Saturday, January 06, 2007
Indiana Week In Review Musical Chairs
AI has been pretty tough on the "Indiana Week In Review" panel in the past, but the panel moderated by WISH-TV's Jim Shella brought in two guests this week, Abdul Hakim Shabazz and Lesley Stedman Weidenbener, in place of John Ketzenberger and Jon Schwantes. I thought the perspectives offered by these two added much more to the discussion. They certainly succeeded in getting Ann DeLaney worked up. I would be curious to hear your reaction and whether you think these should be permanent changes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I personally would like to see everyone rotated in and out. The main panel is all white, with one female. It would be nice to get some other folks on there. Like Jen from TDW, Amos Brown, etc.. Not sure if they would take the offer, but it would be nice to see a wide group of folks. I think it would help show everyone that there are even different folks within the party. For example, Ann represents the Socialist/Democrat party while Mike represents the Conservative/Republican party. The thing is that Ann seems to lean a lot more left than Mike does right. Maybe it is just me.
Personally, I hate having "representatives" of both parties. It takes a lot for them to admit their party has done something wrong and/or that maybe they were wrong in their thinking. One example is the toll road. Ann blasted away about how pissed Hoosiers were, but yet not one Republican lost their state seat in those districts. Ann then said "Yea, but you spent a lot of money!" That might be true, but if people were really that pissed, that money should have been a total waste. Instead, it showed how wrong the Democrat party was when telling others how pissed people up north were. Another example is the Hayhurst ad. A Dem blasting gays and their lifestyle. Ann gets very emotional in her defense of her beliefs, which is not a bad thing at all. But when this issue came up, she just kinda casually said it was wrong. Shouldn't someone representing the party of gay rights have been up in arms about this? While she likely was very upset about it, she had to keep her cool because this guy was in the party.
The format and the "regulars" are tired. Analysis is always partisan, sometimes sarcastic or nasty and occassionally underinformed. Ann has done her bit and needs to retire with dignity. Mike...the same.
The big issues need to be knit together weekly by Shella in his questioning and issue identification. That's the hard part.
As a regular and very long time viewer I find myself unable to hang on for the entire program.
I want to know what the panelists' analysis of the week's issues is and what difference the events of the week mean to those issues. For instance, crime in Indianapolis, education everyplace, policies that affect economic development, etc etc.
I am literally counting on them to focus an inquiring mind on the big issues dependance on the details.
Jim Shella has the experience to be able to move the conversation along and at the same time focus it. He does not need paid political operatives to do so like the various and sundry blog. They or their ilk would be a huge step away from honest debate.
Mike McDaniel and his nervous lower-lip biting drives me nuts. He's a hack. Always has been, always will be. Plus, hard on the eyes. (It IS television, after all)
Ann is shrill and annoying. Just like she is in real life.
Ketzenberger is wrong so much, you wonder how he gets any gigs. God knows he's not breaking a sweat writing at the paper.
And Schwantes...would someone please put a mirror under his nose, or check his pulse?
Last night's mixup panel was a much-needed departure from the norm. And paid lobbyists should always be banned. I just don't CARE what they think.
But let's not forget--this is on public TV, and probably couldn't find a home on commercial TV, sadly. The premise for the show and the mission are laudable.
Another thing--or is this just me?--I know their budget is small, but for Christ's sake could they get better michrophones and some decent sets? The five Herman Miller office chairs looks like a showroom at a discount furniture place.
If you think Ann Delaney is bad, Jen Wagner of TDW would be worse.
I've not seen the program yet, though the concept of having Abdul on there would make a refreshing change.
AI could make for an interesting host on there also. Some - no many - have the mindset of "gay" and "Republican" as mutually exclusive terms.
Wouldn't most agree if you want a Right viewpoint without a GOP political hack there is none other than me ... though I'll admit I have a better face for radio than TV.
"If you think Ann Delaney is bad, Jen Wagner of TDW would be worse."
I don't know on what basis you draw that conclusion. As the Democratic representative on the panel, there is no reason either of them should be to your liking, Sir Hailstone, as a Republican. It matters that the person be able to articulate the party's position and add something to the debate. I suspect Jen could easily do as good, if not better job than Ann.
No, I meant that between Ann and Jen, Ann is the better choice.
There are other suitable Dems out there. I hear Ed Mahern isn't doing anything nowadays.
Good to mix it up a little to keep it interesting. Keep the generally civil discussion and positive tone.
I vote for Stoned. He would be great don't you think. And with Wilson you would have a grammy winner hands down.
If you think Ketzenberger is coasting, please don't leave Shella out of that mix. Ketzenberger is so out of touch, he routinely relies on flaks for column ideas.
Shella is so lazy, his TV panel has remained unchanged for years. Why has Delaney, Murphy et al remained? The show is dated, stilted, not fresh.
In the new media driven 21st Century, political hacks aren't the best folks to discuss "issues" on a so-called politically-focused public TV show.
I think the original premise/format of the show was good. One political rep from each party, with two "neatral" media reps with Shella leading the discussion. I think origianlly it was Mary Deiter when she was Lville CJ statehouse reporter, (now Lesley's gig) and I think it was Schwantes as the other. The thing was they were both statehouse reporters with a finger on the state gov. pulse. Now Schwantes DOESN'T EVEN LIVE HERE ANYMORE (he's in IL or OH, I've heard) and commutes in for the show. Katz is also not a political/gov reporter. That's why Lesley is better when she's on. As for the political hacks, Ann was good when she had the inside track, she was a Bayh person. She is not on the inside loop of who's in power anymore-- which is why Jen or someone would be better. McDaniel can't say what he thinks b/c he's at a lobbying firm that can't PO D's in power (city, House). Get someone involved who has freedom to speak his/her mind from the R side of things.
I still think the format is good source of info & insight (though in this age if one is online all day & night & reads blogs it's OLD NEWS by the Friday show). For those who use it as a source, you get the political viewpoints and spin, with theoretically the media types to call their bluff and offer a straighter story. They just need updated paticipants.
I have always perceived "Indiana Week in Review" as the official conventional wisdom on state-level politics from "The Establishment" - it's rarely entertaining - I watch it as a necessary political chore...
Wilson why don't you contact Shella, maybe you can go on the show.
You have to be better than Delany, and the same message will get out.
I loved Abdul Hakim Shabazz! He really added some zing to the show. Lesley, on the other hand seemed nervous and didn't seem to understand how to find her place to speak. Mike and Ann are like bookends. I enjoy them both even though they are partisan hacks. Mike's 12 chins do kinda distract me, but he is funny.
On a side note, in Abdul's press photo's he looks like Alan Keyes. But he's much cuter on TV. Now I understand why he's so conceited on his radio show. :)
Post a Comment