Sometimes things just don't work. Sometimes they don't work and they never will. Sometimes they don't work but they fix themselves. TV watchers should be highly familiar with those two principles because they describe about 65% of any network's offering each year.
In The Motherhood is ABC's new sitcom starring Megan Mullaly (Karen of
Will & Grace), Cherly Hines (
Curb Your Enthusiasm) and Jessica St. Clair. The three play mothers in this six-week sitcom which may or may not be back next fall. The first episode was a nightmare and even resulted in complaints to ABC from angry parents upset over the 'realities' of Santa Clause being explored in the first hour of prime time. That first Thursday episode did not work and no amount of spin can hide that.
Another thing that really did not work was PBS'
NewsHour Friday. Two consecutive segments really underscored this. The
first segment was the 'reporting' on the torture memos. For this Margaret Warner sat down with NPR reporter Ari Shapiro for an alleged report. Warner introduced the segment by noting, "In the US and around the world, there was angry reaction today to the Obama administration's decision to release top secret memos authorizing extreme interrogation techniques during the Bush administration and to the decision not to prosecute any CIA operatives who used those techniques."
Despite referring to the anger over "the decision not to prosecute any CIA operatives who used those techniques" in the introduction, that aspect was never addressed. Warner and Shapiro would discuss how "former CIA Director Michael Hayden and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey" objecting to the release "in a
Wall Street Journal" column, they refused to note any of the domestic "angry reaction"s. Hayden and Mukasey are quoted but domestic groups are avoided. Yes, an international group was quoted. And we're not foolish enough to believe that some American presented with this topic would give equal weight to the opinions of an international organization most have never heard of: The International Commission of Jurists. The whole point of that unequal "on the one hand, on the other" was to present some international body 'interfering' with (US) domestic affairs versus the concerns of former US government officials. The segment was an embarrassment. We'll praise both the use of Ari Shapiro (NPR needs to be the first go-to for PBS when booking journalists) and the summaries of the memos he provided. However . . .
The segment opened with Warner telling us there was anger over the decision not to prosecute and we never heard about that. Warner and Shapiro did feel the need to lump Obama, Leon Panetta (CIA chief), Attorney General Eric Holder's actions were 'explained' and we also heard more about why the memos should not have been released. At no point did we get an exploration of why there was domestic objection to a lack of prosecution or what that meant.
That silence was not an accident. It was intentional and you grasped that in the crap-fest which followed. We don't generally term segments on
The NewsHour a "crap-fest." There are many times when we feel it is to right-wing centered (many, many times). There are many times when we feel it misses the point in discussions. But "crap-fest" is the only term for what Judy Woodruff moderated following Warner and Shapiro's discussion.
Why is that?
It was now time for a
panel discussion. As usual, the roundtable leaned right. Leaned right? It tipped over. But we expect that from
The NewsHour. What we don't expect is a crap-fest.
A crap-fest, as we explained to two on the CPB when we complained about this segment over the phone Saturday, is a segment which staffs a panel with unqualified panelists.
Neither Ruth Marcus nor Micheal Gerson, two general interest columnist for
The Washington Post, were qualified to speak of this issue.
Leaving aside everything else, they were not qualified to speak on this issue. They are not law professors, they are not experts in the field in criminal law or international law. They are two general interest columnists. Ruth Marcus is also a world class eater but this wasn't a cooking segment (though it ranked right up there with those CNN cooking bits for worst Judy Woodruff moment ever caught on tape).
Some might want to say, "Forget what they cover, do you know, for example, Ruth . . ."
Some? A CPB board member. Don't give us Ruth's CV, we're quite familiar. We're also familiar with the rumors -- rumors the press has ignored but which have been all over DC for six years now -- that the Federal Trade Commission had assisted in some form with illegal internet spying. And the illegal spying and the torture are not a la cart issues. They are a combo platter. The illegal spying turned up 'intel' which gave the go-ahead for the torture which turned up 'intel' that led to more illegal spying. The mistake, and any informed person in DC can tell you this, is treating the torture and illegal spying as two different issues when both criminal acts worked together and side-by-side. What does the FTC have to do with Ruth? Jon Leibowitz is her husband, he chairs the FTC.
That wasn't revealed. Wow, Ruth would be opposed to the prosecution of government workers who broke the law. Imagine that. And PBS viewers were never informed that Ruth, insisting government workers shouldn't be prosecuted, was in fact married to the FTC chair. That disclosure not only should have been made, it should have prevented Ruth from being booked on the show.
Michael Gerson was allowed to sit there without the audience ever being informed of his connections to the Bush White House. The Bush White House was the one that okayed the illegal torture so someone who wrote George W. Bush's speeches and advised on policy (and was a member of the White House Iraq Group) from 2001 through 2006.
PBS ignored disclosure but they also ignored the need to book informed guests. There was no excuse for it.
Michael Gerson didn't think the memos should have been released and that there should be no prosecution. Ruth waddled over to the right-of-center to agree with no prosecution but she was glad the memos were out.
Ruth wanted to insist that she was like Barack and to climb on the cross by declaring, "And he opened himself up to a firestorm of criticism from the left that he was -- I know actually how much criticism you can get for this, because I wrote a few months ago that I didn't think these folks should be prosecuted, and I was called a torture-enabler. And I don't think of myself that way. And so the left is very unhappy about the failure of prosecutions. They're latching on to this hope that maybe some of the higher-ups will be prosecuted, and I honestly do not think that that's going to happen."
That may have been the all time low: The torture memos reduced to Ruth's hurt feelings.
Viewers never got told why some domestic groups might object to a failure to prosecute but the program did make time for Ruth to whine and what's less attractive than a fat ass whining on TV?
You never heard the argument for prosecution and you never heard why the memos were released. You allegedly heard legal arguments, you allegedly heard informed discussions, but you really didn't.
This continued on
Washington Week where Pete Williams (NBC News) was served up as the expert. Williams informed of the memos, "most of what they described we already knew." Really? Does Williams listen to himself? He doesn't appear to.
One of Gwen's gaggle of male guests (eunuchs?) brought up
The Wall St. Journal column and declared that, "Hayden's point was that al Qaeda now knows what the limits of our interrogation policy now are and they can train to them. Is there anything to that argument?"
Pete responded, "Yeah, his logic is that uh that now the bad guys in essence know that we'll try to scare them, we'll try to pretend like we might hurt them but that we really won't. We'll just try to make it really bad and they'll prepare for that and they'll train for that. The -- the administration's argument to that is, 'Well, guess what? We're just not going to do that anymore. They don't believe that this is effective and they believe that it's illegal so therefore it doesn't matter if they train to it because we're not going to do it anymore. Hayden's point, however is that now by this action the Obama administration has tied any future president's hands who might want to do this."
The obvious question to ask after that is, "Pete, you just said that the memos described what everyone already knew. So which is it?" The obvious question is never asked on
Washington Week. In fact, you might say Gwen's made her career out of never asking an obvious or needed question (those who doubt it should check out her 2004 and 2008 vice presidential debate moderating).
"The ACLU, which is the organization that sued, their lawsuit caused these documents to be released," Pete said in passing and that was time for someone to holler, "Stop!" No one did.
It was more important that we get Pete Williams offering the CIA's argument, waxing on about how releasing some documents mean others will be requested: "This is the same thing by the way that the intelligence community
warned against. They said, 'Once you open this door it's going to be very hard for you to suddenly say no more'."
Despite devoting over six minutes to this topic,
Washington Week couldn't broadcast reality. Their web extra (six minutes and two seconds) did a bit better by responding to "Robin in Ohio" who wrote in wondering what the "real reason" for the release of the torture memos was? Pete gas bagged, "I think partly transparency and partly to show that there's a new sheriff in town."
He continued gas bagging at length before winding down with, "Now the other thing is that they were sued by the ACLU so this was in essence a court order."
Yeah, it was a court order.
We'll come back to it. First let's note some of the domestic objections.
Debra Sweet (World Can't Wait): "And, given that Obama is releasing these memos AT THE SAME TIME as he is officially announcing he won't prosecute those who carried all of this out means --in my view - - that nobody familiar with the release of these memos can any longer claim honest confusion about whether or not Obama represents 'change'." The
Center for Constitutional Rights president
Michael Ratner: "In making the decision not to prosecute, President Obama is acting as jury, judge and prosecutor. It is not his decision to make. Whether or not to prosecute law breakers is not a political decision. Laws were broken and crimes were committed. If we are truly a nation of laws as he is fond of saying, a prosecutor needs to be appointed and the decisions regarding the guilt of those involved in the torture program should be decided in a court of law."
National Lawyers Guild member and GI Rights attorney James Branum: "President Obama and AG Holder are in my opinion now complicit in these crimes. Their argument that the CIA agents were relying on legal advice is a crock of ****. I'm sure Nazi lawyers said the holocaust was 'legal' too." When laws are broken without punishment, what message is sent? What precedent is set with Barack's decision? Will future criminals working for the government point out that the US allowed and later admitted to torture, refused to prosecute anyone and, therefore, no government employee or official can now be prosecuted for anything? And
Adam Kokesh (Revolutionary Patriot) looks to the immediate future with his observations:
Please consider for just one second why Obama would not seek accountability and establish precedent that torture will not be tolerated. It is because he plans to continue the same basic policies! Obama is working to deny detainees at Bagram their right to habeas corpus. Obama is keeping open secretive prisons within the US called Communcation Management Units in Indiana and Illinois which inmates refer to as "little Guantanamos." Obama has declared his intent to continue the practice of rendition of victims to other countries to be tortured. His largely symbolic closing of the facility at Guantanamo will do nothing to change our image around the world when our travesty of a justice system continues to produce torture victims. Perhaps Bush did not know better, but as a scholar of Constitutional Law, Obama must know that he is crossing numerous lines.And Adam Kokesh may be correct and is certainly correct to worry. If you're not worried you must have lived somewhere other than planet earth for the last eight years. The American Civil Liberties Union encourages people to "demand accountability for torture" and it's a one-click way to register your objections.
The domestic objections are about the law -- about the need to follow the laws. It's really funny how domestic objection to prosecution was avoided by both The NewsHour and Washington Week but they had time to be the voice of the intelligence community over and over. It's really strange how the actual broadcasts over PBS stations failed to address the fact that a court of law had decided these memos would be released.
Pete Williams whined for the intelligence community as did Ruth and Michael. No gas bag represented the people (but that's a given on PBS) and no gas bag spoke for the people and organizations objecting to the failure to prosecute; however, even more shocking, PBS rendered one branch of our federal government silent: The judicial branch.
The memos were released because a court of law determined they needed to be released. In other words, their release was THE LAW.
It's a point alleged law abiders Ruth, Michael and Pete never thought to address. The rule of law was never explored or even mentioned.
And yet they wanted to pretend they actually had informed discussions, that they actually presented anything of value. As we noted at the top, "Sometimes things just don't work. Sometimes they don't work and they never will." Last week that appeared to describe PBS and its news and public affairs programming.
"Sometimes things just don't work. . . . Sometimes they don't work but they fix themselves." That actually describes In The Motherhood. After a lousy first episode, it's already improved.
Along with the three lead characters, the cast is rounded out by RonReaco Lee and Horatio Sanz.
Megan is Rosemary whose friend Jane (Cheryl Hines) has a manny-nanny (Horatio) and whose sister Emily (Jessica St. Clair) is married to Jason (RonReaco Lee). After the first episode, you'd be forgiven for wondering how and why Jessica St. Clair was hired? It was not a good showcase for anyone but St. Clair came off the worst.
Fortunately, episode two found her on stronger footing and she's also benefited by the fact that stay-at-home Mom Emily now has a strong nemesis. She'd benefit even further were Jason given more time since the two have a realistic chemistry. The character of Jane was weakly written and weakly performed in the first episode. Not badly, just weakly. Hines has found her footing and the writers are getting there. The best moments for her involve Jane in the work environment. Horatio Sanz has consistently been a standout and a surprise in a role that was written as a Murphy Brown cast-off (Eldon).
But the reason to watch from the beginning has been Megan.
Megan Mullaly created the character of Karen Walker who now resides in sitcom heaven and, knowing Karen, probably presides over sitcom heaven -- at least the fashionable parts. Since Will & Grace left the air, she's tried her hand at a daytime talk show and done some guest spots. This is her return. Rosemary is a character that the writers are attempting to feel out. That happened with Karen Walker as well and, as before, Megan had a handle on the role before the writers did. But the writers have proven to be amazingly quick studies. So much so that you have to wonder why ABC didn't just scrap the first episode?
Everyone is so far ahead of what they were doing then that the pilot seems now to have been for another show.
Rosemary is the breakout character. Unlike Karen, Rosemary's not wealthy. She is wild and it's been letting those moments out that have helped take the show from whimsical to gut-bustingly funny. Whether it was Rosemary's punk rock group showing up to play for a school benefit or Rosemary marketing herself as Rose Mommy, a sort of Child Whisperer for on edge mothers, the show has rocked it in a way that you rarely see on TV.
The punk rock group episode was a win all the way around. Jason actually got to leave the house. Emily, who lives a life of perfection, met her nemesis (and things will never be the same). Jane and Horatio had to work through her strengths and her weaknesses and audiences learned to she could snap as quickly as she could simp. If Jane has one weakness, it's being a bit of simp and she really requires Rosemary or Horatio to give her strength in those scenes. (Note, there are child actors in this show. We do not comment on the performances of children -- good or bad.)
This Thursday, Rosemary has a wonderful bit where she laments never being allowed to participate in the children's car pool. (She drives a motorcycle.) It's not the giddy high that her organizing the nannies to unionize was but it's got plenty of laughs. It's also probably the best of the six episodes for Hines. If you checked out the first episode, we'd understand you're being doubtful about giving the show a second chance. On the plus, few of you bothered to check out the show (judging by the ratings). Each week has seen less and less viewers until last Thursday which actually reversed the downward trend. We think that has a lot to do with Rosemary's punk rock band and Emily's nemesis. That strong episode actually resulted in some good word of mouth allowing last Thursday's episode to actually increase viewers.
That could happen every week if ABC would put some faith in this show. The suits are currently attempting to figure out whether to ditch it or fine tune it. We'd argue for keeping it and argue against recasting. The first episode was the problem, not any of the actresses or actors. If they want to fine tune, they can do the smart thing and put it in front of a studio audience.
Some of the fumbling in the first episode would never have taken place if the show had been filmed before an audience. As some of those moments dragged and dragged, writers would have been summoned immediately to create new lines and business would have been improvised. Instead, you had a flat, static pilot. The show reminds us a lot of season one of Newhart. They ended up switching the way the show was shot for the second season which improved things tremendously. They also had the good fortune of Julia Duffy guest starring in the first season and everyone grasping her character (Stephanie) was much more interesting than at least one regular character. As a result, season two opened with a two-parter on Stephanie's return to the inn (and Bob Newhart's character attempting to ghost writer a famous actress' autobiography) which turned the show around. It established the Newhart America would love.
In The Motherhood doesn't need to go in search of a Stephanie character or a Julia Duffy. They actually have everything they need for a hit show except for a studio audience. Comedy really requires an extra spark and one of the reason 'droll' and 'whimiscal' abounds so in all non-CBS comedies these days is because they're insular worlds where the writers perform for one another, for back slaps over how clever they were, as opposed to actually attempting to make the people at home laugh. In The Motherhood needs a studio audience and ABC needs to grasp what it actually is and end its identity panic.
