Blame Ricky Bobby for CNN’s Retracted Story

By Matt DiVenere

Can we all admit that CNN has had a rough few months? The culmination of it all is the “resignation” of three CNN journalists because of a retracted and inaccurate article on hedge-fund manager Anthony Scaramucci and his alleged relationship with a Russian investment fund that was being investigated by the Senate.

Here’s the problem: Every news outlet would jump at the bit for this story. And, according to The New York Times, that’s exactly what CNN did by publishing this article—they jumped despite the network’s standards team concerns. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for this meeting and who made the final decision to publish it.

Not too long ago (in a galaxy far, far away), when there was a retraction because of an inaccurate article, there were specific people in the workflow that the newspaper could point to. Yes, this error fell on these strong, veteran reporters and they paid the ultimate price for it.

“Forget “fake news.” This is the Ricky Bobby generation. If you ain’t first, you’re last.”

But let’s look at the bigger issue at work here. In today’s media landscape, news needs to be broken fast. It needs to be sent out before the ink dries. Well, the Internet ink at least. And when that story is broken, it gets repeated across hundreds of websites and on countless hours of network television.

This isn’t the first time a reporter has gotten a story wrong, and it certainly will not be the last. This need for speed mentality allows for crucial steps to be skipped, sped-up, or done just for show with any suggested changes or results ignored.

Now, I say this without any knowledge on what exactly happened behind the scenes at CNN, but there has to be accountability across the entire industry for articles like this. Especially now when you have the President of the United States spending (clearly) an abundant amount of time and (possibly) resources tracking network journalists’ every move.

Forget “fake news.” This is the Ricky Bobby generation. If you ain’t first, you’re last.

Journalists have always been competitive in nature. It’s just a part of the culture. Throw that competitive streak into a society that thrives on viral news, and you are bound to see people stretch their means to “win.” It’s a broken system and the only way it’s headed is down.

“Everything the job has stood for is being dragged through the mud. It’s time to win back our integrity and to boot out anyone who thinks otherwise.”

What’s worse is we need this system more than ever. We need it to be fixed, fast. But who will do it? Who can do it?

This is where the story becomes a tragedy for me. If you look at the younger generation of journalists, how will they be taught to succeed? Will the ultimate goal for future journalists be page views and notoriety? Will it be breaking meaningful, well-sourced news or is the race going to be the only driving force in the industry?

There are no easy answers. There’s no overnight fix. This will take a movement and it has to start from within. The scale is tipping against journalists every second. Everything the job has stood for is being dragged through the mud. It’s time to win back our integrity and to boot out anyone who thinks otherwise. It’s time.

More Writer’s Bone Essays

The Real Reason Why This Election Cycle Is the Worst in A Long Time

By Dave Pezza

Yes, that headline reads like one of those shitty Facebook posts that the most annoying people can’t help but share every 20 minutes. We used to call it a hook, now we call it click bait, but either way you still clicked on it so...fooled you!

This election cycle is considerably unbearable not because of this year’s morally repugnant, economically exploitive, and embarrassingly hypocritical candidates. Although, those facts are not open for interpretation in the comments section. We are quite possibly facing the worst Democratic and Republican candidates for president in the last 40 years, maybe longer if you considered Nixon v. McGovern a terrible prospect (a quick reminder that Nixon won that election by 520 electoral votes to 17!). No, the true horror of the 2016 election is that we must brave it without our fiercest weapon in the fight against political tyranny, Jon Stewart.

I’m always a little late to the party, but after recently watching Stewart take over “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” I realized how much I not only miss him, but how much I need him. His is the only public voice that has ever come close to harmonizing with my own. I watched “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” religiously for years, especially during election years. Stewart has always had an inexplicable knack for sniffing out bullshit.  But more than that, he can present the flip-flopping, the contradictions, and the straight-up lies with such a grounded tone that any disagreements I may have with his personal politics melt away in the heat of his fiery carpet bombs of truth. And perhaps that is how we as a culture are most hurt by his absence. The absence of Jon Stewart is an absence of intelligent political conversation.

My fondest memories of “The Daily Show” are not his tirades on President Bush or his utter destruction of the Fox News Network, but his conversations and debates with guests with whom he simply did not agree. For example, Stewart and Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly have had one of the best working relationships among political pundits of opposite sensibilities. They have appeared on each other’s programs a handful of times, and each time they managed to have intelligent, albeit heated, discussions about legitimate political topics, including popular vote versus electoral vote, white privilege, and the role of television journalism. They even took part in an actual televised debate in 2012 that lasted more than an hour and a half.

My fear is not that conservatism will run wild without the liberal Stewart keeping it in check (I think it is clear nothing can keep the Republican Party from a Death Star-scale implosion). My fear is what will happen now that these types of conversations are ending. Trevor Noah has tried his best to facilitate his own, unique version of “The Daily Show,” one that clearly and unapologetically skews to a younger and at times angrier fan base. And there is certainly nothing wrong or undignified about that approach. We also still have Stephen Colbert, who has never strayed too far from the Stewart mentality of responsible query and dissonance. But Colbert’s role in the zeitgeist is different from when he and Stewart shared an hour of late night coverage on a backwater network. Colbert now finds himself in an environment that calls for a bit more poise, some self-control, and some nonnegotiable ass kissing. Stewart put it more diplomatically (to no one’s surprise) after Colbert playfully reminded him that “The Late Show” is recorded live and that he couldn’t use the word “bullshit:” Stewart apologized, saying, “I’ve never been on a television show with stakes before.” 

And again, no one should criticize Colbert or his program for this. He is still Colbert, but a different forum on a different network means concessions. Even so, he has still done a terrific job of skirting that line in order to stay true to his faithful fans.

At the end of the day, we’re still missing our scrappy, Mets-loving, Arby’s-trashing political outlaw with nothing to lose, barreling ahead with appropriate abandon at the talking heads, the empty pant suits, and the spewers of nonsense and lies.

Essays Archive

Remembering Garry Shandling

By Sean Tuohy

Longtime comedian, director, and writer Garry Shandling died yesterday at the age of 66. His more than 40 years of entertainment will never be forgotten. From his work on sitcoms in the early 1970s to his groundbreaking television program “The Larry Sanders Show,” which laid the groundwork for smash shows such as “Arrested Development” and “30 Rock,” Shandling was a TV pioneer and master. With his self-deprecating humor and witty comebacks, Shandling was hands down one of the best stand up to watch.

Shandling started writing on “Sanford and Son” and produced four episodes. However, as his career was taking off, Shandling suffered a near fatal car crash. Most folks would have tried to find some comfort after this, but Shandling quit his successful job as a writer and started working as a stand-up comedian. He slaved, and slayed, on the stand-up circuit for a decade.

In 1992, Shandling teamed with writer Dennis Klein to produce the critically acclaimed TV series “The Larry Sanders Show,” a show within a show. Shandling played the eponymous late night talk show host who had to balance the demands of his insane guests with the antics of his equally demented staff. The show was the first cable-based program to receive an Emmy for Best Comedy and was also the directorial debut of Judd Apatow. Until it went off the air in 1998, “The Larry Sanders Show” was one of HBO’s most beloved shows.

Why the 'How I Met Your Mother' Finale Wasn't the 'Best Burger in New York City'

The "How I Met Your Mother" finale was the opposite of this moment.

By Stephanie Schaefer

I remember watching the series premiere of “How I Met Your Mother” when I was sophomore in high school. It was the perfect sitcom to fill the void left by the end of my favorite show “Friends,” provide distraction from my math homework, and entertain a 15-year-old girl stuck in the suburbs without a driver’s license. The truth is, at that point, I didn’t have a great deal in common with the show’s characters. I had never been in love and the thought of settling down seemed like a continent away, but I enjoyed the premise nonetheless. After all, isn’t that what sitcoms are for? To allow us to escape, dream, and laugh?

As I watched the crew gathering at MacLaren’s Pub each week, I envisioned what it would be like to be a 20-something gallivanting in New York City, dating eligible bachelors, and chasing an exciting journalism career like Robin. Back in 2005, I wanted the happily ever after between Robin and Ted. After all, I was young, naïve, and didn’t know anything about love.

A lot has changed in the past nine years since the pilot episode. In fact, after graduating college I did end up moving to Manhattan where I got my first taste of a journalism career. I soon related to the main characters more than ever. There were moments I shamelessly cried on a crowded subway like Robin, wondered if I’d ever find lasting love like Ted, and debated if I should stick to my career dreams or find a more financially stable job like Marshall.

Many of the creative and well-written early episodes resonated with me. Whenever the city got me down, I would retreat to my closet-sized room and watch reruns. I remember one episode that hit the nail on the head. Marshall and the gang go on the hunt for the “best burger in New York City.” Like most of the show’s iconic symbolisms, the burger meant more than just a meal. Marshall recalls the time when he first moved to the city eight years prior and tasted a bite of heaven in a tiny burger joint. Eating that delectable burger once again would make Marshall feel okay about putting his dreams of becoming an environmental lawyer on hold—especially when he disappointedly realizes that the location of the eatery had turned into Goliath National Bank (the corporation that recently offered him a job). However, in true “How I Met Your Mother” fashion, the five best friends finally taste that perfect burger after a long search in one of the most memorable moments of season four.

The gang in more hilarious times.

Similar to the HIMYM crew, in the midst of the confusion, heartbreak, and soul searching in New York, I did experience the moments that made me feel alive and as on top of the world as someone tasting the best burger they’ve ever had. Like Lilly, Marshall, Ted, Robin, and Barney, I met my friends at Irish bars after work, enjoyed amazing food, and even fell genuinely in love.

So kids, you may be wondering how I felt about the finale. I could dive into every flaw and tear the sitcom’s ending apart like many critics. Honestly, that was my original plan for this piece. However, after giving myself a few days to process the much-talked-about ending, I decided to take a slightly different route.

Like most HIMYM fans my age, I’ve grown up a lot in the past nine years. But while most of us gained maturity and insight over the near-decade, it seems as if the once beloved sitcom and its characters seemed to become less mature and more one-dimensional—which can be blamed on sloppy writing, poor character development, or failed attempts at humor.

The finale and episodes leading up to this big moment only increased my frustrations with the characters and their total lack of growth. Essentially, they were right back where they started, but we, as viewers, were not. Robin and Barney divorce because the two weren’t mature enough to handle Robin’s work schedule. Barney immaturely recreates his chauvinistic playbook and impregnates a one-night stand. And perhaps in the most frat-boy move of the show, instead of revealing her name, Bays and Thomas call the mother of Barney’s daughter “31” — as in the 31st woman he’d slept with that month. Hmmm, I wonder what will happen with Barney sits down to tell his daughter the story of how he met her mother…

What did change toward the end of the series, however, was the magic of the first few seasons. Anyone who’s watched the sitcom religiously knows how special the beginning of the series was. If you would have told 15-year-old me that future Ted Mosby shows up with a blue French horn at Robin’s doorstep to win her back once again, I would have thought it was romantic. But now I know that if you love someone – I mean truly, deeply, and unconditionally love someone – then you don’t make any excuses not to be with them, which is the main problem I have with the Ted/Robin courtship. When you know that you want to, or at least hope to, be with someone forever you do things that may seem illogical—like give up a judgeship so your wife can live her dream in Italy (à la Marshall), or, in Ted’s case with Tracy McConnell, cancel your plans to move to Chicago at the last minute.

Taken away in the worst way possible...

Throughout the past nine seasons this “I can’t live without you” mentality was never the case for Ted and Robin, particularly on Robin’s part, but they’re both to blame. The timing between them was always off. Either Robin didn’t want a commitment or was “too busy” at work or Ted was chasing other women or Robin was preoccupied falling in love with shallow and sexist Barney, etc. Bottom line, they never fought for each other. They only ended up together in the very end when it was convenient for writers who had grown too lazy and too reluctant to change their original plan.

But, you know what Bays and Thomas? Love doesn’t always mean convenience. Love, although at times messy, means sacrifice, commitment and compromise. It’s finding a way to greet your spouse at the airport even when it’s snowing, like Marshall did for Lilly. And, most importantly, it’s staying by someone’s bedside when they're sick like Ted did for Tracy. Ultimately, love means more than stealing a somewhat superficial (yes, I said it) blue French horn.

Like many “How I Met Your Mother” fans I was disappointed by the lukewarm ending—a conclusion that didn’t allow me to escape, dream, and laugh quite like I did while watching the show as a teenager. All and all, I hoped the finale would make a return to the sitcom's initial magic and leave me satisfied like eating the best burger in New York.

However, all I found was a Goliath National Bank.

For more essays, check out our full archive.