Customer Reviews

Reality Show

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Some interesting background on the current top TV news anchors and the journeys to their jobs - it is curiously a limited and skewed perspective that focuses almost solely on the Big 3 anchors and so provides limited context and analysis of the news business overall.

Moreever it is a really badly-written book with jumbled characters and no sense of chronology/ continuity - I was surprised given that I have liked Kurtz' columns in the Post, but maybe he is at home only in a shorter format.

Worth the read only if you really need to know that both Brian Williams and Bush use the f-word around Howard Kurtz, and other such behind-the-scenes details...

I often enjoy Kurt'z Media Notes column in the Washington Post, which is what led me to buy this book. I was very disappointed for a variety of reasons. One is that it lacks any kind of narrative drive. Kurtz seems to have studied at the Bob Woodward schools of sleep-inducing writing. (I haven't read Kurtz's other books, so I don't know if his other books are like this.)

The other problem is more difficult to describe. In a nutshell, Kurtz assigns more importance to decisions made at the networks than to the actual events on the ground. It's a strange point of view and it leads Kurtz to shoehorn an extremely complex situation into a simplistic good news/bad news dichotomy.

All in all, I thought the book was dreadful, surprisingly so.

This was near the top of my most anticipated books of '07 and while it isn't the great book I'd hoped for, it's fairly engrossing.

There's lots of juicy gossip, but this book lacks the brilliant analysis of the last truly great book on TV news, Ken Auletta's masterful but now outdated, Three Blind Mice, Three Blind Mice: How the TV Networks Lost Their Way published in 1992. It also isn't nearly as good as Kurtz's previous book, Spin Cycle: How the White House and the Media Manipulate the News

The most interesting information in Reality Show is about how the networks choose to package and angle coverage of the Iraq war. Are they covering the war or determining how the war is perceived? Kurtz's reportage in this book will definitely add fuel to that debate.

Out of all the major players, I think Brian Williams comes off the best in this book. He seems to be a diligent, thoughtful reporter and a basically good guy. On the other hand, while I had felt a little sorry for Katie Couric, it now seems clear she has only herself to blame for her flameout at CBS. Speaking of self-made flameouts at CBS News, Reality Show contains some juicy background on the Dan Rather memogate fiasco.

As others have mentioned, the editing of this book is subpar making it hard to follow. It's also too skimpy on insight and analysis for me, but it is informative and worth reading if you're interested in the workings of TV news.

Howard Kurtz loves to hear the sound of his own voice, and nowhere is it more evident than in this long, verbose book about TV news. Instead of taking a couple paragraphs to describe an event, Kurtz uses four pages. Then he repeats himself later in the same chapter to make sure the lowly reader gets the point he is trying to make. He comes across as a know-it-all who really doesn't know much at all--like a sports play-by-play man who loves to talk about the game but doesn't really play it.

Some of the stories in the book are interesting--or at least they would be if they were shortened to make them readable. Instead the reader ends up glossing over parts in order to make it through the 435 pages.

He rarely cites sources and has very poor footnotes--most of his information can't be first-hand knowledge, so where did he get some of this? He tells "insider" stories as if he was in the room during a secret meeting, but he never states where he got the details of how reliable the sources are (an irony since his CNN show is "Reliable Sources").

He name-drops to make sure the reader understands that Kurtz has talked with the major network executives and anchors. Then he bends over backwards to praise the looks of most of them--he calls Tom Brokaw "too cute," Brian Williams "perfectly coiffed and impeccably dressed" and Les Moonves "a former actor with leading-man looks."

There are some fascinating scenes where network newspeople are caught lying (aren't they supposed to be the upholders of truth?) and the on-camera reporters/anchors are more interested in their contracts than their news credibility. If the book proves one thing it's that network news divisions are filled with vain, self-centered control freaks who worry about their public image while stepping on anyone in their way behind the scenes (Dan Rather being the perfect example).

Kurtz seems to want to go overboard to praise the anchors and network executives (he wants to keep using them as sources, so he needs to keep them on his good side!). The anchors are never blamed for their show's failures. Brokaw was a "pretty boy" who wasn't taken seriously by the corporate big-wigs and wanted to push for more serious news. Rather was "battered by unrelenting criticism" from Republicans and a flag-waving patriot who shouldn't be blamed for the great CBS News fiasco, even though he single-handedly pushed to air the false information. Jennings was "dashing" (of course) and a man who "cared deeply" about the news.

His greatest support comes for the female anchors, such as Katie Couric, Elizabeth Vargas and Diane Sawyer. They are all painted as brilliant, beautiful journalists that continue to struggle against the sexist environment of network TV news. Kurtz probably seems most enthralled with Couric and he lacks any objectivity about her minimal journalistic skills (he doesn't understand that interviewing a newsmaker on a morning show doesn't qualify you as the type of journalist who reports on an evening news show). The reality here is that Kurtz is sexist in painting all female network anchorwomen as qualified and unfairly criticized--the reason Couric and Vargas failed is that they just weren't good. Katie Couric, in particular, is in the wrong job and Kurtz uses the book to defend her instead of digging deep to figure out why she should never have taken the CBS job. He claims her failure is due to sexism and the "limitations of the evening news." No, Howard, she failed because she was the wrong person for the job and didn't have the qualifications or ability to anchor an evening newscast.

He does however slam one person--Charles Gibson. Kurtz never actually says who talked to him for the book, but it appears that he doesn't have a lot of first-hand information from Gibson, so maybe he is slamming the ABC anchor because Gibson wouldn't cooperate more (on the other hand, the big-wigs that did talk secretly with Kurtz get treated with kid gloves). Gibson, whose on-air image is probably the most positive of all the major anchors, comes across as a terrible co-worker prone to outbursts and backstabbing. It seems to be an unfair portrait.

Kurtz kisses up to most of his subjects in Larry King-style, while slamming TV news in general (he's a newspaper man so he has to look down on TV news), objecting to the bean counters at the network and even condemning the audience for shifting toward entertainment and away from news. His biased view never truly blames the powerful for the problems. Kurtz seems to want to criticize the medium without criticizing those in charge of making the decisions in the medium.

His conclusion is that "this trio of anchors is as good as any in the past." Huh? Is he serious? That shows how warped his view is of the network newscasts. Kurtz seems totally out of touch with what makes good TV and what middle Americans want to watch.

The author tries to be contemporary and uses all the hip phrases regarding the new technology--but he can't get past his own outdated inner-voice writing style that makes him sound like the smart-aleck adult who thinks he can get away with dressing in teenage clothing styles.

Worst is the title of the book--it's totally misleading. If someone wants a book on the recent TV news wars, they're not going to look for something called "reality show." This is a major flop from a man who thinks he is a major success in providing insight into the TV news process.

It's a little docu; it's a little bit gossip; it's a little bit drama; it's a lot tabloid.

If you're looking for a hard-hitting look at what's going on in network TV news, forget this one. The sub-title is: "The Last Great Television News War," but evidently there's not much between-the-network warring going on. Kurtz details lots of battling, but it's usually softball and polite...and mostly between anchors and the behind-the-scenes players of each of the news shows...NBC Nightly News, CBS Evening News, and ABC World News.

Kurtz tells us how Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric all came to occupy their respective anchor-chairs...with schmoozing top brass an apparent #1 requirement for the positions. We learn Williams long-time wanted the spot; Gibson would be happy without it...but Katie is Kurtz' anointed one. He pretty much ignores the adventures of now top-ranked Charles Gibson. He can't stop talking about Brian Williams. He's the ever-present cheerleader for poor underdog Katie. It all gets pretty dull pretty fast.

--You'd think we'd learn about network news as a cut-throat, slimy, back-stabbing endeavor. Maybe it is, but we don't learn that here. By the book's cover, you get the feeling that un-revealable secrets of the business will be revealed. -But it's not a rugged, no-holds barred expose of Network vs. Network strategies. Instead, it comes loaded up with soft touch, wimpy anecdotes, emotion and reminiscences...surely designed to help satisfy pop culture's insatiable appetite for the "inside scoop" on our TV stars, news anchors included. To spice-up his story?...to help to make the high-rent news-stars seem more human?... Kurtz includes concrete evidence that our anchors pepper their private conversation with the "street language" of a common rap song. Howard, did you actually take notes on newscaster usage of f-words?!

Kurtz offers us some solutions for the great viewer-slump net news is in. Generally, he says, since the nightly news programs look and feel flat, they need to be fired up, beefed up, souped up. This would help, he thinks, to make them more attractive to younger, "hipper" audiences. He claims the news-shows should have more of an interactive, "Internet feel." -A more one-on-one, "personal" approach. Really? Come on, Howard... wasn't this the stated direction for the [ramped-down, Couric first] show Katie took on when she was hired by CBS? Hmmmmm. Youth rejects Couric, too...as her numbers continue to tank.

So much for the Kurtz "solutions" in a lightweight, long-winded book that never actually frames "the problem" in a concise and serious way. -But what might we expect from a NYC entertainment columnist? The book's less like network-on-network wars...and more like a series of unconnected, fuzzy scenes out of Access Hollywood scripts. The facts are plenty, the details abundant (although often irrelevant -Couric wants What to be etched onto her tombstone?!). -All in all, it's a reality yawn.

I remember when this book came out in October amid little fanfare. There seemed to be a hint that the publisher was bringing it out quietly because of a fear of leaks, as if it included some explosive information. Well, so much for that.

Unless you're dazzled by tidbits like Brian Williams (who must have had Kurtz attached to his hip for six months) doing his laundry, and the great demand for George Stephanopolous (uh, right), you will have little interest in this book's meandering format.

Jon Stewart is featured on the back cover....although he's barely mentioned. Just a blatant attempt to get people under 45 to buy this book. Apparently it didn't work.

The book is also riddled with spelling and factual errors, probably because it was rushed to press...which is inexplicable, considering its lukewarm content.

There's very little here that hasn't already been beaten to death in various newspaper columns and blogs. And due to the author's obvious closeness to many of his subjects (some of whom come off much better than others), I get the feeling that 2 or 3 key subjects of the book approved the stuff written about them. In other words, it's kind of icky.

I probably should have done more background on Kurtz, but he seems like a fair guy. I also heard a lot of his interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. I'll be honest - I'm a conservative too, and I looked into this book because I wanted to get more dirt on liberal media. I came to find out why they all live in this clubby world, but also realized that Brian Williams is different from the rest. I agree with the first review in that this is a good read if you're looking for gossip. Otherwise, save your money.

If you are interested in the competitive frenzy that goes on between the various network news outlets each weekday, then you will understand why I have given Mr. Kurtz's book five stars.

For example, while I perhaps should have known (given that each network broadcasts' first feed is live), it came as a surprise, frankly, that one broadcast might actually change its "script" and scheduled coverage--while on the air--to cover a story that one of the other shows decided to highlight. Each newscasts monitors each and every word and picture mentioned and shown on the other broadcasts.

Kurtz is especially descriptive in profiling each of the three broadcast networks' evening news anchors--Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. Brian is described as someone who wanted to be an anchor since he was in high school, Charlie as someone who didn't know that he wanted it until he thought it might go by default to Diane Sawyer and Katie, well Katie didn't know she wanted it until Dan Rather crashed and burned and started to get bored with "Today." No detail is too small here. While Brian seems to have substantial respect for Charlie, he is painted as someone who sees Katie as an interloper. (P.S. to Brian: You'll probably prefer competing against her than Anderson Cooper or Scott Pelley).

Parts of this book give the impression that the three broadcast networks are re-living the modern equivalent of the "Front Page" newspaper era. But sadly, that's the rub: The three evening newscasts are not modern equivalents of anything because as Kurtz points out, technology seems to be on the verge of making these shows relics. The average viewer is nearing 60 and that is the same problem that today's leading newspapers have. So the fight goes on and Howie Kurtz does an admirable job telling us how we got here and where we may go.

I thought Kurtz was supposed to be an outside observer of media. This book certainly corrects that. He is so "inside-the-beltway" that it boggles the mind. The book came across as nothing more than a long infommercial. Kurtz proves once again that the MSM is on the take and will say anything for a buck.

I found this book very interesting and very hard to put down. I finished it in 3-4 days after picking it up at the library.

I love "insider/backstory" books and this is one of the best I've read. I gained a lot of respect for the work necessary to create a nightly national newscast, and all the conflicting pressures that go in to shaping it.

Kurtz keeps my interest from page one.