While my friend and I were on the subway earlier this afternoon, we noticed an ad for GERALDO AT LARGE, America's favorite... journalist's Fox TV show. Now this show is certainly not new - I may be accused of being late to the party - but something about the way in which light glinted off that moustache spoke to me. I knew I had to start watching the show.
Simply watching it wasn't enough, I realized as soon as I got home. No, I was going to take part in a grand sociological experiment. I was going to watch GERALDO AT LARGE (GAL - not an appropriate acronym, since Geraldo is 100% rugged he-man; the guy could teach Charles Atlas a thing or two about testosterone) for one week, not getting news from any other sources, and see how that altered my worldview.
I started today, just to get a taste of what lay in store for me. Unfortunately, I forgot when it started (6:30 - book it) and missed the first five minutes. Then the Chinese food got here around 6:47, so I only viewed 40% of his walrus-like facial glory and journalistic triumphs. I think I saw enough to make some passable commentary on the show, though.
The first segment I saw started with a very poorly done montage on the history of the use of DNA evidence to overturn or support convictions that managed to use an impressive amount of video footage and voiceover narration without me feeling that I'd actually learned anything or even heard any sort of point being made. Several flashing graphics that displayed GERALDO's name in caps and that did little swooshy things later, I discovered that today's issue revolved around the ethics and legality of procuring DNA evidence without a court order or the suspect's consent. A police lawyer sent a Washington man suspected of a rape back in the 1980s a letter requesting him to fill out some forms and other procedural etcetera's. This was of course a clever ploy; by making him lick an envelope, the cops deceptively acquired the evidence they needed to prove him guilty. (Which is awesome, kinda - I always thought of DNA evidence as like hairs found on a corpse or semen on a rape victim, not something so innocuous. I better stop hocking loogies at cops on the subways.) Is this ethical? Legal? I wasn't sure, so I knew I had to listen to the upcoming teleconference debate in which two opposing points of view would be presented; as an informed viewer, I would be able to weigh the different arguments carefully and make up my own mind as to which position was correct. Here is a very rough paraphrase of what followed:
[Member of the Washington Bar Association, a bald, Jewy guy] : Hi, Geraldo.
[A woman labeled as a prisoners' rights advocate, which seemed strange given her stance. Maybe I misheard.] : Hi, Geraldo.
Geraldo: So what do you think about this issue?
Lawyer: I think that it is wrong for the police department and their lawyer to act in this way because it undermines public opinion of lawyers.
[Ed. comment: No comment.] A lawyer is supposed to represent his client and always act in his interest. These devious tactics help erode trust in the legal system.
Woman: Was this man forced to lick the envelope? Did he not do it of his own volition?
Lawyer: The point is this undermines the sacred trust between an attorney and a client.
Woman: Just answer me. Was there a moment when the lawyer said, "I am your lawyer. You have to lick this envelope." No, it was perfectly legal.
Lawyer:
[Volume steadily increasing] Look, these devious tactics further the erosion of legal ethics.
Woman:
[The decibel level soars] Was there coercion? Nope, he made a choice.
Lawyer:
[Shouting] Undermine-
Woman:
[Screaming] Volition!
Geraldo: OK, thanks, guys, that was an interesting debate. Good to have you on the show.
CUT TO COMMERCIALBasically, each of them came onto the show with exactly one talking point and proceeded to paraphrase it (probably varying their actual words even less than they do in my semitranscript) several times, raising their voices instead of responding to each others' arguments. I know I shouldn't find this at all shocking - I've heard Jon Stewart's (and other more serious folks') critiques of Crossfire et al, and I've even masochistically watched a little Bill O'Reilly bloviation when the internet tipped me off that he had said something particularly ludicrous, but the lack of anything even resembling intelligent debate is still somewhat striking.
Two or three promos for "Celebrities on Ice" later, the mustachioed marvel returned, promising something about stripper's butts and cheerleading casualty rates.
Ah, I thought.
Now we are getting somewhere. Pants may or may not have been removed. The first of these issues was raised in a 'news update' given by a vapid blonde midlevel news desk type who was notable only because of her blatant disdain for Geraldo. She ran through a litany of semi-wacky human interest type stuff, making special mention of strippers organizing to protest a New Jersey ban on smoking in bars. So he meant that sort of butts. God damn me and my selective hearing. Anyway, she passed the baton back to Geraldo, basically grimacing as she said, "And we now return to your studio host [oh god what the fuck went wrong with my life that I'm working for this buffoon], Geraldo [ignorant clownish lowbrow trash] Rivera." That exact wording was conveyed implicitly by her facial gestures. It was worth noting. So anyway, Geraldo shows off some stock pictures of human pyramids (Springfield High, not Abu Ghraib Junior Varsity) and starts blathering about cheerleaders [this one is closer to the actual text than the last one]: "Cheerleading: Is it becoming an extreme sport? Cheerleading has always been a pleasant suburban extracurricular activity, an essential part of the American high school experience. But recent reports show that this innocent after school activity has become more competitive - and more dangerous. More and more girls are getting injured performing routines that seem like they belong at the X Games. Many have found themselves in the ER. Some have even ended up in the morgue." That was about when the doorbell rang. It was a nice way to close out the evening, though.
Isn't the Senate deliberating over whether or not Sam Alito should be approved to the Supreme Court, a decision that could impact American politics for decades? Isn't there all sorts of drama going on regarding Iran's decision to resume its nuclear program? And Jennifer Aniston didn't know that Angelina Jolie was pregnant. (At least I think that's what's gone down.) Certainly, GAL could have touched on these subjects in the first five minutes which I missed. But I'd guess it's more likely that it dealt with something like a pair of gay Elvis impersonators trying to resolve custody of their adopted Vietnamese child after a messy breakup. (Well, that's not really the impression I have of the show - it's NY Post trashy, not Enquirer-esque, and besides, that story wouldn't allow any cheerleader outfits or G-string closeups. Ugh, at least I'd hope it wouldn't.)
Over the course of next week, as Project Geraldo gets into full swing, I'll decide what I really think about this show. Is it utter garbage, a man with a rather unique moustache egotistically placing himself at the center of every vapid story? Or is it somewhat benevolent, a less serious show that just cuts straight to Americans' most inalienable right, the right to watch TV with plenty of T & A? Well, I think I already know the answer to that question, so I'll probably just talk about each day's highlights, the zaniest of the zany one only encounters in that special little town called Geraldoville, and that moustache. Oh God, that moustache. If you think that myself or anyone else overuses that, please just go look for a picture of him and you'll understand. If not, God help you.