Wednesday, Jul 9, 2008
Why shouldn't Leo play journalist with the president? Plus: Thou shalt not covet thy daughter's boyfriend; more world-class fools.
Apr 10, 2000 |
Leonardo DiCaprio, cub reporter
BY JONATHAN V. LAST
(04/05/00)
Am I the only one who doesn't see the big deal with Leonardo DiCaprio interviewing President Clinton? The fact that DiCaprio isn't a professional journalist doesn't in itself mean that he's incapable of asking our president a few questions. If you think about it, DiCaprio is a trained professional in the arena of behavior in a journalistic setting, solely by virtue of the fact that he's been at the center of so much press coverage.
While DiCaprio obviously lacks the journalistic credibility of, say, Peter Jennings or Barbara Walters, is he really any worse than some of the vapid airheads who interview people on MTV and the morning news and talk shows? God knows I'd rather have Leo lob questions at me than someone like Kathie Lee.
Clearly the issue here isn't about DiCaprio's lack of credibility, but rather journalists who are worried -- rightly so -- about their futures in a world where celebrities are allowed to assume their previously sacrosanct job duties.
-- Jeff Kirk
What a laugh. Does the ABC news staff really think that the public doesn't see them as entertainers? They are marketed, groomed, dressed and no doubt taught how to read the news or ask questions with charm and vivacity. Why shouldn't Leonardo, a very good entertainer, ask a few questions of the president on a subject about which he is passionate?
-- Manuel Lomba
As the machinery at Disney/ABC slowly grinds on, most semi-conscious media watchers are hoping for the best and expecting the worst.
Even from its earliest days, Disney has been a litigious, power-/money-hungry juggernaut. As most companies across industries consolidate to increase the "synergy," I regard this move as Disney simply keeping up with its peers. Why on earth would Disney spend billions to acquire a news outlet and not want a little revenue reward? Corporations are not altruistic.
Although Edward R. Murrow is rolling in his grave, news has become regarded as a cash cow, not a public service. To wit, I expect to see many more DiCaprio-president-type incidents from not only Disney/ABC but from most news outlets.
-- Jennifer L. Fuller
Roswell, Ga.
What Social Security crisis?
BY MERRILL GOOZNER
(04/05/00)
In 2037, when Goozner says Social Security will go insolvent, I will have reached 77 years of age (my parents are both in their 80s, and their parents also lived into their 80s, so I think I have a good chance of reaching 77. At 39 years of age, actuarial tables show my current life expectancy is 83 years). At that time, my Social Security checks will suddenly stop arriving, I suppose. Why should I not look on this possibility with grave concern? I appreciate the good news, but Goozner has failed to eliminate my worries on this matter.
-- David Chaffin
It's nice to see that many people have decided once again that we've found a permanent cure for the business cycle and that we can be assured of permanent high growth. That notwithstanding, the reason for using really conservative estimates for Social Security is that there's no reason to think the boom cycle will go on indefinitely.
I'm extremely optimistic about the economy over the next year or two, and even rather optimistic about the next five years. But what about after that? What about after the computer industry is as mature and saturated as the auto industry? There are possibilities for new growth, but over the 30- to 40-year horizon required for Social Security, there are no guarantees. If we fall into another Great Depression, the last thing we need to worry about is having to raise taxes to cover growth shortfalls. So it's a very good thing to keep Social Security just as conservative as it is now, and to keep pushing the solvency horizon out even further.
-- Andrew Norris
Get Salon in your mailbox!