Recently in Lindsay Sax Category

"John Calpri is going to Kentucky from Memphis."

Yeah, Calpri, not Calipari. This happened when I was watching the 6pm news Tuesday, March 31; the sports anchor mispronounced the coach's name. But by the 10pm newscast, his mistake was corrected. This isn't the first time it's happened to KMBC sports anchor Len Dawson though; it seems to be an almost nightly thing. My dad says he needs to retire, he's too old; he can't pronounce anyone's name. But you can't legally fire someone for being too old. But should you be able to reduce air time for older newscasters? I know for my dad he would like that, he hates watching Len Dawson.  

The Age Discrimination Act says that you can't discriminate based on someone's age for people 40 and older, including firing, hiring, promotions, assignments, and benefits. This seems like a good rule to have in place, but what about in the media business where things are a changing and new skills are being required and bosses are expecting more from their workers?

In December 2005, George Hayes learned that was being fired from ad agency McCann Erickson. He was given the reason "Hayes did not have the 'skill set' needed to remain employed by McCann Erickson."  

In May 2006, he sued McCann Erickson for age discrimination. Claiming "[CEO Nick Brein] valued youth instead of experience and desired younger persons in place of older persons and acted upon his discriminatory preferences by terminating older persons because of their age."

Hayes was 54, and probably not technologically challenged, and with the right training he could have done the job that was being asked. Within media companies, like McCann Erickson, training should be provided for older employees who have been loyal to the company and know the ins and outs of the business. Or with the sagging economy, older employees could take a pay cut and new employees could be added to do the jobs that the older workers aren't getting trained to do.  Hayes and McCann Erickson settled out of court in November 2008. Hayes was discriminated against and that's not right.  

But what about newscasters? Once they reach a certain age, it gets harder to read the teleprompter, more energy is required to go out and interview and film videos, your speech isn't as crisp. Should the discrimination act apply to them? Of course it should, but with diminished performance, on camera time should be lessened, but with their performance cited as the reason, not they are just old.

Len Dawson isn't retiring, but he's going to be stepping away from the anchor desk and just work about 85 days a year, mostly during Chiefs season. This is the right decision for him, he is 73 years old.

But on the other side of the desk at KMBC, Maria Antonia, 49, is suing KMBC for age discrimination. She was removed from her anchor position to a reporter and was told that she might be able to anchor on sister station KCWE. When the time came for a new anchor, it was given to a younger worker.

Having grown up watching KMBC and still watching today, there is no evidence in my mind to say that her performance was slipping to earn this change in position. And the age discrimination suit is justifiable.

Giving the news is an important job, it's critical to getting out important information to the people. If you can't speak to the audience, the information isn't getting out there, which is where the younger workers are going to be valuable. While older anchors are seen as reliable and trustworthy because they are well known in the community. There needs to come a time where it's ok to say to the older anchors, you need to step down, as long as their performance is stumbling. If I'm trying to figure out who the anchor is talking about I ended up not knowing of the story and isn't that the point of the news, to learn the story?

I watch "Gossip Girl" every Monday night. I have since it started. I had no idea that it was based off a book till my friend pointed it out one night. She said she watched one episode and it was nothing like the book and not worth her time watching. A little harsh I thought. But then I read the books too. And I will say that the books were a lot more interesting and relatable. As I read I wasn't able to see the characters in my head, I only who they were on TV. Isn't the fun part of reading seeing the characters in your head?

Synergy- Cooperative interaction among groups, especially among the acquired subsidiaries or merged parts of a corporation, that creates an enhanced combined effect. This is good for corporations; they are getting more media content and not having to pay as much, but is this good for the public?

Page 124 in "The Business of Media" by David Croteau, he talks about synergy and how a book manuscript can be turned into a movie, TV series, and a computer game. He also says "The result is that project ideas now often live or die based on how well they can be exploited across media-rather than how 'good' they are on their own terms." This is fine and dandy for the public who like a book and want to see the movie version and play the video game. But eventually this concept is going to get old and the public are going to want new ideas, and want to read a book that isn't movie worthy.

 

There are only so many books and comics out there that corporations can make into movies. While these corporations may have a best seller, does that mean that readers want to see it made into a movie? An online poll shows that 52% of people like to read the book before watching the movie, 5% watch the movie then read the book, and the rest it varied. But it's the comments that are interesting. Most people say that the book is better than the movie. This makes me think that maybe movie companies should just stick to making original movies. People are reading less and less it seems, so synergy could be contributing to this. Why read the book for class when you can watch the movie in less time and still come out with the same themes?

Of the top 10 grossing movies of 2008, 4 were based on a book or comic and 3 more were sequels to already famous franchises, Indiana Jones and the James Bond movie. Obviously people want to see these stories turned into a new media, and it is really good for those people who really enjoy "Batman" and "Iron Man," but I feel like people are getting cheated a little.                                                                 

 If corporations keep basing movies off of ideas that are already out there and people have read, are they going to be able to continue to make remakes of books and keep making money? There are fewer original movies out there it seems like, and this isn't good for the movie viewing public. Pretty soon we are going to be seeing the same things over and over again, all because corporations already own some ideas and want more money off of these ideas.

But it also goes the other way for these companies too. The top 4 best selling books according to USA Today through February 22, 2009 are the Twilight series. With "Watchmen" and "Confessions of a Shopaholic" in the top 20. I had never heard of "Twilight" till the movie came out and I had no idea it was book, but it's a best seller. Making these books into movies are good for the public, it seems like we are reading more.  

 

Synergy is bad for book readers, movie viewers, and video gamers who want something new, not something old that's been around.

For the case of "Gossip Girl" with my friend, it's one viewer they are lost, and another show gained, maybe an original show. But the "Gossip Girl" books series has gained a reader in me. Could the media markets be stronger and more competitive if they didn't synergize?