A while back, I tried out for “Jeopardy!” when it was beating the bushes for contestants in my neck of the woods. I thought I’d be a shoo-in for the game show because I always win at least $10,000 when I play along at home.
Except for the time I tried to wear a lime-green tube top, that was just about the most crashing ego check I ever had.
During the “Jeopardy!” audition, the underpinnings of my pretensions buckled as I answered “Burma City” to the question, “What’s the capital of Burma?” Of course, I saw Shrimp Rangoon on a menu the very next week, but the cosmic nudge came too late.
One bonus of the comeuppance was that I got to meet and interview Alex Trebek, who was and is the crispest and cleanest person I’ve ever met.
But I digress.
I count myself among the millions of minions who worship at the ring-in thumb of Ken Jennings, the all-time “Jeopardy!” champ who went down last week after 75 shows because he does his own taxes: Final Jeopardy answer was H&R Block; Ken guessed FedEx.
Bob Hill, my friend and colleague, already wrote about the greatness that is Ken in his Dec. 2 column, so I’m not going to do that here. I’ll just say pardon the expression “ditto” to Bob’s Ken paean.
But, in tribute to Ken and the spirit of “Jeopardy!,” I’m going to try to turn this week’s notes column into an ad hoc and not-entirely-faithful print version of the program.
Categories are Hodgepodge and Potpourri, and apologies to Don Pardo and the ghost of Art Fleming:
“Larry Byrd”
What was the (mis)spelling of the almost-homegrown basketball legend’s name in a recent op-ed column?
(Big sigh)
The well-regarded writer didn’t catch it when he wrote it. Editors and proofers at his paper, the syndicate or this paper didn’t catch it. And, astoundingly, given everything else I hear about and given this was a sports goof in a sports town, nobody called me to comment or complain. (What’s the temp in Hades, anyway?)
But I had to mention it because I’m a fan, because Bird’s from just up the road and because misspelled names bug me as much as they bug those I usually hear from.
“Social issues not big on corporate agenda” and “Contentious church ad rejected by 2 networks”
What are two recent headlines for which readers correctly called us to task?
The first was just wrong in fact, it accompanied a story that stated exactly the opposite and wasn’t caught in the proofing process. The Forum piece gave major props to big business for numerous examples of “compassionate capitalism.”
As for the second, the reader argued with the use of the word “contentious” in the front-page headline. The ad promoted inclusion and acceptance at United Church of Christ churches; networks tied it to the same-sex marriage issue and said it was too “controversial.”
The reader who e-mailed me was a UCC pastor who had seen the ad. “Its emphasis is not political or `contentious’ at all,” he wrote. “Rather it is an inclusive ad reaching out to evangelize those who may have felt excluded from other religious groups. The ad does not mention homosexuality, and certainly does not broach the topic of gay marriage (as CBS asserts) . . . ”
Both examples remind us that headline writing is a difficult skill some would call it an art and that we rarely note when they’re right (and they usually are), but we notice when they’re wrong or off. And that we need to do better.
“Lawmaker wants camera crews barred from combat theater”
What is not surprising?
The Army Times article I saw the one that bore this headline noted that several congressmen want to jettison the practice of “embedding” journalists with troops in Iraq.
“No news is better than news which is unfairly balanced toward the bad,” the article quoted one as saying.
Next related answer and question:
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee.
Who is the new poster boy for the First Amendment and the American people’s right to know?
We didn’t even have to send in the Marines after these misguided public servants. Gen. Hagee was already there, talking at the Nov. 17 House Armed Services Committee meeting. According to the article, the general said:
“In my personal opinion, embedded reporters have actually worked very well. They inform the American public about what these great young Americans are doing over there and a large, large majority are doing . . . a tremendous job.”
On the other hand . . .
“Strategic communications office”
What is a new office within the Pentagon that, according to a report by the L.A. Times, would “combine public affairs, psychological operations and information operations?”
If this new combo platter sounds like an attempt at government efficiency, guess again.
The Pentagon already is investigating whether an Army spokesman deliberately fed CNN some misinformation about the attack on Fallujah.
What’s the harm in using misinformation (and the news media) as a tool in this war, or any war?
A CNN report about the incident said, ” . . . Some senior officers who served in the Vietnam War and its aftermath, when the credibility of the military was damaged, have raised concerns about the issue.”
CNN also quoted Mark Mazzetti, the Times reporter who did the story, saying, “Over time, people just didn’t believe what the military was saying, and they fear that if we go down this path, the same thing is going to happen again.”
Read the good L.A. Times story on that paper’s Web site.
“Tom Brokaw’s sign-off”
What is worth repeating?
The retiring NBC anchor showed his good heart and good sense when he told his viewing audience:
” . . . It’s not the questions that get us in trouble. It’s the answers. And, just as important, no one person has all the answers. Just ask a member of the generation I came to know well, the men and women who came of age in the Great Depression, who at great personal sacrifice saved the world in World War II and returned home to dedicate their lives to improving the nation they had already served so nobly.
“They weren’t perfect. No generation is. But this one left a large and vital legacy of common effort to find common ground here and abroad on which to solve our most vexing problems. They did not give up their personal beliefs and greatest passions, but they never stopped learning from each other. And, most of all, they did not give up on the idea we’re all in this together . . . ”
That we are.
