Posted by Chris on November 27, 1999 at 13:33:06:
In Reply to: Re: Politically Incorrect: Wes and Russell on TV posted by Goody Sandy on November 27, 1999 at 10:08:07:
: Petra said:
: : I just got through watching the show. So, what did others think? Were you disappointed too? I thought it was so flat...
: I agree with what all of you have said about Politically Incorrect. The program was too short and not enough time was devoted to discussing any one topic, leaving me to wonder "Is that all there is?" The show didn't live up to my expectations of a thought-provoking, heated discussion, but it was, as Peta said, FLAT. I'm glad I taped the show rather than forcing myself to stay up so late to watch it.
: Bill did a poor job of moderating the discussion, allowing it meander in different directions so the main topic - Thanksgiving - wasn't adequately discussed, and also allowing guests to interrupt one another. He seemed more concerned with interjecting his "witty" one liners than with moderating the discussion and keeping it focused on the topic.
: I was also surprised that Wes remained silent when Russell mentioned some of his more controversial opinions such his claim that pre-Columbian Indians never went to war. I wasn't so bothered though by Ken's addition to the panel. I think he was there to play Devil's advocate. After all, the purpose of the program is to discuss all viewpoints of an issue, and not to provide a forum for one group of like-minded people to give only their point of view.
: Ken was rather rude though but it was interesting to watch someone who could talk over Russell. I would love to see an expanded version of this discussion with Wes, Irene and Russell but with a different moderator and someone other than Ken Hamblin to give an opposing view point. And preferably on a commercial-free channel because the commercials were very disruptive to the discussion as well.
: Wes, Irene and Russell looked marvelous.
: Best wishes,
: Goody Sandy
I don't know why I watch programs such as this. They primarily serve only to raise my blood pressure. I watched the show once before and it had similar problems. No thought was ever discussed to completion; people were interrupting one another; there were disagreements and frustration on the parts of the guests. Why did I think this would be different? I squirmed right along with Irene Bedard in the beginning. I was glad to see she stood her ground and put forward her thoughts. I think each of the guests made points which had some validity and should have been discussed more thoroughly. However, I don't believe that is the goal of this show. It seems to be aimed at those people who like confrontation and who have no desire to really learn anything of importance about the topic at hand.
It will be interesting (if we ever get a chance to view it) to see how Johnny Depp's program on Indians in film turns out. I have a feeling we will learn a lot more about the topic in a much less confrontational atmosphere.
Post a Followup