Why Is Anderson Cooper Doing This To Himself? And why is Anderson Cooper letting his show be produced in this horrible way? CNN moved him to 10 p.m. a while ago. I've been watching it again quite a bit, for the last month of the election in particular—I'd taken some time off after saturating in the earlier incarnation of the show for a profile way back in spring of 2004. He did a nice job in a lot of the earlier evening broadcasts during the election, particularly the debates. But that's over now, and his show is this terrible shell that he's now left with.
In his first hour, he's up against Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and Greta van Susteren (ugh) on Fox. In his second hour, he's up against repeats. CNN put out for their October numbers that "At 11p, the second hour of Anderson Cooper 360 ranked first with 770k versus FNC's O'Reilly Factor repeat 597k and MSBNC's repeat of Rachael [sic] Maddow trailed with 351k." Hmm. Well. Give me a webcam and I bet I could beat some reruns too!
Right now, his show is pretty much everything it shouldn't be, and I suspect he knows it. The relentless story-teasing of things that are coming "after the break" and "in the next hour" is awful—it's like a 4:45 p.m. promo for a small-town affiliate's local news program. The constant use of the phrase "breaking news" applied to items of dubious news value that were perhaps "breaking" between five and eight hours ago is insulting and actually enraging. Apparently there is also a live in-studio webcam, which I will never turn to, and there is a young woman with very smart glasses who comes and delivers little "breaking news" updates that I have already read on the internet in the afternoon elsewhere. Recently she brought in her dog.
This show is 1. nothing like what Anderson Cooper wanted to do with T.V. news and 2. incredibly uninformative, though it is soothing to pass out to. Except that I find myself falling asleep to the rerun of Rachel Maddow more frequently. The saddest problem is that this show advances none of his goals for journalism. His contract is up next year or the year after, I think, and he should quit the network before it's up and get off the T.V. and found a web channel of his own. He doesn't need the network and its bullshit strictures and formats: he should bail out himself during the recession and build his own business.
You are sooo right. I think Rachel Maddow has put the fork into the notion of coyly hiding behind whatever it is that AC has been hiding from, at least on the gay front. Whatever bravado and clarity he ever brought to the news is tainted by an aura of cowardice that clings to anyone like him; the era of 1950s-1990s hard personal/professional lines in journalism has been obliterated by the internet and those who pretend otherwise will be left in the dust. (Omg, sorry if it's too early to be so melodramatic.)
That's a great idea: you with a webcam. I would watch it.
—Bruce C. November 20, 2008 10:54 AM.
Anderson probably can't go back to the vital program he had back in 2003, but I like the idea of him having his own channel, he's an interesting guy who seems to be straitjacketed by CNN.
—Eldorado59970. November 20, 2008 11:53 PM.
Here's something else to think about. Anderson Cooper's the only one of those guys, including Wolf Blitzer, Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Chuck Todd, who's genuinely witty. None of the other guys actually has a deft way with an ad-lib. Anderson does.
You complained of two of my pet peeves: Next, coming up after the break... and: Breaking News!!!! I think the evening entertainment shows are really only six minutes of news (if you can call it that), if that. They spend most of the half-hour telling you eleven times that the huge story of the week is "coming up."
Dennis
—Dennis Siple. December 3, 2008 6:11 PM.
Here's something for you to think of, Martin: why just compare Cooper's wit to the "guys"? There were two people named in the post who you ignored completely. Granted, Van Susteren has no wit to speak of, but Maddow has it in spades. You left her out of you comment because...?
—Barb. December 3, 2008 9:19 PM.
I read your LA Times bland-a-view (28 Dec 2008) with Anderson Cooper. It's been doing the Andertraps. You probably did as well as anyone else could have. Could he have been more deflective of the questions?
Sounded more like he was posturing and maintaining publicy while he had a week off CNN. What was it supposed to achieve?
You are sooo right. I think Rachel Maddow has put the fork into the notion of coyly hiding behind whatever it is that AC has been hiding from, at least on the gay front. Whatever bravado and clarity he ever brought to the news is tainted by an aura of cowardice that clings to anyone like him; the era of 1950s-1990s hard personal/professional lines in journalism has been obliterated by the internet and those who pretend otherwise will be left in the dust. (Omg, sorry if it's too early to be so melodramatic.)
—The Gay Recluse. November 20, 2008 9:37 AM.That's a great idea: you with a webcam. I would watch it.
—Bruce C. November 20, 2008 10:54 AM.Anderson probably can't go back to the vital program he had back in 2003, but I like the idea of him having his own channel, he's an interesting guy who seems to be straitjacketed by CNN.
—Eldorado59970. November 20, 2008 11:53 PM.Here's something else to think about. Anderson Cooper's the only one of those guys, including Wolf Blitzer, Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Chuck Todd, who's genuinely witty. None of the other guys actually has a deft way with an ad-lib. Anderson does.
—Martin. November 29, 2008 6:16 PM.You complained of two of my pet peeves: Next, coming up after the break... and: Breaking News!!!! I think the evening entertainment shows are really only six minutes of news (if you can call it that), if that. They spend most of the half-hour telling you eleven times that the huge story of the week is "coming up."
Dennis
—Dennis Siple. December 3, 2008 6:11 PM.Here's something for you to think of, Martin: why just compare Cooper's wit to the "guys"? There were two people named in the post who you ignored completely. Granted, Van Susteren has no wit to speak of, but Maddow has it in spades. You left her out of you comment because...?
—Barb. December 3, 2008 9:19 PM.I read your LA Times bland-a-view (28 Dec 2008) with Anderson Cooper. It's been doing the Andertraps. You probably did as well as anyone else could have. Could he have been more deflective of the questions?
Sounded more like he was posturing and maintaining publicy while he had a week off CNN. What was it supposed to achieve?
—Moley Willows. December 28, 2008 10:34 PM.