The Gatekeeper Gets the Gate

Not long ago, we linked to an article about Eddie Brill who was the warm-up comedian for David Letterman and also the guy who scouted and recommended the booking of stand-up comedians for Dave's show. Certain things Eddie said about women in that job description angered some and it was announced yesterday that he's been relieved of his scouting/booking duties, though he will apparently still handle warm-ups.

A number of blog postings I've read about this have opined that Eddie should have lost that job because Late Show has had a pretty poor track record of booking good stand-ups. I think that's grossly unfair. As near as I can tell, Brill has been doing that part of his duties quite efficiently. The assignment, after all, is not to book great new stand-ups who'll have everyone talking about how funny they are. It's to find and suggest the kinds of comedians that Dave Letterman wants on his show. Those are not remotely the same thing.

As for his comments about women, I thought they were a bit off-the-mark but only a bit. He's right that there are a lot of female comics who try to act like men. He's wrong to the extent he was suggesting that all or most stand-up ladies are "inauthentic" because they do that. I can think of a lot of successful ones who don't: Rita Rudner, Janeane Garofalo, Kathleen Madigan, Paula Poundstone, Wendy Liebman…I don't think Kathy Griffin or Sarah Silverman fit that description and oddly enough, neither do a lot of openly gay women comics like Ellen Degeneres and Wanda Sykes. You may not think all of those ladies are funny but all of them could easily do five minutes on Letterman's show just as well as any male who's been on there. (Not that some of them would want to…)

Brill's comments really only drew fire because women like that are rarely booked with Dave — though Griffin is on tonight and may even talk about this if they'll let her. In any case, if women comics are being bypassed on the show, it might be because Mr. Brill never recommended many or it might be because Mr. Letterman vetoed those recommendations. It might even be because Dave never said — as Mr. Carson did once when TV Guide pointed out the gender gap in his bookings — "Hey, find me some female stand-ups." That led to Maureen Murphy and Victoria Jackson and a few other bookings and probably got Joan Rivers on The Tonight Show more often.

My suspicion here is that Eddie Brill is to some extent taking the fall for preferences from above. I also suspect that if Dave was upset about that N.Y. Times article it was mainly due to (a) the attention paid to someone who's supposed to maintain a lower profile and (b) the revelation that Brill has a side business charging up-and-coming comics to train them. It's not always an unacceptable conflict-of-interest for folks who are in positions to hire (or to recommend hiring) to accept money from those who seek to be hired…but it can make a lot of people very uncomfortable. If I were running a TV show, I would pay my casting people well but forbid them from doing that kind of thing.

Recommended Reading

Kevin Drum tells us the reasons why Rick Perry's candidacy came to a grinding halt. And what's more impressive is that Kevin made this list back when Perry first got into the race and seemed so promising to some.

The Strip Club

Alan Gardner has posted an intriguing list of which newspaper strips are currently in 500 or more newspapers and which ones even crack the 1000 mark. He doesn't break out the ones in over 2000 but there are some. I believe Garfield, Peanuts and Blondie are all in over 2000 and there might be one or two more.

The list does not include any strips from the Tribune Media Syndicate. As I understand it, they did not respond to inquiries…but I also don't think they have any strips that are in 500 papers.

The number of papers a strip is in is significant but not necessarily the whole story. Some papers pay the minimum to run a strip and some pay a lot more. Syndicates have also been known to give strips free to very small papers just so they could inflate the size of the client list.

A prominent cartoonist once told me that if his strip was only in the daily and Sunday editions of the New York Post, the L.A. Times and the Chicago-Tribune, it would still be worth his time to produce it. Given declining newspaper revenues, I'm not sure that's still true but the point is that being in six newspapers could be more lucrative than being in two hundred if they were the right newspapers. (Daily and Sunday sales are counted separately…so if the Picayune Post-Dispatch runs your strip seven days a week, that's counted as two papers.) Many strips are also profitable because of merchandising or a large foreign sale. A strip like The Phantom, I know, is very popular overseas and its syndicate probably regards it as primarily an international offering with any U.S. sales being viewed as gravy.

Of note, of course, is that most of the strips that crack the 500 line are older ones and that many of them are being handled by folks other than the original creators. There are people who argue that a newspaper strip should end when its originator dies or retires. You can see why that doesn't happen and in most cases, I don't think the readers would like that. All the evidence suggests they're quite satisfied to see their old faves continue under new hands and wouldn't want to lose most of them for something new. I do understand the desire to see old strips go away…and of course, it's especially strong among cartoonists with new strips who covet that prime real estate. But it ain't gonna ever work like that.

It's also worth noting that few of the strips on this list usually employ any sort of day-to-day continuity or feature realistic characters. And it's very impressive that a self-syndicated strip — Chad Carpenter's Tundra — is more successful than many features that have big, powerful syndicates out there pushing them.

Not all that long ago, doing a newspaper strip was the ultimate dream of most cartoonists and there were an awful lot of non-cartoonists who saw it as a route to fame 'n' fortune. Every time there was a prominent article about how much money Charles Schulz made, the syndicates (there were a lot more of them then) would be deluged with samples. And as I've written here elsewhere, I'd get inundated with calls from friends of friends of friends who had, they were sure, the greatest idea ever for the "next Peanuts" and were looking for a cartoonist to draw up samples of it…for free. I don't get many of those calls these days. More often, it's e-mails from people who have a sure-to-succeed web comic who are looking for an artist who won't expect to be paid up front.

Hack to the Future

As I must have mentioned here a few times, I'm fascinated by the art and skill (those are not quite the same thing) of weather forecasting, especially the part that involves distilling all those computer models and isobar analyses down to a few brief sentences which will help millions figure out how to dress for tomorrow and whether to take an umbrella. At one point in another time and place, I briefly flirted with an offer to become a TV weatherman before reminding myself that was never what I wanted to do with my life. The brief flirtation, I might add, lasted about twenty seconds.

Now, I follow the forecasts not just to know how hot or cold it might be next Monday but as a fan/student of those who do it for a living. I believe today's forecasters are very good when it comes to telling you the weather for the next 48 hours. When people bemoan that weatherfolks are always wrong, it has usually been because the complainers have taken longer-range forecasts too seriously, which is to say at face value. In the weather forecasting business, there's a tremendous pressure on the meteorologists to issue 7-to-15 day projections…or even longer.

It would make all our lives simpler if we could know if it'll rain two weeks from now…and there are periods where that can be done with a fair amount of confidence. The problem is that when you do 15-day projections, you have to do them all the time. You have to put out that 15-day projection when it's easy to see that far ahead and you have to put it out when it's impossible to do that.

We in Los Angeles have a couple of storms heading our way now. As recently as last Monday, the official word was that we'd have a quarter-inch on Friday, a quarter-inch on Saturday and perhaps as much as 1.5 inches on Sunday, bleeding into Monday. But really if they could, the forecasters would probably have said, "We don't know yet." On Monday, the elements that will comprise this weekend's weather simply had too many options, too many directions in which they might drift.

Around Tuesday, the jet stream did an unanticipated shift and that two inches of precipitation is now heading mainly into Central California and proving to be not quite as damp. Where I am in L.A., we're now looking at one decent shot of rain and one slim chance of a few drops more. Between Friday night and Saturday morning, we'll get a quarter- to a half-inch of H2O. North of us, they should get twice as much, and of course the mountains around us usually get double whatever we get.

They're calling it a 60% chance but it looks to me more like a 100% chance of some rain and a 60% chance of achieving the stated amount. Then on Sunday, there's a very strong chance of some light rain in Central California and a tiny chance of it reaching us. The main computer model, the GFS, says the storm will fall apart totally before it gets to us. The other computer models say there could be sprinkles. As I write this, the National Weather Service hasn't hung a percentage on this one but if they had to, they'd probably put it at 20% just to cover asses.

I often think of weather forecasters when I read political pollsters. They too are under a competitive pressure to peer farther into the future than they should. Like the guys in the weather biz, they have to gather data on now, then throw out educated guesses for then, ignoring the many possible scenarios that could occur before the date in question. They publish them, then they try to refine the predictions as circumstances change and we get closer to the actual event.

I have a feeling that Obama will do quite well but I can also think of a hundred things that could make it, as Vin Scully likes to say, a Brand New Ball Game. Any poll today minimizes game-changers like Romney actually getting the nomination, his choice of running mate, battles at the conventions, what's said in debates, what kind of scandals get unearthed, how the stock market performs, unemployment numbers, possible terrorist attacks, effective TV commercials and the inevitable stupid gaffes we may hear. Look how just one or two clumsy statements or embarrassing revelations changed the presidential prospects of Rick Perry and Herman Cain.

The CBS poll finds Obama and Romney in a dead-even tie at the moment. That's significant because I think that could sew up the nomination for Romney, if not in South Carolina then soon after. A lot of Republican primary voters are likely to vote for The Guy Most Likely To Beat Obama and if the polls say that's Romney, so they'll go. Ron Paul is a close second but Ron Paul is not going to get the nomination because he's Ron Paul and there's not much he can do about that now. Romney's true rival for the nomination is Gingrich and this poll gives Obama an 11 point advantage over Gingrich. That's enough to make a lot of Republicans who'd prefer Gingrich to Romney pick Romney.

In the meantime, the Pew Research poll and PPP have Obama five points ahead of Romney while the CNN and ABC/Washington Post Polls have Romney one or two points ahead. At some point in the future when the Fox News and Rasmussen Polls show the G.O.P. contender with more strength than other polls, we'll be hearing about pollster bias and there may be a smidgen of validity on either side. But right now, the traditionally Conservative polls show Obama doing better than the traditionally Liberal polls…though it's all within the margin of error.

The intriguing difference between predicting politics and predicting the weather is that the former seers actually change the storyline they're trying to project. What the National Weather Service says on Monday doesn't change what the weather is on Friday. But candidates drop out or achieve frontrunner status because of polls. They get or lose campaign donations and even change strategies and platforms because they're down or up.

In both cases, the predictors are expected to say what's going to happen and they're not allowed to shrug and admit that any forecast is premature and meaningless. They've gotta say something so they do. It helps me to remember that they aren't quite the same job even though in both professions, it's possible for a prediction to be too early to mean a damn thing. It's always possible for the jet stream to shift to the north.

Today's Video Link

Hey, did you see Stephen Colbert last week on This Week with George Stephanopoulos? Well, if you didn't, here it is…

VIDEO MISSING

My Tweets for 2012-01-19

  • Okay…but what if someone in South Carolina wants to vote for the real Herman Cain? #
  • Wikipedia remains offline. Where can I turn for information of dubious accuracy? Oh, wait. Fox News is still on. #
  • Just drove by the Silent Movie Theater and the marquee says "Kill All Redneck Pricks." One of Chaplin"s lesser known films. #
  • Wikipedia claims to be offline today. But since it's Wikipedia, you'd better double check that. #

Another Nice Link

Today would have been the 120th birthday of Oliver Hardy. I'm not going to post a photo of him because you can look up or down on this blog for one…and you know what he looked like, anyway. But I will point you to a fine essay by Randy Skretvedt about the man I consider the greatest comic actor of the 20th century, and it also talks about the guy who owned the studio, Hal Roach. I enjoyed reading it but wish my fez had arrived in time for me to wear it then.

Today's Political Musing

So, assuming Mitt Romney is the G.O.P. nominee, here's the commercial I'm thinking the Democratic Party will run. We see a white couple in their late thirties sitting in a modest living room, perhaps surrounded by children. The camera pushes in on them and they say…

HUSBAND: We have three children, a dog and a large mortgage. We don't travel. We don't spend money lavishly. We can only afford to eat out about twice a month.

WIFE: He works a sixty hour week and I have a part-time job. Between us, we made $61,000 last year and we still sometimes have to live off credit cards we can never quite pay down to zero.

HUSBAND: Last year, Mitt Romney paid a much lower tax rate than we do. He not only has no problem with that, he wants even lower taxes for people in his bracket.

WIFE: He says it's to help the "job creators." But Mitt Romney doesn't create jobs. He got very rich closing down U.S. businesses or moving them overseas.

HUSBAND: And I oughta know. I worked for one of them. After he killed my job, it took me a year to find the one I have now.

WIFE: If he runs the country the way he ran businesses, he'll do fine…but people like us won't.

And maybe they'll sneak something in there about how a Republican Congress wants to raise taxes for the lower and middle classes and unsecure Social Security and matters of medical cost and a President Romney would encourage and allow them to do that. (By the way, here's a chart that compares Romney's effective tax rate with yours.)

So, uh, why wouldn't Democrats go with a campaign like this? Any reason other than that Barack Obama usually gets an awful lot of donations from folks who have the same vision of how taxes should work as the Republicans?

Fez Dispenser

fezorama

Hey, wouldn't you like to have a nifty Sons of the Desert fez as seen in the preceding post here? Well, thanks to a post by Leonard Maltin, I can tell you where you can get one. Read Leonard's latest post and then get over to the website of Fez-O-Rama and check out their selection of fezzes, including a model not unlike the ones Stan and Ollie wore. I'm ordering one.

Don't Lose Your Head…

My friend Michele Hart called my attention to an odd line in a grisly news item from the L.A. Times

Los Angeles police detectives were at the scene of a hiking trail below the Hollywood sign on Tuesday afternoon after a dog found a human head inside a bag.

The detectives are treating the case as a possible homicide, officials said, adding that they are looking for other body parts in the area.

Okay, I want to hear the explanation about how a human head inside a bag might not be a homicide…

Today's Video Link

Here's a five minute chat with my best friend (male division), Sergio Aragonés. If Sergio looks a little odd in this, it's because the videographers have flipped him around mirror-image in his close-ups so that he fits in better with the shots where he's seen with the interviewer. Observe as his watch changes wrists instantly.

He makes mention in here of the forthcoming Groo/Conan crossover mini-series from Dark Horse. That's what I should be working on here at the moment instead of posting this…

VIDEO MISSING

My Tweets for 2012-01-17

  • Went to Five Guys today around 1:00. Almost done with the fries. #
  • The 2012 presidential election may turn out to be about how many of us pay a lower tax rate than the Republican nominee. #
  • I'm at Costco. They have flu shots here but you have to get them twelve at a time. #
  • Today's potatoes are from Clawson Farms, Shelley, ID. #

Briefly Noted…

I am not shutting this website down in protest of the SOPA bill because no one will notice and no one will care. But I'm against the bill and hope it does not become law.