Chronic Fatigue

One of the most disturbing hallmarks of growing older is the sad and shocking realization that younger people don't relate to your cultural touchstones.

This realization was never more evident to me than this week.  Because this week, Shirley Temple died.

The minute I saw the headline crawl across the bottom of my tv screen, I was stunned. The news hit me like an earth shattering event. Shirley Temple gone?

Immediately, the world was suddenly sharply divided into people who know and care about Shirley Temple and people who don't.  Sadly, I've discovered that I may be in the minority.

Sleeveless in Seattle (and New York, and Atlanta, and Detroit...)

Outside the Today Show studio window, the snow was coming down hard.

Inside, Today Show co-hosts Savannah Guthrie and Natalie Morales were on camera, telling millions of viewers about the latest blizzard that had gripped the East Coast.

"It's the coldest winter in recorded history!" gushed Savannah. "I know, it's just freezing...brrrrr" remarked Natalie, doing a little fake shiver.

Matt Lauer chimed in about the frigid weather, too. But he was wearing a suit.     Both of the ladies were wearing sleeveless, summery cocktail dresses. In the middle of a blizzard. In the middle of January.

I switched channels to MSNBC, only to find "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinksi sporting a bright cobalt blue sleeveless sheath dress. She looked like she was going clubbing. But instead, she was headed into a heated debate on healthcare reform with Joe Scarborough.

I hit the remote again. There was Kelly Ripa, flaunting her ripa'd biceps in a tight, sleeveless frock.

No need to check on Fox. Every woman on Fox News goes sleeveless.      Fox practically invented the "sexy anchor" look. Foxy Meghan Kelly would sooner come out in favor of gun control than appear on camera in a dress that covered her well toned guns.

Everytime I turn on the tv, I see female reporters and tv hosts of every age wearing the ubiquitous sleeveless sheath dress uniform. Andrea Mitchell shows up for White House briefings in skimpy sleeveless dresses. On CNN, Ashleigh Banfield routinely goes sleeveless, but balances the look with her trademark     Clark Kent glasses that say, "I'm a serious reporter. No seriously, I am."   

Recently on MSNBC, the earnest and professorial Melissa Harris-Perry uncharacteristically showed up in a halter dress so provocative, it gave the network's tagline, "Lean Forward" a whole new meaning.

Sleeveless, and its slightly more demure cousin, the tiny cap sleeve, is the          new blazer. The only holdouts I've seen are Cristiane Amanpour, Rachel Maddow and Candy Crowley. I don't think we'll see any of them rocking the sleeveless and stilletos look anytime soon. But I fear that at this very moment, Candy Crowley is being pressured by some network exec to slim down, hit the Stairmaster, and squeeze into a sexy, plus-sized number by the mid-term elections.

And the sleeveless trend isn't limited to just the gals on the national news.      Even on my local news, our less than glamorous anchorwomen flaunt their arms nightly in sleeveless dresses that scream K-mart more than couture. And needless to say, every female weather reporter would wear sleeveless even in a tsunami. Wearing tight, sexy clothes is clearly a job requirement.

Look, I know it gets hot under tv studio lights. But did the heat just recently become so intolerable that it suddenly necessiated an all-sleeveless-all-the-time wardrobe?

I don't think so.

What I think is that a) producers insist their female on-camera talent dress in an overtly sexy way, showing as much skin as possible, to boost ratings and b) many of those females spend hours in the gym and want to show off their toned upper arms.

Look, if my upper arms were ready for prime time, I might want to show          them off, too. But not every day.  And not all year long.

I still cling to the antiquated notion that some clothes are seasonally appropriate. I know, it's an outmoded concept. But I'm sticking to it. You want to wear sleeveless?  Wait till August. If it's the middle of January, I don't want to see skin. I want to see sleeves. Or better yet, a sweater.

And if you're reporting on a serious news story, sleeveless just doesn't look all      that serious. So why have news outlets traded serious for sexy?  To attract more male viewers?  Or because they can't afford to spring for dresses with sleeves? I'm all for women looking feminine and attractive on tv. But that's different from dressing like the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.

Should we blame Michelle Obama for starting the sleeveless trend?  Perhaps.     The First Lady looks great in her sleeveless dresses, and I don't blame her for flaunting her seriously toned arms while she can. But it's gone too far.

Are tv producers so desperate for viewers that they have to turn every female newscaster into a sexy bombshell? And the bigger and more disturbing question is, why are women going along with it? Why do seemingly intelligent women slavishly follow every fashion trend and try so hard to look like Kardashians while trying to sound like Edward R. Murrow?

I don't get it.

We've come a long way, baby. Which is why I long to see long sleeves.

 

 

 

When the Question is the Answer: The Dumbing Down of TV Interviews

How excited are you to read this blog post? 

Not very?  Gee, how can that be?  My question already presumes you are wildly enthusiastic about reading my latest mindless rant.

Besides, I'm just trying to keep up with the current interviewing trend. Have you noticed lately that whenever a TV interviewer asks someone a question, the interviewer inevitably structures the question to contain the precise emotion they want to hear parroted back by the interviewee? 

It usually goes something like this:

INTERVIEWER: So, you were trapped in the wilderness for three whole days. How difficult was it for you to survive on nothing but stale trail mix and Rolaids?

INTERVIEWEE:  Oh my gosh, it was really difficult. I was terrified.

INTERVIEWER:  So how amazing was it when you finally saw the rescue team arriving in the helicopter?

INTERVIEWEE:  It was pretty amazing. Honestly, I couldn't believe it.

INTERVIEWER:   And how relieved and grateful are you to be alive?

INTERVIEWEE:  Oh, I'm so relieved and grateful. Actually, it's hard to express —

INTERVIEWER: Sorry, we're out of time. Thank you again for sharing your emotions about this truly remarkable experience. And now, here's Kyla with today's weather...

This style of questioning is now commonly used to discuss virtually any topic, from the very serious to the very trivial. The more trivial the topic, the more earnestly this interview style is employed.

So it's not surprising that the "answer in the question" interview technique has become a staple of Reality TV shows. Leave it to the folks who perfected the art of fake reality to perfect pre-fabricated responses to questions.

I first noticed this phenomenon while indulging in my favorite guilty pleasure, "Dancing with the Stars" (I confess, I watch it regularly.  Please don't judge me).

On DWTS, every time a celebrity finishes their dance routine, the breathless co-host asks the celebrity dancer, "So...how nerve-racking was it to dance the Quickstep knowing that Kristi and Tony just earned perfect 10's?"  Thus forcing the celeb to answer with either, "Oh, I wasn't really that nervous..." or "I was REALLY nervous...I mean, Kristi and Tony were just awesome..." or some other variation of an answer that must, of course, include mention of said person's presumed nervousness.

Another proven way to add drama to the post-dance interview (or any interview) is to ask about the amazingness of the experience.

CO-HOST: How amazing is it to make it to the Finals after breaking your leg and puncturing a rib in Week 1?

CELEB:  Oh, it is like, soooo amazing. This whole journey has just been amazing.

Clearly, the more times someone says "amazing", "awesome", or "journey" in their answer, the better.  Because these days, no other answer (or words) will do. So it is essential to lead the respondant to the required response.

You can't even call these "leading questions". They are more like answers posing as questions.

Lest you think this style of questioning is strictly the purview of reality shows and trashy tabloid tv, you would be wrong. Because I now see it used on even so-called respectable news programs. Mercifully, you still won't see Chris Matthews or Charlie Rose posing these kinds of non-questions. But just about every other commentator or newscaster makes liberal use of the "answer in question" style question (Anderson Cooper has, of course, perfected this type of question, as have most of his colleagues at CNN).

Why is this? My first half-baked theory is that we live in a time where we have to constantly try to gin up excitement and emotions around everything. It's no longer ok to let someone tell their story in their own words. Because what if those words aren't exciting enough? That would just be too boring. Today, no one would dare risk getting an honest, unscripted answer. Hyperbole is the name of the game. Viewers have come to expect a certain amount of overwrought language and emotion. Let's face it, all of pop culture is overwrought. This is America.      It's all about amped up emotions, all the time.

Also, Americans are lazy. We don't want to have to think about the answers or parse a nuanced answer. So it's just easier when we're force fed some pre-chewed pablum in the form of an easily digestible  soundbite.

I also suspect that this particular interview style is just part of the larger linquistic trend, popularized by the young. The current fashion of commenting in the form of a question, as in "How cool was that?" or "Free donuts? How awesome would that be?" has had an insidious influence on language in general.

How certain am I about these theories?

Not very.

How annoying is it to hear this style of questioning on my tv every day and night?

Very.

How amazing would it be if interviewers allowed people to actually answer questions in their own words?

Like, so amazing.