I haven’t been able to do a good set of linkage due to shuffling in between two offices over the last couple of days. I hope to be able to do some on Wednesday. However, I’ll give you a brief post on a few issues to hold you over for the night.
First, thanks to Jimmy Traina of Sports Illustrated for tweeting this first story. It comes from Vanity Fair and its contributing editor George Wayne who conducts an interview with Erin Andrews who may or may not be staying with ESPN.
This interview accompanies a photo shoot of Ms. Andrews (is it right to call it “Caught Looking at ESPN’s Erin Andrews considering what she’s been through?) that is in the August issue. Check out a behind the scenes video below.
The reason why I’m making a post regarding the interview is due to Wayne’s strange questioning of Erin. I don’t know if he’s trying to be snarky or the print version of Howard Stern because neither style is working. Here are some of his questions:
You’ve got these long spindly legs. Did you have a nickname?
Do you have man-size feet like Paris Hilton? You know, she can find shoes to fit her only in the “tranny” section of the shoe store.
What is the one thing you take when feeling constipated?
You have been a victim of cyber-perversity—and, most impressive of all, you have rebounded in astounding fashion. Is there anything you would wish upon that man, Michael Barrett, who filmed you naked last year?
… what gets me to the vomitorium is that faux romance between you and that cheesy ballroom-dancing partner of yours. What was with this tabloid fake romance?
Is Wayne serious? Is he trying to be funny? Is he trying to get a reaction from Erin? You can feel the tension coming out from the text of Erin’s answers. And for her part, Erin tweeted this reaction to Jimmy Traina: “I thought I was being punked thru the whole thing..”
That pretty much tells you everything you need to know. Strange interview and I don’t think I would have even gone to where Wayne was trying to take the questions.
It’s no wonder why people hate reporters. You see questions like that and you just shake your head.
Next, what’s up with Craig Kilborn?
This week, former ESPN SportsCenter anchor, Daily Show host and late night talk show host Craig Kilborn started hosting a new show on seven Fox-owned stations as part of a trial summer run. It’s hoped that the show will get an audience and the show can be aired either on the national Fox network or syndicated.
The Kilborn File has many of Craigger’s familiar schtick, his fake news headlines, 5 Questions and then something called “The Power Panel” where two or three guests give their take on the news of the day. Whether the show gets picked up is up to the ratings in the seven markets where the show is being aired.
I was a fan of Craig’s when he was on ESPN and enjoyed his work on the Daily Show. But I found it strange that he would leave television altogether in 2004, quitting the Late, Late Show and disappearing.
An interview in Monday’s Los Angeles Times with Joe Flint shed some light on why Kilborn left CBS, but really doesn’t get into the meat of the issue. And that’s the problem with Craig. He seemingly goes into a project with guns blazing, but then seems to get bored and leaves. To me, the interview sounded pompous, but that’s the schtick that Kilborn has been doing ever since he left ESPN for The Daily Show.
I’d like to root for the new show, but it appears that Craig doesn’t seem to care if it gets picked up nationally. Flint writes, “If the show doesn’t work, Kilborn says he won’t lose sleep over it. He has sitcom ideas and fantasies of returning to Northern California and becoming a disc jockey.“
It’s obvious that Craig has no intention of returning to sports and appears that he just wants to live in his own world, away from the bright spotlight. But if that’s the case, why return to TV? It’s that enigma that makes Kilborn very hard to embrace.
Friend of Fang’s Bites, SportsbyBrooks also provides a take on Kilborn and he seems to be puzzled by Craig as well.
A couple of stories to chew on for your mid-week.