If you have had any communications with me lately, you know, for whatever reason, I have quite strong feelings about this situation.
First, I must admit my strong feelings, that in my opinion, Letterman is the true continuation of the Tonight Show, as Johnny Carson believed. Wikipedia excerpt: May 13, 1984 -During a week of shows taped in Los Angeles, Johnny Carsonmade a surprise appearance on the show after leaving The Tonight Show.[1]Carson maintained a friendship with the show for the years that followed, even secretly writing jokes for the monologue.[2] This rare surprise appearance was Carson's final major television appearance before his death.[1]
Carson never again appeared on Leno's show or the Tonight Show at any time.
After Leno, in my opinion, underhandedly received the Tonight Show from NBC, and did so poorly in the ratings, that NBC even eventually offered the position to Letterman after Leno's contract was up due to their disappointment in the show and his ratings. Letterman of course declined after speaking with longtime Tonight Show producer Peter Lassally and Johnny Carson and went on to his own show on CBS. The Late Show beat the Tonight Show in the ratings for nearly the first two years; until the summer of 1995 when Hugh Grant appeared on Leno's show after being arrested for prostitution. And it is said Letterman's reluctance to joke about the OJ Simpson trial going on in California at the time that Leno often joked about.
So NBC stayed with Leno after he came in second in the ratings for nearly two years. So their argument that Conan was not immediately winning in the ratings, on their last place network, after taking over the reins at number one, is similar to conditions that Leno took over the Tonight Show. Except when Leno took over the Tonight Show, NBC was the number one network, not four, with shows like the Cosby Show, Cheers, Seinfeld, ER, etc. Perhaps if Conan had even the mildest of opportunities to be on the air with any type of lead-in, his ratings would have improved as Leno's did. But the last place network was greedy in not wanting to give up some of the only talent they had left, their late night hosts.
Leno is now claiming that he never wanted to give up the show as he agreed to in 2004. He sure is changing his tune again from what he said in 2004 in this YouTube clip
. He claimed he did not want to go through the similar scenario that occurred during the Letterman leaving for CBS scenario. Leno calls the show a dynasty to be hosted for a while and pass the reins on, as to never compete with Carson. He seemed pretty excited to give Conan the opportunity and declares how he is no Johnny Carson and has no business doing the Tonight Show into his 60s as Carson did. He also references Jerry Seinfeld leaving at the top of the ratings after discussing the situation with him. Coincidentally enough, Seinfeld was one of the first celebrities to come to Leno's side in this whole scenario, http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/jerry-seinfeld-defends-nbcs-jay-leno-concan-obrien/story?id=9530328. I find it hard to believe that an educated man like Jerry Seinfeld does not see how NBC pulled the carpet, so to speak, from under Conan's feet.
And now that Conan decided to stand up to the network, and not accept what most would consider a demotion, because Leno's new show failed, and NBC was too greedy to let him go elsewhere, Conan is forced to take the high road and walk away from his dream job he was promised and contracted for.
Leno was then prepared to adjust the dynasty of the Tonight Show by allowing it to be moved to 12:05 so he could be on at 11:35. This again contradicts his earlier statements of the greatness of the Tonight Show and how it should not be tampered with (format wise).
If you watch Leno's statement about the situation , you will see no remorse in his face or voice. He is completely back stepping on what he said in 2004 (which he was only number one since 95, so 9 years not 11). He puts down Conan's show, claims to have been fired in 2009, and seems to have no problem taking his job back from Conan that he agreed to step away from. He always tries to paint himself as the nice guy with his "I don't have an agent or a manager" statement. But he shows in this clip his sleaziness, quickly grabbing his old job back, without saying he cannot do that to his friend Conan and Conan's staff. He happily accepts his job back, and puts Conan down again for not getting ratings. He is trying to get back in the general publics good graces after running over Conan.
I find this scenario so similar to that of the 1992 arrangement. Leno again sneakily gets his way. It is a downright shame.
And Dick Ebersol, so conveniently named dick, made some stupid statements http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/business/media/15conan.html. For some reason, he thinks being part of the team that invented Saturday Night Live gives him the ability to comment on all late night. Of course he was in charge of NBC late night for some time, and I'm sure he took plenty of credit for Carson's unparalleled run as the greatest host in late night. But as you can see, the man who criticizes Letterman and Conan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Ebersol#Criticism, has plenty to keep his mouth shut about. Let him go back to covering the Olympics, which by the way will be losing a couple hundred million this year, http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=1541960. Perhaps if he argued Conan was let go for ratings or losing money, he should be let go for costing the network 200+ million dollars. Another hypocrite.
Well I hope you enjoyed my brief perspective, and hope Leno is off the air as soon as possible and await Conan's return to late night and hope he bashes Leno and NBC for this whole scenario.
Thank you Casey Ryback. While you obviously did not read my last post (rant) well enough, you bring up an interesting point. My last post did contain punctuation, correct grammar and so on. It did not contain proper capitalization. And if you have ever had quick email dialogue with me you would know this to be true in that case as well. Microsoft Office has made us so dependent on automatic corrections for common mistakes such as capitalization at the beginning of a sentence. I am extremely guilty of this scenario. I personally am extremely reliant on Microsoft Word, Powerpoint, Entourage/Outlook to automatically correct many of my mistakes in order for me to type faster and more carelessly. While I always self punctuate, (although I may be comma heavy and period light), I hate being bothered by using the shift key for the pronoun or beginning of a sentence. In my personal business, my notes are always capitalized and the shift key is never an issue, never needing to be utilized. So whether always using the caps lock or never using it, my normal writing never requires my personal use of the shift key. So when it comes to writing in a program (like this web based blog, or web based e-mail) that is not associated with automatic corrections, my presentation may suffer. Obviously a simple copy and paste solution is possible. But i point this out to show how dependent many of us have become to these automatic corrections in various programs. Just another simple thing we tend to overlook until it is automatically unavailable like so many other effortless conditioned scenarios we normally partake in.
i am not a stupid man, but i cannot figure out why the writers are still the ones who determine who is enshrined into the hall of hame. the majority of these writers whom have never played the game of baseball, at least nothing past the sandlot level, should have no more say in the matter than i do. there should be some sort of formula either overall or per position. numbers and statistics should be analyzed anonymously without name or photo for discovery. every player should be treated the same from the beginning. any voter who factors steroids into their vote should never be allowed to vote again. and it should not be votes, it should be formulaic solely. and any person who thinks the players of yesteryear would not have taken any advantage they could get (whether it against the rules or not) are beyond naive and ignorant. any person in a competitive position not looking to gain every edge possible on their opponent is not achieving their potential. i cannot understand what the writers have to do with the sport. the hall of fame is for the most talented. how is talent proven? by actions, by numbers, by statistics, regardless of how those were achieved. the player actually had to perform those tasks, a needle cannot hit/throw a ball, swing a pitch. and whether or not it was against the law is one thing, and those breaking the law should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. but when it is not against the rules of the game, being punished for it is reprehensible. beyond hypocritical, and being downright unfair, it is cheating. sports are entertainment. this is not the olympics, this is not amateur hour, these are professionals who are paid to entertain, and the product is what brings in the money. sport is an entertainment, flat and simple. i can't wait for the player who has the balls enough to turn down the hall of fame. the player who has the balls to say screw you writers, i know i am great, i don't need my ego to be filled by a bunch of guys who never played the game. no thanks, i don't want to be part of any club that would have me as a member. show me that player, and i will cheer till my voice is gone. the player who says, i didn't do steroids, because i didn't know about them, or i couldn't get them, but if i could have, i would have. and where do these writers think all these professional athletes were getting these illegal substances and not being caught for so long. so now the players who were smart enough to use these substances to save the sport after the strike (and before it) are now being punished for their accomplishments. way to go everybody. way to go owners. way to go trainers. way to go writers who followed the race and made it front page news. no that they can't help you, scorn them for saving your asses. can these writers not grasp the concept that if it weren't for these substances they would have nothing to write about. their sport would be on the back burner. they would be as popular or well paid as those that cover the nhl or the nba in the late seventies early eighties. so mlb i put it to you. please revoke the writers privileges. they have no business in determining anything involving the hall of fame. those players who deem they want access should solely be granted based on performance and nothing else.
