TO: Tony Palmeri and Jim Mather
FROM: Dan Rylance
RE: Commentary for 2002
DATE: 3 January 2002
With Commentary off the air for January, I thought this would be a good time to give my critique of Commentary and make some suggestions for 2002 programs. Both are made constructively and with civility. If some hit hard, remember that humor is the sign of a spiritual person (Thomas A'Kempis) and that if we cannot take a good look at ourselves we are less able to look at others in the same light (Dan Rylance).
In the spirit of American Southern Culture, I want to start with a positive overview. Commentary provides a valuable service for its viewers. Its strength is its fairness to allow all participants to have their say without attack or rancor. There are only a few instances where either of you sort of lost it with fairness and guests who you strongly disagreed with or were not supportive of their candidacy. I suspect both of you know yourselves well enough to know when this occurred so there is no need for me to discuss them here.
Program strengths:
1. Strong attention to Winnebago County and Oshkosh city matters especially elections, issues and personalities. No other media outlet offers what Commentary does with these two bodies.
2. An attempt to bridge town and gown. Chancellor Richard Wells has been a guest at least three times on Commentary as well as the new Provost and select members of the faculty. This is an important function especially for a student run channel to provide for the community.
3. Environment and technology. Here again Commentary provides discussion on environmental and technology issues not covered by any other media.
4. State issues. Although less strong then the three above, Commentary at times offers solid programs on key state issues with some key state policy makers.
5. Select school issues. Commentary deals primarily with personalities like LuAnn Bird, former President of the Oshkosh School Board.
6. Unexpected programs. On occasion, Commentary attempts something different and away from mainstream which adds variety and content for its viewers.
Program weaknesses:
1. Limited education issue coverage. Commentary is less interested in public school issues then the newspaper or the community. I don't know why this is although I would offer a guess that neither of you have a personal stake in the school system other than paying property taxes. Commentary ignored the Indian nickname issue, the Referendum until it was too late or important Board issues about open meeting and free speech issues.
2. Other media. Commentary spends segments of many programs criticizing the Northwestern. I can't recall much opportunity for the newspaper or other media to respond to Commentary. With a new editorial writer at the Northwesterm maybe this would be a good opportunity to exten the olive branch.
3. Ignore students. I can recall one of the best Commentary shows in the past which centered on two high school students. I don't recall a second student program or a single program that centered on UWO student issues in Oshkosh (odd for a student run channel).
4. Local history and culture. Commentary is almost exclusively political. Why not offer some other programs that address other issues in the county and city?
5. Federal-state issues. I think either our Congressman or one of our Senators should be a Commentary guest in 2002. Have you every tried seriously to have them on your program?
Format and style comments:
This will be a tad more personal so be prepared to laugh.
1. Introduction and conclusion of the program. Tony begins with a short and clever introduction but the show lacks a strong conclusion. In past years, Jim would end the program with an outrage of the week or something else. Why was it dropped?
2. Two shows in one. There seems to be two Commentary shows most of the time. The Tony Show and the Mather Show. Are either of you aware of it? For example, after Tony's introduction, Jim offers a second one. Another example, neither of you seem interested in each other's segment and at times when one of you has just got to a real good issue, the other instead of asking a good follow-up question simple changes the subject at a crucial point of the program. Why do you do this? Also, at times you both seem either bored or upset about each other's line of questioning. Are you?
3. Little reporting or visuals. Commentary could easily be supplemented by a short reporting piece and more visuals on important topics.
4. Half hour segments. I know this is more difficult but two half-hour programs on two relevant issues is better than one program on only one issue.
5. Repeats. I think some county and city officials as well as some University officials appear too often and are given too much time exposure at the expense of others.
The key issue of 2002 is the old tension between taxes and spending. I'll leave what will happen in Washington except to say that the State of the Union speech in late January will set the stage for how to pay for the bombs, replenish the Social Security Trust Fund, and whether the 10 year tax plan is affordable.
At the state and local level I include an op-ed piece from the St. Paul Pioneer Press, December 20, 2001 written by the Minnesota Revenue Commissioner. It's representative, however, of any state revenue commissioner as we end 2001 and move to 2002. Wisconsin deficit woes mirror those of Minnesota and the solutions described in this piece will play out in Madison as well.
This topic should be the centerpiece as you interview candidates for the Legislature, County supervisors, Common Council and School Board. All will be heavily affected by how Wisconsin deals with its growing deficit.
Enough. Anyone for a beer?
Dan Rylance