Entertainment desk
< November 28	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 29

Sharp Dressed Man

Who plays the (definitely not, for legal reasons, Truman Capote) camp fat man in the video for Sharp Dressed Man by the popular beat combo ZZ Top? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need a Shazam for faces. Legal aspects (which?) apart, I don't think he looks like Capote. Since his appearance doesn't require acting skills, he could have been anybody – the father-in-law of the Linden Hudson, or the brother of Billy Gibbons – and not necessarily someone known from any other performance. --Lambiam 12:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The music video has an entry on IMDb here, but doesn't list the portly guy. Since he had no lines, he probably didn't require an acting credit (plus he has, like, ten seconds of screen time). Matt Deres (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TV anchors cutting to reporters in the field

This is a question about TV newsreaders/anchors cutting to reporters in the field. In the "good old days", the anchor would ask the reporter a question ("Laura, how many million hectares have now been burnt out?", or "What more can you tell us, Peter?", etc etc) and the conversation would then proceed. All perfectly natural and normal.

About 10-15 years ago, this all changed, for the most part. Now, the anchor simply makes a statement ("Hi Laura. Three million hectares have now been burnt out in these horrific fires."), and the reporter is expected to treat it as if it were a question, and answer it accordingly.

To me, this has always sounded unnatural, false, contrived and, frankly, weird. No real-life conversations are ever conducted in this manner. If someone said to me "Three million hectares have now been burnt out in these horrific fires", I'd be very tempted to say "Shocking, isn't it?", or "OK, if you say so", or "Yes, and ...? What's your question?". Yet the TV stations all do it now, and I've been wondering all these years what the f**k is going on. Can anyone enlighten me? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first way sounds weird to me, because it's setting up the field report as though the reporter has some information that the anchor does not have, which is clearly not the case. Plus, the first way makes it sound like it's a two-way conversation between the anchor and the reporter. This is undesirable because it shuts the viewer out. The reporter needs to be addressing both the anchor and the viewer. A tricky balancing act, but it's only achieved with the second method, not with the first. --Viennese Waltz 21:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any interview between a host and a guest is conducted in a two-way question-and-answer format. I've never felt "shut out". If they were interviewing an actor about their latest movie, they wouldn't just pepper them with statements and expect them to come to the party. No, they would ask questions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I understand that the anchor-reporter relationship is not quite the same as the host-guest relationship. But it's still two human beings having a conversation where one is soliciting information from the other. If I want information, I don't tell someone something, I ask someone something. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at the other components of the "classic" setup. There was usually a single lead newscaster (or sometimes a pair), a weather person, a sports guy, reporters in the field, and various bit players (local feel-good stories, op-ed, whatever). Other than the weather person and the reporters in the field, the banter would typically be statement to statement: "Here's Gus with a look at sports!" "For the story on how little Pedro adopted a one-eyed bullfrog, here's Gretchen." And so on. The weather person would get the question and answer routine, but it was a very specific set-up where the blame for the weather was always positioned on the meteorologist: "Randy, anything you can do about all that snow?" "Jessica, do you have good news for beach-goers this weekend?" The only time there was a conversation was with the reporters in the field where the interrogation was apparently to make us feel that the news story was "breaking" and therefore too recent for the lead anchor(s) to have the details on. But that was clearly bullshit; the anchor has already read the wire. So, this new setup could be a seen as simply making that portion of the broadcast more similar to the rest of the show, where Q&A is largely absent. At the end of the day, it is all theatrics: you don't actually need more than one person reading the news; it just sounds better having multiple people involved. Matt Deres (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue with having multiple people involved. All I expect is that any communications between them on-air should sound natural, and not pointlessly contrived and forced and artificial. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The UK ones are very forced and pointless, typically along the lines of George Alagiah: "Today the Prime Minister said 'Waffle, blah, blah, waffle'. Let's cross live to Nick Robinson in Downing Street. Cut to Robinson, standing all alone in the heaving rain. Alagiah: "Nick, what did the Prime Minister say?" Robinson. "He said 'Waffle, blah, blah, waffle." Alagiah: "Nick Robinson there." --TrogWoolley (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For some arcane reason some networks seem to adhere to a tradition of presenting facts, but who cares how many hectares have now actually been burnt out. I think this setup makes it easier to segue to that which counts for the ratings: the human-interest angle.

Studio anchor: Hi Laura. Three million hectares have now been burnt out in these horrific fires.

Field reporter: Yes, Peter, absolutely. Three million hectares have now been burnt out in these horrific fires, and no one knows when we will see the end. The peasants here are devastated; they saw their livelihood go up in smoke in seconds in the relentless blaze, watching powerlessly, unable to do anything to stop it.

Camera swivels to reveal a devastated peasant standing next to the reporter getting a camera shoved into their face.

Half-burnt koalas being taken care of by Good Samaritans also work wonders for the ratings. --Lambiam 15:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comedy team of Bob and Ray used to make fun of this kind of thing. Now it's standard procedure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]