|
|
June 18, 2013
|
|
Kasia Anderson on Barbara WaltersPosted on Aug 1, 2008
Somewhere around the middle of “Audition: A Memoir,” Barbara Walters lets fly with what might be the most startling comment in her massive autobiography. No, it’s not her much ballyhooed revelation—dished out with the kind of peep-show sensibility that can only come from years of coaxing confessions from enough celebrities, convicts and world leaders (or various combinations thereof) to populate a small island nation—that she was once embroiled in a lengthy affair with a married black Republican legislator, Sen. Edward Brooke. Well-placed pickups of that tabloid-baiting teaser no doubt contributed to the book’s impressive sales figures, currently hovering near the half-million mark, but it’s hardly the most compelling detail from Walters’ secret history. Rather, she makes a more surprising statement when she declares, in an unintentionally ironic or perhaps falsely modest aside: “Journalists, I felt, are supposed to report the news, not be the news.” That’s an admirable ideal, and one that many in her profession also esteem highly, along with that other quaint journalistic relic, objectivity. But considering the fact that she offers this opinion while describing, in a 624-page behemoth of a best-seller dedicated to all things Barbara Walters, the controversy she sparked when she scored an unprecedented $5-million deal to jump from NBC to ABC in 1976, it reads more like lip service than a personal motto. If there’s anyone whose experience demonstrates how certain broadcast journalists have become newsmakers themselves in recent decades, it’s Walters; in fact, she practically invented this subspecies of celebrity. But that’s just one of many contradictions in her lengthy and somewhat unruly life story, which is as much a story about the television news industry as it is about the veteran newswoman herself.
Reading “Audition” is a bit like watching Walters on “The View,” the female-focused morning coffee klatch she has presided over since its launch on ABC in 1997. Despite the show’s central conceit—that the proverbial fourth wall has come down between the hostesses in their homelike setting and the audience—“The View” is an exercise in staged intimacy and controlled spontaneity. Walters admits in her new book that she and her four co-stars plan most of their discussions before each episode, and they’re definitely not all best friends (they just play them on TV), but when the cameras roll, the pantomime begins: Oh, hello—you’ve just caught me and my four besties here, who happen to represent a marketably diverse range of target demographics, chatting over our brand-name morning coffee about today’s most compelling political and cultural news items! Throughout all the show’s ups and downs, Walters has maintained an air of steady, if somewhat forced, amicability, mugging for the camera when tensions run high, gamely handling bad PR when they boil over, and generally playing the part of den mother for her sometimes prickly protégés. But her act on “The View” engenders the unsettling feeling that she’s trying a little too hard to be “just one of the girls” in a vaguely incongruous way, one which doesn’t quite jibe with her self-described former incarnation as a scrappy go-getter in a power pantsuit who landed her dream job years ago as the country’s first female network news co-anchor. Whither pantsuit-wearing Walters? Comparatively speaking, the image she presents on “The View” seems about as empowering as a Virginia Slims ad. Unfortunately, she adopts a similar pose in “Audition,” especially when discussing her personal life. She seems unable at times to break out of cutesy-girly mode, as though she were composing a script for a TV dramedy about her life that was guaranteed neither to scandalize advertisers nor the good people of Peoria—in the 1950s. For example, referring to her waifish figure as a young girl, she says in one aw-shucks aside: “My nickname, as I’ve told you, was ‘Skinnymalinkydink.’ (If only someone would call me that today—and mean it!)” Or, later on, again returning to a discussion of her appearance, she muses: “I have sometimes said that the ‘Specials’ are primarily a retrospective of my hairstyles. How many hairdos can a girl have?” How many indeed. Is this the same woman who talks elsewhere about how she dashed off to meet with controversial heads of state in South America, Asia and the Middle East without batting an eye, and who refused to let her male colleagues shut her out of the running for career-making scoops and top assignments? In her defense, Walters never claims to have ironclad confidence or to be particularly clear about who she is or what she wants, except in her working life. She also points out more than once in her book that those who make excellent interviewers aren’t always the best on the other side of the transaction and vice versa, perhaps as a form of disclaimer about how she fares as her own interviewee, in a way, in “Audition.” Her execution isn’t bad, albeit uneven in patches, and regardless of its literary merit the story of Walters’ life is undeniably interesting, simply by virtue of all the places she has been and all the people with whom she’s crossed paths. Additionally, it’s not unreasonable for a woman who has lived her life in the public eye for decades, writing and performing for mainstream TV audiences, to stick to what has worked for her in the past when writing about herself. However, for the purpose at hand, it’s safe to say that autobiographical nonfiction, unlike broadcast TV, is not Barbara Walters’ ideal medium. For one, although her memoir generally makes for an engaging read, she jumps around chronologically so much that she loses touch with her narrative at times, leaving her audience a bit out at sea as to what year, country, job, husband or hairstyle she might be referring in a given scene. This confusion is compounded by her coy refusal to divulge her age, which could provide additional guideposts along the shifting timeline. Plus, as she admits, she finds it very difficult to delve into the painful periods of her history, including her three marriages and subsequent divorces; problems with her adopted daughter; her mother’s bitter disappointment with her distant father and his risky passion for producing stage shows around the country; her lifelong guilt about her functionally impaired older sister; and losses of family members and friends. Usually, those passages lean more heavily on description than on feeling; a profound sense of affection breaks through in brief glimmers when she discusses her family, but it vanishes too quickly behind her customary veneer of restrained congeniality.
1
2
3
4
NEXT PAGE >>>
Advertisement Previous item: Streisand: Clinton Backers Should Support Obama Next item: A Moral Force Moves Into History New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By since1492, August 10, 2008 at 7:51 am Link to this comment
Barbara is a media whore.
Report thisHoa binh
By Louise, August 3, 2008 at 10:20 am Link to this comment
When I think of Barbara Walters, which isn’t very often, I think of two things.
The first real “female” power player in the industry. And someone who, in spite of an obvious speech impairment, had the determination to become successful in a career that requires a lot of speaking.
Like her or not, those are the facts and for that she should be recognised.
Plus I marvel that someone her age can still walk in heels! I had to give that up years ago!
Report thisBy thebeerdoctor, August 2, 2008 at 1:13 am Link to this comment
Barbara Walters proves that banality, when properly packaged can make you a multi-millionaire. The View has been so thoroughly marketed that the shows’ “cat fights” wind up on The Huffington Post. What a marvelous spectacle it is! Well paid women sitting on a stage complaining about the increased price of sporting events, or whether or not to wear stockings. There is plenty of talk about sex, boobs, bootie, and let’s not forget the fist bump.
Report thisI guess it is entertaining, in a mindless sort of way. How Ms. Walters is able to maintain her veneer as “television journalist” is the crown jewel of the whole magic act. I can think of few things just as useless, but none is more important than The View. That is why Mr. and Mrs McCain have appeared on the show, along with Mr. and Mrs. Obama, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Inquiring minds WANT to know…
By Sabagio Mauraeno, August 1, 2008 at 7:31 pm Link to this comment
Brittnay and Paris and Linda and all the Jennifers and Jesicas, these women are products of an “arrested childhood” that produced stunted, mixed up adults. They also have a chance to grow out of it, grow up. My problem with Ms walters is, she too had a chance to grow, become more than the “token female at the Today Show desk,” but she didn’t. And that’s what sad and at the same time irritating, now that she’s pushing 80, that she’s still doing the same thing over and over and over again , alive but not living.
Report thisBy mackTN, August 1, 2008 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment
Barbara Walters came of age in a world that many have no real memory of, and, based on the reviews of her book, a world she has trouble describing to readers. Walters was never supposed to be a journalist, really. She was meant to open refrigerator doors and sell dishwashing liguid. But just as the world was changing to admit women as professionals and blacks as people, there sat Babwa available for the great transition. She doesn’t have the perspective yet, but she kept putting one foot ahead of the other, worked constantly, and survived into the 21st century.
Why expect so much from her? In the words of Harvey Dent, either you’re a hero until you live long enough to be the villain…or something.
Report thisBy stonecutter, August 1, 2008 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
This week, when McCain compared Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, he forgot to include Barbara Walters. I lived in New York for 60 years, and can’t remember one Walters news story or interview “get” that lasted longer in my memory than the weather report. She makes Larry King seem like Ed Murrow or Mike Wallace. Her Oscar “Specials” were as penetrating as your average guy with his prostate surgically removed. She has the gravitas of Halle Berry and the journalistic bona fides of Oprah. They are two very small peas in a very large pod.
I stood next to her in the elevator of an office building 20 years ago, and believe me, she was ancient then. She had on enough makeup to clog a storm drain. She glanced at me, to paraphrase Quint from “Jaws” when he describes the eyes of an attacking shark, with “dolls eyes, dead eyes”. I kept my distance, even in the elevator. I can understand the “appeal” of hotties like Nora O’Donnell, Campbell Brown or Katty Kay, but Barbwa WaWa. even in her prime? Sorry, it eludes me completely. Her choice of liasons—Jeez, Roy Cohn and Alan Greenspan—is like lusting after nude pics of Eleanor Roosevelt or HRC. Same vibe.
American pop culture has its rare moments, but most of it is like fetid water in a swamp. It’s technically water, but it’ll probably killya if you drink it. Walters is like a post-modern incarnation of Norma Desmond. She still thinks she’s Salome, a female Dorian Gray disintegrating right in front of her “adoring fans”. Gilda Radner, a comic genius who tragically died way too young, nailed Walters’ essence, which is why the impression so rattled the Grande Dame of network infotainment. It wasn’t just the lisp…it was the profound vapidness, the inauthenticity, the total lack of a “there” there, the way she sat ramrod straight like a ventriloquist’s dummy, controlled by an unseen hand and monumentally grating voice. The fact that she’s been so successful on air is just another indication of the broad superficiality and masked sexual hysteria of this society, and the “bimboness” of so many TV-addicted women (if you try and tell me she has a large non-gay male following…sorry, no dice).
Apparently, they’re besotted enough to shell out $20-plus bucks for her hackneyed “book”, which reads like the “Page Six” column in the NY Post. Even money they’ll do exactly the same for “My Life as a Skank” by Britney…whenever it comes out.
Meanwhile, there is a way to avoid all this pseudo-celebrity swill…simply don’t pay attention. That is still humanly possible, believe it or not, provided your mind is still switched to ON.
Report thisBy Sabagio Mauraeno, August 1, 2008 at 4:18 pm Link to this comment
Barbara Walters, Paris Hilton…the current crop of “tools” used to mind manage us are today, the living examples of how eroded our ability to think critically has become. Things, images, of no substance that make no real contributions to the benefit of anything or anybody, are now singled out as successful examples of what our civilization can produce. Why? Because it’s cheap and easy and profitable.
Manipulation of public taste, now manifested in the form of “empty celebrity and hollow promises of “it can happen to you” have been long standing techniques of those who rule,lead and benefit from the ability to do so. Subliminalism was used as a tool early on by the masters of Television advertising. The hidden message that was flashed when watching Jackie Gleason was “eat more popcorn.” From the President on down we were all outraged by the crass commercialism behind the use of this new technology. We demanded and got we thought, sanctions that would put a stop to it forever and always.
Well, we know now that politicians everywhere, in democracies, theocracies, kingdoms,totalitarian countries, everywhere, would never, could never abandon a tool that proved so effective in managing and directing what we do and think. So what is the big surprise here? Despite this massive assault on our minds from womb to tomb, like in the song, “we do survive.” And that’s all. In the Age of Global Warming and knowledge of its terrible consequences if we do nothing, do we really believe that the current crop of the Powers that Be, can lead us to make sacrifices needed to set aside the way we do things now to get to where we want to go, for the betterment of future generations? That those who profess to lead and make decisions in our best interests, who control the factors of production, the sources of what we deem are the basic necessities for getting and keeping the comforts of a quality of life beyond food, shelter and other basics of the nature of mankind, are going to make the personal sacrifices needed to safe our world that will set a standard for
Report thisus all to follow? I don’t see it happening until maybe 40 years from now when we won’t be here to see it, feel it,smell it, taste it or ...believe it.
By TheSeditousRascal, August 1, 2008 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment
Barbara Walters is to journalism is what Paris Hilton is to music…
Report thisBy Sabagio Mauraeno, August 1, 2008 at 11:31 am Link to this comment
Pioneering? Connie Chung, yes. Barbara Walters? Nay nah!
Barbara Walters comes across as “sincere” as I remember, ever since she came on board with the Today Show with Dave Garroway?
From the gitgo its been a masquerade? She’s a gossip protected from overt criticism by her official designation, “journalist.” But This is a woman who in an interview with Lady Bird Johnson a few months after Lyndon’s death, asked his widow how she dealt with the President’s many affairs over the years of their marriage with other women. Did she ask Jackie Kennedy the same question? Mrs. Johnson said afterwards that “if I live to be 100, I’ll never give that woman an interview again.” Mrs. Johnson lived to be 100. And she didn’t.
Walters also reported, in a sincere manner, that Uri Gellar, the man who said he bent spoons solely with the power of his mind, was the real thing, that she couldn’t detect any fakery. Insightful,right? She did her homework but missed the part where the Israeli government kicked Uri out of the country for fraud. And then there’s the Barbara who accepted an invitation by the Shah of Iran to come to Iran’s celebration of the 4000 anniversary of the reign of The Peacock Throne. She went and came back with a glowing report about what a wonderful time she had, and how much the people of Iran loved their Shah and his family. This was about a year before the Shah left Iran under cover of darkness to go into exile when Iran became the Islamic Republic.
Harry Reasoner didn’t think much of her as a journalist or a pioneer when she joined ABC news and didn’t hide his feelings. He knew something that we didn’t at the time, and didn’t tell us. Hugh Downs walked away from Prime Time or 20-20 when Barbara did an interview on a subject or subject matter he thought unethical and had turned down when he was offered the same opportunity. Barbara’s in her element with The View: gossip again masquerading as “the women’s perspective on current events.” Star Jones, a woman who is right up there with Barbara when it comes to self-promotion did get it right when she questioned Barbara’s integrity/honesty/questionable ethics when Ms Walters told all in her latest memoir about her affair with Senator Brooks. Why do we need to know this? Senator Brooks is an elderly man, living in retirement with his family, children and grandchildren. Why inflict this kind of hurt on his family? Ms Walter"s still seems, at her advanced age, insecure and afraid that she wouldn’t sell any of her books if there weren’t any references to her sexual adventures with married men of celebrity.
I’m probably all wrong about this observation of Ms. Walters. I mean, all the local, state, regional and national talk show comedian/hosts have been allowing her to promote her book on their programs for the past several weeks, and these guys, Rose, Letterman,Leno… these guys wouldn’t do it if they believed Barbara wasn’t the journalist she said she was. Would they?
Report thisBy troublesum, August 1, 2008 at 5:37 am Link to this comment
Where’s Gilda Ratner when you need her?
Report thisBy Tim Trevathan, August 1, 2008 at 5:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Like Kasia’s thesis on celebrity and politics, Advertising and ‘the fake success culture of celebrity accomplishment” (ie: Paris Hilton,already rich makes an internet stag flick and ends up a ‘celebrity’ based on what social value? Other than more destructive (to herself and youth culture) values, there are few redeemable qualities to this kind of celebrity culture.
Introduction
Advertising has had controversial value to the public. The general publics attitude toward advertising has been increasingly negative over the years (Mittal, 1994 p. 1).
Advertisers continue to extend their reach from newspapers, magazines, radio, television, billboards, bus sides, taxi roofs, wheel covers and now into public paid for spaces such as movie theaters.
The public, and children specifically, are targeted because of their susceptibility and status as a captive audience once in movie theaters. The trend started nationally when companies started sponsoring movies.”
Past research has shown implications of advertising having negative health implications in four significant ways;
Physical health is cited as the vulnerability to mimic good or bad social habits based on advertising influence.
Emotional health can be affected by delivering media-imposed definitions of beauty, sexuality, maturity and problem-solving.
Advertising also plays an influential role in other emotional issues such as instant gratification.
Social health because advertising often communicates attitudes, values, beliefs and ideologies, including those of consumption, competition and materialism.
Finally, it can affect our cultural health when we observe how, when, and if certain groups of people are represented or not represented in advertising messages. (Fox, 2001)
Americans feel assaulted by advertisements and commercials.
There are advertisements and commercials in schools, airport lounges, doctors offices, movie theaters, hospitals, gas stations, elevators, convenience stores, on the Internet, on fruit, on ATM’s, on garbage cans and countless other places. There are ads on beach sand and restroom walls. “I don’t know if anything is sacred anymore,” Mike Swanson, who directs ad placement for the ad agency Carmichael Lynch, told the Associated Press. (Ruskin, 2006)
This assault intensifies virtually every day. With ad budgets skyrocketing, advertising techniques inevitably become more invasive and coercive. Advertisers are engaged in a relentless battle to claim every waking moment, and what one executive called, with chilling candor, “mind share.” (Ruskin, 2006)
To this end, the book Advertising, the Uneasy Persuasion Its Dubious Impact on American Society goes about differentiating the needs of people and the exploitation of consumers for marketers and advertisers gains.
A critique ensues over the straw defenses put out by the advertising and marketing crowd to say that they are only giving the people what they want much like a drug pusher who may chide that they only sell to a clientèle who already uses the drug they sell (Schudson, 1984 p. 237).
Marketers do not actually seek to discover consumer needs as much as what is available among commercial choices (Schudson, 1984 p. 235).
Two recent surveys offer conflicting reports on moviegoers attitudes towards movie ads.
An Arbitron survey found that two-thirds of adults and seven in 10 moviegoers between the ages of 12 and 24 dont mind the ads.
But an Insightexpress survey found that 52% of those surveyed found the ads intrusive, 53% said theaters should stop showing them, and 27% said showing the commercials will cause them to go to movies less frequently.
Report this