People are entitled to their opinions, and no choice would have satisfied everyone, but I think the author of that article, Fiona Lee, takes it too far.
> [A]gainst guest hosts who performed better or had greater star power or would have expanded "Jeopardy’s" audience, [Mike Richards] chose ... himself.
He might have nominated himself, but I think it's safe to assume that Sony Entertainment had focus groups reacting to each guest host, was perhaps even polling the public and surfing web sites like this one, and that the corporate executives wouldn't have signed off on that decision if he had done badly or had been disliked.
> Now, it seems like [the parade of guest hosts] was all for show.
If anyone had the inside track to the job, it wasn't Mike Richards but Ken Jennings. He was credited as a consulting producer for some time before Trebek's departure, he was the first guest host, he did that role for considerably longer than subsequent guest hosts, and he said on the air that Trebek had worked with him to prepare him for the role. Jennings is disliked by some Jeopardy fans, though. I'm speculating here, but my guess is that the focus groups responded to him less warmly than the Sony executives had hoped. I'm also guessing that calling him a "guest host" was a deliberate ploy to protect against that possibility, and had the response to him been largely positive he would have simply been named as the permanent replacement.
> [Richards ...] notably lacked empathy for contestants
I didn't get that impression. I did get it slightly with Ken Jennings at times.
> The whole guest host process — which Richards claimed was a public audition for the permanent host role
That quote links to this article: https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/02/22/jeopardy-producer-guest-hosts-and-who-replace-alex-trebek/4538881001/
But in that article Richards said that some guest hosts were not being considered. He also confirmed two things I've speculated on here.
The challenge is to plan for the long term, because the show's longevity isn't in doubt: "Let’s make sure we get someone we are going to feel even better about in a decade than we do this year," Richards says.
"[I]n many ways, Alex was such a centrist: He didn’t spark debate and was not controversial in any way."
I hadn't seen that article before, but I never believed that LeVar Burton or Katie Couric were being considered for the spot. Both are nearly old enough to qualify for Medicare. Why hire someone you'll likely have to replace in a few years? And in Couric's case, there would be her political baggage as well. Why hire someone who a large segment of the audience is already predisposed to dislike?
> Not only was [Richards] not fan-favorite LeVar Burton
No, he performed infinitely better than Burton, who at times seemed to be more nervous than the contestants.
> In playing it safe by choosing the most boring options, one that smacks of voting for those with the most “electability,” it has only pissed many fans off.
The most "electability" -- which is just another way of saying, the host the most viewers will feel comfortable with. Well, I've never worked in television, but I seem to recall hearing somewhere once that ratings matter.
> Bialik was likeable and charming in her turn as a guest host, and she holds a doctorate in neuroscience.
As she never tires of reminding us.
> But let’s be clear: No one wants this. [...] [Alex Trebek and LeVar Burton both respect learning.] That’s not the impression that anyone has with Richards.
"No one"? "Anyone"? Oh, so the author, Fiona Lee, speaks for all of us? Sounds to me like she's just pontificating from her high horse.
reply
share