Mischke, Leno, and the Lowbrow Factor
By Brian Lambert
The brain wizards at AM1500 are zipped up tight on the whys of the
abrupt firing of Tommy Mischke last week. "I can't say anything," was
program director Steve Konrad's mantra. (If you're in the mood, these
legalized "no comment" bits offer the opportunity for sophomoric
amusement. For example, Q: "Mr. Konrad, at least tell us it isn't true
that you were seen in a ridiculously small French swim suit poisoning
small animals on a grade school playground?" . . . A: "I can't say
anything." . . . See?)
But knowing a tiny bit about how radio works in these economically perilous times, I think we can review several options fairly quickly.
1: Mischke was a no-talent dork with no fan base and hopeless-to-nonexistent ratings.
Uh, no. Mischke, while an acquired taste and oddly placed at noon--well before his most likely listeners have enjoyed an, uh, contemplative enhancement--is a bona fide talent, a truly distinctive, literate, and poetic voice in a medium better known for rancor, ditz, and hype. Moreover, I do not suspect he was grossly overpaid relative to the revenue his show brought in. But if this was the reason, God help at least three other shows on AM1500's daily schedule.
2: Mischke was caught dealing crystal meth out of a pickup he borrowed from a drug dealer (or something like that).
Lacking any whiff of police activity, we strongly doubt it.
3: Mischke spouted one the The Seven Dirty Words, exposing Hubbard Broadcasting to one of those absurdly disproportionate, right-wing inspired FCC fines.
This is possible. But, a la Bert Blyleven, this sort of thing, as a first offense, is usually something that gets you suspended for a few days, everyone jokes about it, and the company makes a big show of setting an example for the rest of the staff.
4: Mischke wandered off in one of his stream-of-conscious monologues into territory that offended a major advertiser, whose representatives threatened to pull a big, fat chunk of advertising from the entire Hubbard system if something wasn't done.
With "I can't say anything" the official position of the day, we don't KNOW this to be true either. But in good economic times, "offending" a major advertiser--for no good reason other than a making joke--can get you demoted to the loading dock pretty fast. In rotten revenue times like today, an advertiser bringing let's say a healthy six figures a year through the door can pretty much get a five-figure "personality's" head on a pike if they want.
The big question in this scenario is: Why? As in, why would a major advertiser, a business with a high public profile, care so much about something one off-beat jock says--at noon--that it risks looking like a thug if the whole story comes to light and its identity is revealed?
Meanwhile, yesterday NBC boss Jeff Zucker announces that revenue at the media arm of General Electric is so foul (can you say, "Detroit meltdown") that it is considering cutting back on prime-time programming and rolling Jay Leno into the evening mix five nights a week, thereby also solving its dilemma with Conan O'Brien being promised Leno's spot at 10:30.
I believe I've told the story several times of cornering one network boss after another at the TV critics' dog and pony shows in L.A. and asking them why, considering the failure rate for inane sitcoms, they don't simply move their evening news to 7 p.m. (Central) and give it an hour every night? Some of the bosses, all resplendent in superbly tailored suits that faced no threat of wrinkling on the company jet ride out to L.A., gave patient, statistical answers each of which added up to: "If it hits, we can make more money on one According to Jim than a week of Brian Williams."
Zucker, an entertainment guy, was different. "Are you crazy?" was his response. The question made him laugh. It was like I had suggested running C-SPAN instead of "The Victoria's Secret Fashion Show."
NBC, of course, has MSNBC to dump all its excess news material into every night. Not so with ABC and CBS. (What Fox does with its "news," I have a hard time saying.)
The network suits understand that the prime demographic for their nightly news are commuting home from work at 5:30 (Central) and that this leaves mainly the retired and truly aged as the next most likely audience. (Watch the commercials during the evening news, and you'll think they're talking closed circuit to nursing homes.)
I may well be crazy, but I continue to think there's a better demographic (household income) available for a prime-time hour of the network news--not partisan hectoring, but news--than year after year of inane sitcoms and sorority house reality shows. Ten minutes of Brian Ross on what warnings the U.S. gave India prior to the Mumbai attacks instead of two. All of Charlie Gibson interviewing George W. instead of eight minutes and then over to the website.
Instead, Jay Leno in prime time night after night fawning over celebrities hyping new movies (thank God for movie advertising!); most of them no more entertaining than According to Jim.
The connection to Mischke is a broadcaster's commitment to legitimate value. Mischke isn't Brian Ross. But he is something like an oasis surrounded by a desert of cookie-cutter, minimal neuron predictability. The problem, particularly in distressed times, is that nervous-to-over-extended broadcasters see value only in highly familiar, low(er)brow fare. They'll tell you their advertisers demand it.
Question: The audience for According to Jim and Leno in prime time . . . I'm guessing they're not in the mood to buy a car these days. But are they even going to the movies?
But knowing a tiny bit about how radio works in these economically perilous times, I think we can review several options fairly quickly.
1: Mischke was a no-talent dork with no fan base and hopeless-to-nonexistent ratings.
Uh, no. Mischke, while an acquired taste and oddly placed at noon--well before his most likely listeners have enjoyed an, uh, contemplative enhancement--is a bona fide talent, a truly distinctive, literate, and poetic voice in a medium better known for rancor, ditz, and hype. Moreover, I do not suspect he was grossly overpaid relative to the revenue his show brought in. But if this was the reason, God help at least three other shows on AM1500's daily schedule.
2: Mischke was caught dealing crystal meth out of a pickup he borrowed from a drug dealer (or something like that).
Lacking any whiff of police activity, we strongly doubt it.
3: Mischke spouted one the The Seven Dirty Words, exposing Hubbard Broadcasting to one of those absurdly disproportionate, right-wing inspired FCC fines.
This is possible. But, a la Bert Blyleven, this sort of thing, as a first offense, is usually something that gets you suspended for a few days, everyone jokes about it, and the company makes a big show of setting an example for the rest of the staff.
4: Mischke wandered off in one of his stream-of-conscious monologues into territory that offended a major advertiser, whose representatives threatened to pull a big, fat chunk of advertising from the entire Hubbard system if something wasn't done.
With "I can't say anything" the official position of the day, we don't KNOW this to be true either. But in good economic times, "offending" a major advertiser--for no good reason other than a making joke--can get you demoted to the loading dock pretty fast. In rotten revenue times like today, an advertiser bringing let's say a healthy six figures a year through the door can pretty much get a five-figure "personality's" head on a pike if they want.
The big question in this scenario is: Why? As in, why would a major advertiser, a business with a high public profile, care so much about something one off-beat jock says--at noon--that it risks looking like a thug if the whole story comes to light and its identity is revealed?
Meanwhile, yesterday NBC boss Jeff Zucker announces that revenue at the media arm of General Electric is so foul (can you say, "Detroit meltdown") that it is considering cutting back on prime-time programming and rolling Jay Leno into the evening mix five nights a week, thereby also solving its dilemma with Conan O'Brien being promised Leno's spot at 10:30.
I believe I've told the story several times of cornering one network boss after another at the TV critics' dog and pony shows in L.A. and asking them why, considering the failure rate for inane sitcoms, they don't simply move their evening news to 7 p.m. (Central) and give it an hour every night? Some of the bosses, all resplendent in superbly tailored suits that faced no threat of wrinkling on the company jet ride out to L.A., gave patient, statistical answers each of which added up to: "If it hits, we can make more money on one According to Jim than a week of Brian Williams."
Zucker, an entertainment guy, was different. "Are you crazy?" was his response. The question made him laugh. It was like I had suggested running C-SPAN instead of "The Victoria's Secret Fashion Show."
NBC, of course, has MSNBC to dump all its excess news material into every night. Not so with ABC and CBS. (What Fox does with its "news," I have a hard time saying.)
The network suits understand that the prime demographic for their nightly news are commuting home from work at 5:30 (Central) and that this leaves mainly the retired and truly aged as the next most likely audience. (Watch the commercials during the evening news, and you'll think they're talking closed circuit to nursing homes.)
I may well be crazy, but I continue to think there's a better demographic (household income) available for a prime-time hour of the network news--not partisan hectoring, but news--than year after year of inane sitcoms and sorority house reality shows. Ten minutes of Brian Ross on what warnings the U.S. gave India prior to the Mumbai attacks instead of two. All of Charlie Gibson interviewing George W. instead of eight minutes and then over to the website.
Instead, Jay Leno in prime time night after night fawning over celebrities hyping new movies (thank God for movie advertising!); most of them no more entertaining than According to Jim.
The connection to Mischke is a broadcaster's commitment to legitimate value. Mischke isn't Brian Ross. But he is something like an oasis surrounded by a desert of cookie-cutter, minimal neuron predictability. The problem, particularly in distressed times, is that nervous-to-over-extended broadcasters see value only in highly familiar, low(er)brow fare. They'll tell you their advertisers demand it.
Question: The audience for According to Jim and Leno in prime time . . . I'm guessing they're not in the mood to buy a car these days. But are they even going to the movies?
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
Move the news to 7pm? How would we choose between Olbermann and the news?
LAMBERT: It wouldn't hurt Olbermann to match wits with a rightie from time to time, nor would it hurt Charlie Gibson to ask Bush tougher questions than, "What would you like to do over"?
Posted by: Rob Levine on December 9, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Re Mischke:
"Why"? Becuase said advertiser could pull money off Hubbard not only on KSTPAM but also KS95 AND KSTP TV.
Serious money. And easily spread it across the competitors to make up the audience points.
Given Mishcke's eroding ratings, (Brauer includes at MinnPost - snap!), KS brass had a good reason and used it.
The real question is - WHY piss off a cash cow advertiser in these perilous times with some rant?
There are so many other possible targets for Mishcke - he misfired badly on this one.
LAMBERT: Why does said (hypothetical) advertiser give a damn if Mischke's ratings are so bad?
Posted by: bertram jr on December 9, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Goes to "Principle".
In this case, Mischke made the station look "hostile".
Remember, it's really no different than KOOL pulling ads from a certain alt weekly for anti-tobacco editorial content ripping their sponsorhip of a music festival, way back when...
And, try tying Mischke's daypart to said (hypothetical) advertiser's "wheelhouse" of key business activity....hmmmm!
Still awaiting your comment on CJ's breathless evaluation of Viking-dong....
LAMBERT: I await the actual transcript of whatever was said.
Posted by: bertram jr on December 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM
The Hubbard troop is clueless. Can anyone who works a long period of time ever be rewarded with anything other than the door? Are the only people who can retire at this organization and make mistake after mistake recieve a pension? The Hubbards have not learned from the revolving door syndrom present at KSTP Tv! It's time this dysfunction al "Addams Family" finds a good management team to replace cousin "It" from driving the bus with obscured vision!!
Posted by: Tjmm on December 9, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Actual Star Tribune website content - CJ on Fox airing visual of Viking player Shiancoe's member:
Shiancoe: "...how'd it look"?
CJ: "Impressive. Since I don't see nearly enough of that around my house these days, I didn't mind at all."
Now. Let's assume some things.
1. Family paper
2. News "value"? / Journalistic "integrity"?
3. "Cultural" (racial) aspects
4. Imagine Nick Coleman commenting similiarly on say, Viking cheerleaders, or a scantily clad Britney Spears.
5. Avista paid HOW MUCH for this paper?
LAMBERT: "racial aspects"? Never mind, I don't want to know.
Posted by: bertram jr on December 9, 2008 at 2:17 PM
NOTE THE DATE AND TIME, I gotta' say I agree with Bertram, Jr. that the CJ item he referenced earliEr is about as "low brow" as it gets, especially for a major metro daily and family newspaper. As Pat Fitzgerald would say, "a new low." Clearly, the Strib is in the media's race to the bottom in earnest.
And her claim to not have prompted the reopening of what was FOX's indiscretion, not the player's (it's a locker room, not a hotel lobby) is the height of disingenuousness. Gratuitous, puerile and embarrassing to witness.
LAMBERT: "i agree with Bertram Jr" -- time stamp ... 4:55 pm 12/9/08. A date that will live ...
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on December 9, 2008 at 4:01 PM
@bertram jr: There's a rumor a major local advertiser will pull their ads off KSTP but, as I understand it, not because Tommy said anything bad but because the Hubbard suits pulled Tommy off the air. It works both ways, I guess.
Posted by: noodleman on December 9, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Dammit! This is what I risk posting when posts hang in limbo for so long. Bertram's most recent posting was NOT up (speaking of time stamps) when I wrote in to agree with him re: his CJ reference.
His insinuating injection (inevitable, I should've realized) of race into his criticism of CJ's prurient video posting re: the Viking who was frontally nude a in FOX post game locker room shot, again has me back on the more familiar ground of opposition to the product of Bertram's squirming-like-a-toad mind. Bertram's bigotry is never far from the surface. I should have waited to comment.
LAMBERT: Sorry. No "do-overs" here. You and bertram are forever yoked.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on December 9, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Mischke has to be getting better ratings than Bob Davis or Dave Thompson. How those two have any job in radio other than sweeping up at night is beyond me. I suppose in the House of Hubbard, you're okay as long as you keep wasting air time discussing Obama's birth certificate. I guess you have to keep what's left of your neanderthal listening audience riled up.
LAMBERT: The sad fact is that that IS the audience contemporary talk radio seeks to hold/exploit. Even more hilarious is that the sales departments are forever assuring potential advertisers that these are "quality demos", "high income households" ... that just happen not to believe the theory of evolution, think Obama is a muslim and that WMDs were shipped to Syria. I tell you ... "MPR with jokes" ... see what happens.
Posted by: buck on December 9, 2008 at 7:18 PM
The time that Leinfelder & Bertram Jr agreed was exactly 29 years to the minute that Mark David Chapman acquired John Lennon's autograph on the way out of the Dakota to The Hit Factory.
We all know what happened during their second encounter that night.
Just wanted to give some perspective.
Mischke was and always will be a late night act. Upon finding out he had turned in his playbook to the coach, I immediately notified New York City's fastest rising radio program director, Peter Thiele that Tommy was available to become The Next Big Thing in Gotham City.
...and ,good night Ann Hutchinson,where ever you are...
LAMBERT: Peter Thiele! Did he invent Babs Carlson's hot tub?
Posted by: jed leyland on December 9, 2008 at 8:48 PM
The desperados at the Star Tribune should congratulate themselves. I had a friend from the East Coast e-mail, incredulous over the CJ crap and the fact that a so-called newspaper would run that and pay the person who would write it. With all the people to be bought out and laid off, their good judgment says that CJ's role is vital.
Guess the dying Strib will do anything for that East Coast Web click. Good luck making money of it.
LAMBERT: Let me put it this way. Cheryl (as I like to call her) has a closer relationship with the HR department than most of her colleagues.
Posted by: Craig Plumfagen on December 9, 2008 at 8:48 PM
BL = 'The problem, particularly in distressed times, is that nervous-to-over-extended broadcasters see value only in highly familiar, low(er)brow fare."
Sir, that is exactly why I am here (internet) getting my news and infotainment. I survive quite well without any TV or commercial radio and I have never been better informed in my entire life.
As for Mischke--KSTP makes a perplexing on-air personality change...isn't that a dog-bites-man story? In my entire history in the cities, between radio and TV personnel upheavals, this isn't even a Top 10 perplexer, is it?
LAMBERT: You are correct. Maybe not even Top 100. The "twist" here is that the public has unusually high (and genuine) affection for Tommy.
Posted by: The Other Mike on December 9, 2008 at 11:10 PM
The CJ comments are right up there with the "Genny X" "shower peeing" story from a few years ago.
LAMBERT: How did I miss this story ... "Camera Shows Man Naked ... in Locker Room".
Posted by: Rob Levine on December 10, 2008 at 7:24 AM
On her Strib website, CJ stated she "doesn't see enough of that at her house".
Referring to generously proportioned black athlete's genitals, we are to assume....top drawer!
Looking forward to BL's inspection of Gov. Blago's Obama ties....good times!
At least the two Chicago papers will be worth reading.
LAMBERT: Is there any kind of linkage between your fascination with "Withering Glance" and a "generously proportioned black athlete's genitals"? Just wondering.
Posted by: bertram jrbr on December 10, 2008 at 9:11 AM
LAMBERT: Peter Thiele! Did he invent Babs Carlson's hot tub?
Yep, same guy.
LAMBERT: I dodged the tub.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on December 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM
My favorite Mischke bit comes from the mid 90's. He decided to take on a hot button issue -abortion. I don't remember how he worded it, exactly, but, without being explicit about it, he ended up endorsing infanticide. In the course of an hour he got several earnest callers explaining how that would be wrong.
Lambert, did you try contacting Mischke to see why he was let go?
LAMBERT: I did not, although post-facto, i will. I have had the experience of contacting staffers over there who were then asked point blank, "Have you talked to Lambert", leaving them in a very difficult position. Obviously Hubbard has already fired Mischke. But I thought better of putting him in ANY potential contractual jeopardy. Admittedly, that sounds weak, but when you have to go through the "only call me at home" bit with veteran reporters, who have been threatened with career damaging punishment, you treat this kind of stuff differently.
Posted by: frogster on December 10, 2008 at 12:09 PM
People actually read C.J.? I tried once about ten years ago; it makes one regret becoming even marginally literate.
The good thing about the Leno story is that everyone now understands that what counts is how much the show costs to produce. Leno is cheaper than a scripted show, but remember stranding a bunch of dimwits on desert island and waiting for the Lord of the Flies to play out is even cheaper. Somewhere in between are the Sunday morning gasbag shows.
Cheap doesn't have to be crap--Rachel Maddow is both smart and entertaining--but it usually is.
LAMBERT: Believe me, "Survivor" costs a hell of a lot more than Leno. I'm not Jay's biggest fan -- the monologue is OK -- but a huge rationale for this is sucking up to the movie studios who (still) advertise heavily and expect quid pro quo from the networks for their, uh, fabulously interesting stars.
Posted by: john sherman on December 10, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Not to get back on topic -- but...
I like the NBC move. Fox has always shutdown at 9 and this allows NBC to do the same thing and I'll bet they will make a few bucks doing it. Leno will draw a decent audience but that may hurt Conan (who I think will flop on the Tonight Show).
I can't think of the last time I watched NBC prime time. The good stuff (Mad Men, Weeds, Entourage, Big Love, Nip/Tuck, etc) is all found on cable.
My bet -- Leno will double his 10:30 audience at 9 and Conan will get around 60% of what Leno pulled on the Tonight Show.
LAMBERT: My network TV appointment calendar is pretty much restricted to the original "Law & Order" and "Lost". Conan isn't happy, I see, because Leno at 9 means the heavyweight stars will go there first. But I'll take O'Brien over Leno 99 times out of 100.
Posted by: Dave on December 10, 2008 at 10:49 PM
"I'll take O'Brien over Leno 99 times out of 100."
Why such contempt for Leno?
LAMBERT: Jay's fawning over the Hollywood crowd lacks any level at all of ironic perspective.
Posted by: namzso on December 22, 2008 at 2:30 PM