Clinton, O.J. only warmup acts for TV's real darlings

Web-posted: Tuesday, February 11, 1997

o I look like some kind of boob?'' Slats Grobnik asked. "Look at me. Do my eyes touch at my nose? Am I drooling? You ever see me move my lips when I read? Am I some kind of lowbrow?''

How much time do I have to answer?

"Never mind. My feelings are hurt. I been insulted. And so have millions of other decent Americans.''

By whom? And in what way?

"All kinds of smart alecks in the media and the kind of quiver lips who write letters to the papers.''

But what have they said?

"Lemme explain it this way. We got to go back to last week when the O.J. jury came in and we were all waiting to see what it decided. And at the same time, all the suits in Washington were sitting down to listen to the president give his speech about the state of the union. And the TV guys are trying to figure out what they're going to do with both stories ready to pop at the same time.''

Yes, it was a difficult time for the networks.

"So what was you watching?''

Well, I have to admit I was doing a bit of back-and-forth clicking on my zapper. But being that my calling requires me to be a serious-minded journalist with a vital interest in the state of the union, I decided I would remain glued to the president's speech.

"Not me. I found Channel 9 and saw that they was going to stick with the O.J. story all the way, so I stayed right there.''

To each his own. I suppose there were will always be those drawn to more sensational, although transient, news events. It takes all kinds, although I don't know why.

"See. You're just as snobby as the rest of them.''

Don't be offended. You must understand that it is part of my job and a professional obligation to take a more serious, studious position. I can show you -- Page 5 of the pundit's handbook.

"Yeah, well I can tell you there were more people like me than like you. We wanted to know if this jury was going to stick it to him like he deserved. Maybe it wasn't a regular guilty verdict, but it was the next best thing. And I wanted to hear it when it came in. So what happens?''

So they stuck it to him.

"Nah, that's not what I mean. What we've had is pundits and other stiffs moping about how awful it was that there were people like me who was more interested in the O.J. case than in listening to Clinton make a speech. They're say, `Oh, my, what is happening to society. What kind of people are there who would rather find out what the O.J. verdict is than listen to the president of the United States make a speech?' ''

Well, one could make the argument that a responsible, concerned citizenry that wishes to be well-informed on matters of national importance should exercise its ...

"Oh, come on. After the last election campaign and all the blabbing about a bridge to the next century, do I gotta listen to any more? If I do, I might flip out and do a header off that bridge. It wasn't like I thought he was gonna announce that he's going to get rid of the income tax. Or that he wanted to solve the welfare problem by starting something like the WPA and giving people jobs fixing up the railroad tracks and filling potholes. He says he believes in education. OK, who don't believe in education? And he says that anybody who wants two years of college should be able to get it, which is really dumb. The problem ain't two years of college. It's kids who can't read or write after eight years of grammar school.''

I have to concede that his speech didn't break much new ground. But that isn't the issue. The point the social critics made is that too many Americans such as you have the wrong priorities.

"Then those stiffs ought to wake up. We found out more from the O.J. case about racial attitudes and police work and the legal system, which is important stuff, than we found out from the State of the Union Message. Let's face it, the day any president gives us the straight dope on the state of the union they'll be a national nervous breakdown.''

That may be so. But I hope that when the O.J. verdict had been fully reported and your morbid curiosity had been satisfied that you immediately switched over and heard as much of the State of the Union speech as remained.

"Forget it. There was a Bulls game. And because of the O.J. coverage, I had to miss the whole first quarter.''

No, it was only the first eight minutes, as I recall.

"Ha! So you switched to that, too, huh?''

We all have priorities.

© 1996 Chicago Tribune