Stew Rieckman says this about Eye on Oshkosh, yesterday and today:
"Hentz, meanwhile, moved freely between the roles of freelance journalist, television host, Web master and candidate with an ease that confounded and flummoxed me. The fact that the early years of Eye on Oshkosh were shout fests with rare moments of substance did not enhance her standing in my eyes. However, if you haven’t tuned in recently, you have missed the fact that Hentz and her regular co-host Tony Palmeri have elevated Eye on Oshkosh into a program that is taken seriously for it’s discussion with newsmakers about local public affairs."
As an alpha gnat, I suppose I should appreciate the Everyday Editor's crediting of Cheryl and I with "elevating" Eye on Oshkosh. However, I sincerely believe that the program has always been of high quality, whether it was co-hosted by my badly gnatted self or by Melanie Bloechl. In fact, when Stew talks about the show being a "shout fest" in its early years he is really taking a not so subtle shot at Bloechl, whom he has been at odds with since her days on the Oshkosh Common Council.
I think Bloechl and I bring different qualities to a show like Eye on Oshkosh. Though I am from a solidly working class family (father a shoemaker, mother a McDonald's worker) and identify strongly with the blue collar Joe Lunchbuckets, my position as a college professor doesn't always lend me credibility in that role. Melanie, on the other hand, provided Eye on Oshkosh viewers with a more no-holds-barred, "call it as I see it" approach to hosting. I don't see that what Cheryl and I do on the program is any better than what Cheryl and Melanie did--I think it's different. For people who like a more reserved, journalistic type of program, then the Hentz/Palmeri program is probably preferable. But for people who believe that cable access television should really be a voice of the grassroots in all its glory or gruffness, then the Hentz/Bloechl program gets high points.
I believe both versions of Eye on Oshkosh were/are valuable and that there is ample room on cable access for both types.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
63 comments:
I think it would be interesting to have another show like Bloechl/Hentz on the air with Palmeri/Hentz (same channel, not same time). I think it would spur some healthy dialogue and friendly competition to get the grassroots juices flowing. While I think Cheryl does have a following, there is a portion of the community not comfortable enough to be on the show. There are those viewers who don't respond to Palmeri/Hentz like they would a "tell it like you see it" version. I would watch both.
Stew rieckman taking a not so subtle shot at Melanie Bloechl? Please be still my heart! Some things never change. First Tony let me thank you for being kind with your assesment of the early days of the show. As you are well aware I was never comfortable in the role of co-host, thus I always refered to myself as the "color person" tongue -n- cheeck of course.
Stew may still wish to take a shot from his cheap seats, but he is and always has been very transparent. For example, while Stew loves to label and find fault with me or my stances on varying issues, I would pose a serious question to him. Mr Rieckman could you please explain why your and your executives decided to KILL the story that was being done on OCDC? You know the one that exposed OCDC as a do nothing organization, or better yet the take credit for that which we didn't really accomplish organization? I spoke directly with your reporter working on this story, we exchanged a great deal of information. Could it be that you lack the courage to do what is right for this community when it means that your political clout is hanging in the wind?
This isn't the first time you have killed a story or bemoaned the gnats for their so-called conspiracy theories. But you and I both know the truth here. Not only does the Chamber of Commerce run this City, but your so-called newspaper as well.
You may have a great dislike for my stance on issues, but I have never sold my community out for the almighty buck! How many more time are you and your fearless leaders going to screw over this community in order to serve your own agenda?!
Call'em like I still know'em and see'em
Melanie Bloechl
Just because someone is "shouting" does not make them a voice for the grassroots. What a silly thing to say. The grassroots shouts in a lot of different voices; just because you agree with one of them doesn't make that one right.
Way to pat yourself on the back, criticize Stew, and praise Melanie all at the same time. What a self-lovefest Talk to Tony is.
I doubt New Voice really knows what they're speaking about. I for one have been impressed with the caliber of guests Eye on Oshkosh has been able to get on the show. I would not call a few who have their own agenda and personal or professional reasons for not coming on "a portion of the community."
S.B.,
Nothing's really keeping me from calling it as I see it on Eye on Oshkosh, and I suspect most people who watch the show know perfectly well where I am coming from on most issues discussed there. However, my belief is that the job of a talk-show host is FIRST AND FOREMOST to make sure that the views of the GUEST(S) take center stage. Often that requires that I refrain from stating my own views, play devil's advocate even when such advocacy might contradict my "real" view, and even help the guest(s) state their views if I don't feel they are doing it clearly or effectively.
My role models for interviewing were in their heyday way before you were born: William F. Buckley from the old "Firing Line" program (I think that was the best public affairs program in the history of public television even though Buckley was/is much too conservative for my taste); Tom Snyder when he did the "Tomorrow" show (just a great personality and brought a kind of curiosity to his interviews that made his guests feel important--they all loved talking to him); Dick Cavett (his easy going style masked what was and is a keen intellect and passion for understanding serious issues); and Johnny Carson (probably the most underrated interviewer in the history of television--his intelligence and wit have never been matched by the late-night hosts who followed him).
Tony, Cheryl and Melanie all tell it like they see it. Whether a particular instance is through facial expression, tone of voice, a joke, the phrasing of a question or an outright statement of opinion.
They each have their own personal style of course, which will appeal to some and not to others. There isn't going to be an objective, definitive answer on this any more than a group of Trekkies are going to agree on Original series, TNG, or WormHole 7,896,786 being the best version of Star Trek. There's no right answer.
I think it would be good to remember that this lastest bone we are fighting over is just a new incarnation of Stew R's undying impulse to be the guy who doles out human worth. To be the guy who says who's in and who's out. It's an impulse we see over and over.
To look for greater significance in these probnouncements is a mistake. Much like Spock intentionally confusing the identical twin robots "I love YOU, but I HATE you", causing the twins circuitry to short out from the sheer illogic and arbitrariness of it all. (Them each being identical - how could he choose? Terribly deep, that Gene Roddenberry.)
Stew sitting on high dispensing favors. Watching the rabble snarl and fight over the scraps.
Let's try not to give him the satisfaction, shall we people?
Good Morning Jody,
Thank you for the early morning prespective! When your right your right!
Melanie Bloechl
Anonymous 5:52, you really need to get a grip. I was paying a compliment to both combinations of shows. I was not referring to any guests in particular, though you are. Although I must say, there is no one on this planet who does NOT have an agenda of some kind, including talk show hosts. That is what makes things interesting. If the host(s) and the guests didn't have an agenda, everyone would be sitting there staring at each other. Try to see a compliment now and again. Not everyone is out to get you, or insult your friends, heroes, idols, etc.
Jody, I'm really starting to like you. You go, girl!
Christ. Get down from whatever platform you're on and get a grip. Read Stew's full piece and it's actually quite well written and humble--save for a few typographical errors. He thanks Hentz for inviting him to be on the show and he discusses what a nice show it is now (Though I disagree with that sentiment, it was still a nice touch on his part). No one can watch the early versions of the show and claim that it was not a shoutfest. Hell, Bleochl is turning this page into a shoutfest with her disgustingly defensive attitude and patronizing attacks on Rickman. Seriously, get a life.
New Voice thinks everyone has an agenda. Media often times only wants to get information out. They don't always have an agenda.
I actually prefer the current version of "Eye on Oshkosh". I couldnt watch it when Melanie was on because her questions almost always turned into lengthy meanderings. It was painful to watch, and I found myself saying to the TV, "Ask the question already". Tony does a much better job of focusing on the guest, but Cheryl still needs a little work on her delivery of questions.
This is in no way meant to be a personal attack on anybody, just my constructive criticism of the show.
Jack Straw
Hey all the snide comments and Bloechl bashing aside. Be honest no one would have ever tuned into the Eye on Oshkosh show were it not for Bloechl as the provocative drawing card. No one had ever heard of Hentz until she teamed up with Bloechl. So stop being so ungrateful, she helped put you on the map. My comment to Jack Straw, I have seen your posts in the past, you may want to consider your own critizism of Bloechl. Getting to the point in short order is NOT your claim to fame either.
We'll never know if people would have tuned in without Bloechl or not so that comment is kind of silly. One thing that isn't true is that no one had heard of Cheryl Hentz before the show. She's been in local media for years. While the name may not have been as well known as Bloechl's it is inaccurate to say she was a virtual unknown.
While some are surprised that Cheryl Hentz sunk to the level of getting Stew Rieckman on her show, I’m not, and here’s why.
Cheryl Hentz has burned just about every bridge she can, which includes Van De Hey, Bloechl, Esslinger, McHugh, Monte, etc., etc., etc. She needs to find an ally, and she’s probably going to run for some elected office again so she’s turned to Stew. Oh, and by the way one could argue that she’s burned Stew’s bridge, but apparently just scorched it a bit. She probably figures that if she gets in the good graces with Stew, she’ll somehow get the Northwestern’s endorsement. Think again Cheryl. That’s probably why she’s befriended Meredith Scheuermann; so she can get in the good graces with the “progressives” in Oshkosh. It’s been said that Meredith is no longer fancy with Cheryl because of her wining to the District Attorney about Meredith and Paul’s “secret” meeting with the Fiver Rivers Developer. So Cheryl, that didn’t work either.
Stew hopes to win favor with Cheryl and Tony because he needs to keep them quiet. After all, the Northwestern is hemorrhaging subscribers, and their advertising revenue is in the tank, so Stew wants to keep them quiet.
I think they both deserve each other. Cheryl can’t seem to write an honest story, and Stew can’t afford to lose more customers and advertising revenue. And coupe that with the fact that the Northwestern has a new publisher. I’m sure the new publisher’s got Stew on a short leash.
No, it is pretty accurate. Credit should be given to the appropriate source. Cheryl MAY have done it on her own BUT she didn't. It happened quicker and the show is watched more because of Bloechl. Credit should be given despite the personnal objections of some (they know who they are).
--
Most of your comments are pure conjecture and jealous gossip from the cheap seats which have your name indelibly printed on them.
But Mrs. Bloechl also went off on a tangent about Jane Van De Hey a few years ago. Have people forgotten that. You can make all the remarks you want to about burned bridges and inaccuracies in storywriting. I doubt seriously Cheryl Hentz is too concerned about the losses of the people you've mentioned. She seems to be managing nicely without them. As for her ability to write accurately I think you've already been proven wrong there as I continue seeing her work published in lots of places. Those publications wouldn't keep using her if she couldn't write an "honest story". You sound like petty, jealous children. Get over yourselves already.
Some of these anonymouses need to take their Ouiji board in for repair. It is leading them astray with their own wild ideas.
To anonymous at 10:59 (Cheryl Hentz)
Nice try!
About a month ago there were a lot of trashy comments about Meredith Scheuermann not attending a city council meeting. It was obvious to some people who was making those comments and a phone call was made to that person of some stature in the city. S/He denied it but the comments stopped. Some of the comments here have a similar tone to them. Is another phone call in order?
Anonymous 10:41 AM; you said Ms. Hentz is probably planning a run for office in the future. Clearly you aren't a friend so I doubt you'd be in the know about anything like that. I've heard nothing like that.
You also wrote "It’s been said that Meredith is no longer fancy with Cheryl because of her wining to the District Attorney about Meredith and Paul’s “secret” meeting with the Fiver Rivers Developer". You accuse Cheryl of not writing an honest story even though your own comments are disputable. When did Cheryl or anyone else complain to the d.a. about a secret meeting with the Five Rivers developer? Nothing like that ever happened. You can't get the simplest things right so we shouldn't take anything else you say seriously either. Have a nice day. :)
"Stew hopes to win favor with Cheryl and Tony because he needs to keep them quiet. After all, the Northwestern is hemorrhaging subscribers, and their advertising revenue is in the tank, so Stew wants to keep them quiet."
What in the world does THIS mean???
Stew openly joked about the loss of readership when he was on the show. If he's bringing it up himself why would he want to keep anyone else quiet about it?
However many readers or advertisers they've lost it doesn't seem that "hemorrhaging" is an accurate description. They're still in business aren't they?
Anonymous 11:24 must be psychic. Psychics no longer practice the way they once did because they were proven to be frauds.
So nice to see that Cheryl and Teresa are posting anonymously again. We missed their input.
It is typical to see YOU posting anonymously. You've not been missed tho.
Tony might need to adopt a practice like other blog operators have so people's reputations can't be so erroneously attacked.
For the record, this is the only post I have posted in this thread and as you can see I have signed my name, so anonymous, you don't have a clue who is posting and look foolish when assuming you do.
Teresa Thiel
I do not as a rule watch Eye on Oshkosh for back in the day (as the kids would say) I became filled to the brim with "the usual suspects" who were in favor at the time.
Silly me, I thought it would be a show of local interest with cool, refined, professionally aware hostesses rather than the gossip-fest it so often was. My expectation was to encounter our own versions of "Barbara Walters on the Fox". The reality was completely different.
I was not compelled by the obvious political leanings nor did I appreciate the barnyard language of Ms. Bloechl. In the length of two or three programs she commented on the presence and/or non-presence of balls, stones and cojones or encouraged someone of whatever gender to "get a pair" too many times to count. It DID NOT lend an air to the program other than that of a drinking joint on the wrong side of the tracks.
I once had a sister-in-law who was the spitting (and spewing) image of Ms. Bloechl. She had a habit of using many of the same terms and references in an attempt to appear tough. Sadly, she merely seemed alarmingly cartoonish, not as funny as Popeye, but somewhat similar to him when he became overcome with rage and his face turned scarlet.
The Eye on Oshkosh group, in those days, included all the people I came to dislike intensely for their politics, their pandering and their apparent ignorance of the world that existed beyond their own narrow conclusions. Poor Esslinger's discourse on liberals that sat on their website for years was a prime example of that ignorance. Cheryl's insistence on being called a journalist also became at thorn in my side.
"So go write" and earn the title. Those that care will know and the balance eliminate themselves by their lack of concern. If you ARE a journalist keep it on your resume'. Among professionals you present your credentials but for the most part the general public does not need to be lectured or constantly reminded.
I have seen Tony as host but once. I cannot help but think it is a better program with him. Though filled with uncommon pride Mr. Palmeri has been beyond the hedge and is aware that life exists, and shreds of civilization with it, in places other than 'Kosh.
It seems to me that Eye on Oshkosh is, in the end, a niche product somewhat like those little magazines published for connoisseurs of packing tapes. The program seems to be little more than the outgrowth of vanity and the hope of having meaning while the wheels are spinning in many of the same old ruts.
And of course Citizen's word is law, right?
Mrs. Bloechl doesn't understand how journalism works and probably never will. Unlike the medical profession, things don't always happen "stat" and in depth articles require more work than she might imagine. But the ONW does have a commercial development article planned. Let's hope it meets with her approval.
Teresa,
Are you trying to tell us that you and Cheryl don't post anonymously?
That sure is hard to believe.
Target might as well post anonymously but then again they're not the one who is really a target here, are they? They might be surprised to learn who is really who.
Target is really Shopko. She's not fooling anyone.
Seeing the venom that exists out there for a few people in this city I can understand why people want to be anonymous.
It is very clear that most of you have posted comments have no desire for meaningful conversation. You only use this forum as a way of regurgitating the same ol, same ol under your own anonymous protective cover.
Anonymous or made up names are fine for you but not for others, right?
The person who said, in sarcasm I am sure, that my word is law gives too much credit to this old observer. I am the last who would suggest such a thing. My opinions reflect ONLY my own view and I, more than anyone, realize how clouded and even how unfair it often might be.
While I believe passionately in my opinions (for as long as they last) I have never claimed to have had fresh word from Sinai.
Okay?
I don't know who the anonymouses are and I really don't care but it is interesting that there were a lot of familiar faces at the council meeting tonight and during the same time the bashing stopped.
I guess Teresa is saying she nevers posts anonymously on any blog. How big of her.
Or maybe with all her beating around the bush, she is saying she only signs her name on this strand. How lucky for Tony.
I would have jumped in sooner, but council meetings do not interest me. However, my dear friend Captain and his buddy coke with an apple martini chaser, are much more interesting.
Glad to be back.
//Target//
Right.
Interesting that Anon, knows that there IS going to be an article done by the ONW, on OCDC (Oshkosh Commerical Development Corporation)
How would that be? As to your comment that I don't understand how journalism works, that maybe an accurate statement. However the ONW has had 15 years to digest and "study" the inactivity of this organization. Certainly in the last 7 years there have been loud complaints that they(OCDC) has been unresponsive to the needs and desires of the City of Oshkosh. So to say that I believe that their(ONW) stories should be done STAT, is somewhat foolish.
If the editorial today IS the story, I can see why it may have taken you sometime.
As for meeting with my approval comment, how about just doing research and print the real facts associated with the organization and the City. That would be a real positive step forward.
Melanie Bloechl
Melanie,
Your speech at the Council last night was filled with all kinds of data that the average person is not aware of. Any chance you have the speech saved in a word file? If you were to forward it to me I would be happy to place it on this blog. --Tony
It all depends on when you spoke to the ONW if you want it STAT or not. You didn't say when you spoke with them.
I spoke with the ONW approx 3 weeks ago, maybe 3.5, about this OCDC story. I don't know how long these things take, but I would have hoped it would have been a bit more timely. The research could have helped those Concilmembers that didn't do ANT background work prior to Mr. Esslinger's resolution being brought to the floor on Tuesday evening. All the information I shared is, and was a matter of record, or a simple phone call away.
Hope that clarifies the STAT comment once and for all?.
Melanie Bloechl
Mrs. Bloechl do you always have to act so rude? People are just trying to understand why you have such heartburn with the ONW. Instead of helping do that you automatically put people on the defensive.
"Certainly in the last 7 years there have been loud complaints that they(OCDC) has been unresponsive to the needs and desires of the City of Oshkosh."
Has there been real communication from the city to OCDC settign out goals and expectations? It doesn't sound like there have been. I am not excusing that organization at all, but if the city and past/present city councils want to get results they must set goals and express those to the people expected to achieve them. That's part of what Doug Pearson was saying.
My comments were NOT intended to be rude. Fortunately I am NOT responsible for the way people react to my comments only their original intent. If you wish to read and react in a negative fashion that is your choice.
Melanie Bloechl
People are just trying to understand why you have such heartburn with the Northwestern? Wasn't it Tony that brought the subject up, that Stew Rieckman was the one that was taking a not so subtle shot at Bloechl? Maybe you need to find out why the Northwestern has heartburn with her
STILL.
**heathcliff**
All one needs to do is listen or read and they will see why. But thanks for contributing your two cents worth (with inflation it's worth nothing)
//SpongeBob Squarepants//
From the way the newspaper article reads OCDC is not responsible for commercial development unless it is in the business park. Could that be why there is less than acceptable growth? Why has the city not fully laid out its expectations?
shut up with the spongebob stuff!
God is he annoying!
Annoying but right.
Sponge Bob,
You sound a little cranky.Maybe you should leave the wading in the big pool to others.
Me thinks your pants are too bogged down.
Sponge Bob's Pants look fine to me. He is sooooo popular too. The only pool some are wading in is a cess pool.
I say 'tis better to be a cranky cartoon figure than a political figure who resembles one.
Life has a way of imitating art, too bad for sponge bob, that his/her art and life is of the cartoon variety.
How exciting that you know Sponge Bob. Betcha' your a hit with the kids when you tell them.
what is the obsession with spongebob? isn't he dangerous to the minds of or children?
Beats me. Someone felt compelled to make a negative comment about poor SpongeBob and it went downhill from there. But he's in good company with Popeye and Heathcliff.
Just goes to show the limited mentality of certain bloggers. Heathcliff signs in, and some brain trust thinks it is a cartoon character!? You may want to dig a little deeper, Heathcliff is in big people's books!
Dearest Braintrust,
Maybe it was the juvenilistic style of "Heathcliff's" comment that led anyone to believe s/he was the cartoon character.
"Heathcliff is a comic strip created by George Gately in 1973 featuring an eponymous cat. It is distributed to over 1000 newspapers by Creators Syndicate, according to whom it was "the first ever newspaper comic to feature a cat as the main character" [1], which is not true (for example, Krazy Kat)."
"Heathcliff has some similarities to the more popular comic strip Garfield, which it predated. Both title cats are orange with black stripes, and noted for their bad temper; a "Beware of Cat" sign has been applied to both. However, the major difference between them is in their lifestyle. While Garfield prefers to eat and sleep all day, Heathcliff has a more active and mischievious lifestyle."
Have a "purrfectly" pleasant afternoon!
The last Anon REALLY needs to get out more. Once again such a sad, sad commentary on the mentality of certain bloggers. I mean really, quoting chapter and verse on cartoon characters and their origins?
"Stupid is as Stupid does" I reckon that's the best light we can shed on this.
Could we now hear from someone other than the dumbed down crowd?
Anon 8:10 comments but manages to prove with those comments that stupid really is as stupid does.
** Someone from the not so dumbed down group that asked as yet unanswered questions **
I doubt Melanie Bloechl would have had a show without Cheryl Hentz. From what I have seen it was Hentz who did most of the grunt and prep work. Bloechl herself said in one of her posts she was the "color person". I bet if we asked Tony or Cheryl, both could tell us there is an awful lot of work that goes into a show like they do. There is a lot more to it than just showing up and asking some questions and occasionally throwing out one-liners. I doubt Bloechl would have had the technical knowledge to get it off the ground or keep it going week after week. Without the Bloechl name it may not have been as widely watched in its early days but to keep it on the air you have to do the other stuff too. That means the show would have died without Hentz.
Melanie Bloechl was painful to watch. She was often rude to guests. It took her forever to ask a question. She was far too interested in imparting her own stance on issues instead of finding out how the guest felt. So why have guests? It's much more pleasing to watch with her gone.
Bloechl was and is an a**hole. She has trouble getting along with people. Forget about burning bridges. She was never able to build them in the first place. As an old timer who followed her from her first year on city council I can tell you that the best gift she ever gave this city was leaving elected office so we didn't have to listen to her run her big mouth every time we turned around. The second best gift was leaving Eye On Oshkosh. The show is much better without her there and I can stomach watching it these days.
Post a Comment