspondent, computer-animated Scooby Doo. Scooby?

SCOOBY:   Rah-roh.

GREEN:   How’s the situation on the ground there? More sectarian violence?

SCOOBY:   Ruh-ruh.

GREEN:   No? Well, Scooby, we’ve got reports that several people were killed today. Is none of that happening near you somewhere?

SCOOBY:   Ruh-ruh.

GREEN:   Scooby, where are you?

SCOOBY:   Ragrad.

GREEN:   Yes, but where in Baghdad?

SCOOBY:   Reen Rone.

GREEN:   Scooby, don’t you think you should leave the Green Zone, go out into the city and get the story?

SCOOBY:   Ruh-ruh.

GREEN:   Would you do it for one Scooby Snack?

SCOOBY:   Ruh-ruh.

GREEN:   How about two Scooby Snacks?

SCOOBY:   Ruh …

And the negotiation continues.

No comments:

Post a Comment