Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Eye-On-The-Media

Jim Taricani

INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING

I attended a conference in San Francisco recently on the state of investigative reporting in the United States. I was on a panel with the executive producer of “ 60 Minutes,” the executive editors of the New York Times and Washington Post, the executive producer of “ Frontline “ and the executive editor of the Seattle Times.
The conference was held at the University of California, Berkeley campus.
All seem to agree that major news organizations are firmly comitted to investigative reporting. They all said that the financial resources needed to conduct long term investigations have not been cut back.
But on the local level there is a much more sobering story. Local newspapers and television stations are feeling the pain of the current downturn in the economy.
Investigative reporting at local television stations is becoming an endangered species. I am fortunate to still work for this station, WJAR, where there is a firm committment to investigative reporting.
But many stations are cutting staff, and end up resorting to consultant-driven so-called investigative pieces that are, candidly, garbage. They are meant to sensationalize whatever subject is tackled, and news directors at those stations who buy into the consultant-driven investigative pieces are more concerned with getting a juicy promo on the air than they are about actual content.
Also, in local television, many stories that are promoted as “ investigative “ are actually enterprise stories. There is a big difference, but many, many news directors, ( most of which have never done an investigative report themselves) don’t care. They want to promote “ investigative “ because they know their audience research shows that viewers like investigations.
Medium and small market newspapers are also suffering from the lousy economy. Staff cuts lead to poor morale which in turn leaves many reporters not caring much about spending months on an investigative story.
Investigative reporting is an important part of journalism. It provides citizens with information about their governments, whether national, state or local.
When the corporations that own most of the media outlets in the country make news just a bottom-line business, one of the first places they cut is the investigative department.
It’s too bad, because the public is the loser.
But the major players in our business are doing what they do best-investigating government. That’s what our Founding Fathers intended the press to do when they included the free-press clause in the First Amendment.
It’s too bad so many in the media have lost sight of what we are supposed to be doing.
There’s a place for stories about Brittney Spears, et al, but it’s not in a newscast.
There are plenty of gossip rags in every supermarket in the country. That’s where entertainment news belongs, or on one of those special enterntainment “ news “ programs.
Everyone on the panel I was on agreed on the above point. But don’t hold your breath if you’re expecting to all of a sudden see local television stations drop their coverage of entertainment news.
Putting entertainment news on a local or national newscast says a lot more about the people who decide to do that, than the journalists who are forced to do that.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

MY GENERATION-IS IT OVER?

Jim Taricani

I’m wondering if Hillary Clinton’s message of “ I’ve got experience “, and her constant references to an era gone by( the use of Xerox when criticizing Obama plagiarizing) are falling on too many deaf ears?
My generation, the Baby Boomers, is suffering, I think, from continuing to believe that everyone in America is concerned about what we have all been concerned about since the Vietnam War, Watergate, racism and feminism were the issues of the day.
I speak with young people who work in our newsroom all the time, and they don’t care a bit about Vietnam, racism, Watergate, hippies or “ Classic Rock”.
They seem to be a generation that is far more accepting of people’s differences.
When both Obama and Clinton mentioned the late Texas congresswoman, Barbara Jordan in their last televised debate, I wondered how many people under 40 ever heard of her?
Obama clearly has a message that resonates with younger people, talking about hope and change, while Clinton comes across, I think, more like a 60’s crusader; angry and outraged at a government she believes is adrift and needs righting.
It’s not that Clinton isn’t talking about issues that effect all of us, like health care and the economy. It seems to me, though, that she is approaching those issues from the point of view of a generation that is possibly no longer calling the shots.
While Obama may be more superficial and lighter on specifics, he looks and sounds upbeat and willing to work with people he disagrees with without coming across as angry and frustrated.
Maybe I’m off base, but I tend to think people my age have had our day in the sun.
Just the other day, the former lead singer of the band “ Twisted Sister “ was in town to perform at a benefit for the families of the victims of the Station Fire.
Not one person in our newsroom under 30 had ever heard of the band.
At least I know who the Foo Fighters are.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

NY TIMES USES ANONYMOUS SOURCES TO SMEAR MCCAIN

Jim Taricani

The NY Times ought to be ashamed of itself. It published a front page article about Senator John McCain’s relationship with a female lobbyist, and asserted, by quoting anonymous sources, that McCain and the lobbyist may have been romantically involved.
Following the fiasco with former Times reporter Judy Miller and her biased reporing on the weapons of mass destruction supposedly being hidden by Saddam Hussein, the Times adopted a new policy on the use of anonymous sources. The paper said it would reduce the use of these sources, and when anonymous sources were used, there would be a parenthetical explanation about why the source couldn’t be quoted.
But the Times article on McCain simply says two campaign aides from the senator’s first presidential campaign in 2000 said they were “ concerned “ that the senator’s relationship with a powerful lobbyist might be romantic.
To make this assertion witihout demanding that the sources go on the record is shoddy, yellow journalism.
There is a time and place where the use of anonymous sources is necessary and warranted. But raising this type of scandalous allegation without attribution is dead wrong.
The rest of the Times story is fine. It raises serious questions about McCain’s relationship with this lobbyist that sometimes seems to contradict the senator’s self-procalimed reformer image.
But to raise the possiblity that McCain had an illicit romantic relationship based on two anonymous sources is shameful.
The lobbyist has denied that McCain did any favors for her, and the senator himself is holding a news conference this morning ( Thursday, February 21) to address the allegations in the story.
I atteneded a seminar with Bill Keller, the Executive Editor of the Times last summer, and he told the people there that he was determined to clean up the Times’ act, and be much more careful with the use of anonymous sources.
He flunked on this one.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Lifting Words-Big Deal? Or No Deal?

Jim Taricani

So here’s Barack Obama, back-peddling and babbling, trying to explain why he lifted some nifty words first spoken by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.
And of course, it didn’t take more than a nano-second for the Obama camp to claim that Hillary Clinton had stolen some of his words on occasion.
The national media jumped all over this latest round of the Obama-Clinton bash contest and continues to report on it. They should-but to what degree?
Is it a big issue? Or is it-to lift some words-much ado about nothing?”
No doubt Obama, who no doubt like hearing himself talk, should have credited the words he used to Governor Patrick. But the words he lifted, for the most part, were well-known and often used quotes from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and FDR.
But Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson does have a point when he says “if you’re asking the electorate to judge you on your rhetoric( which Obama is) and you lift it, you’ve broken a promise.”
The unfortunate thing about Obama’s plagiarizing is the national media will spend way too much time reporting on it, while stories about where these two candidates stand on issues takes a back seat.
And coverage of the McCain campaign will also take a back seat, and that’s not good for the electorate.

Monday, February 11, 2008

HEREEEEEEEEEEEEEES…..STEVIE!

Jim Taricani

Captiol TV, at the State House, has got a new $65,000 a year host. Former WPRO talk show host, Dave Barber will be “ questioning” legislators during 5-minute segments that will air on the taxpayer- financed $1.3 million Capitol TV operation.
But when pressed on the need for Barber and his salary, given the state’s current budget crunch by reporters from the Providence Journal, Larry Berman, press secretary for Speaker William Murphy, said Barber’s duties have been expanded to include being an emcee for committee meetings.
Huh?
Why in the world would a legislative body need an emcee to introduce committee meetings? The real work on bills takes place in these committees. The public is often times in attendance, along with lobbyists, special interest groups and the media. The audacity of House Speaker William Murphy to hire Barber and have him as a “ host “ of these meetings is ridiculous.
What’s he going to say?
‘ And now, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome with a round of applause, Chairman Steven Costantino of the House Finance Committee!’
Next thing you know Barber will be doing a comedy warm-up act before the meetings start, just to set the proper tone.
With the Governor and just about every legislator crying about the half-billion dollar budget deficit the state is facing, the last thing the legislature should be spending money on is a television host who doubles as an emcee for committee meetings.
It’s an insult to taxpayers, who, sadly, are numb to the insults they suffer at the hands of our General Assembly each year.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

THE PRESS AND THE DUMBED-DOWN COVERAGE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

Jim Taricani

Once again, the mighty self-absorbed national press corps is doing a disservice to voters across the country. How many front page stories have there been about Bill Clinton bad-mouthing Obama, acting as a not too stealth attack dog for his wife, Hillary? Way too many! And how many front page stories have there been about Mrs. Clinton and Obama’s positions on the economy, the war or any other truly important topic effecting millions of Americans? Not enough, for sure.
And don’t get me started on the television pundits. One in particular, Chris Matthews of MSNBC is the most egregious offender of ignoring issues and focusing on the superficial.
Matthews is a blow-hard, in my opinion, who rarely lets his guests speak without him yelling over whatever they have to say. He is no doubt sesixt, and was taken to task by numerous feminist organizations for his condescending and sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton.
On the night of the New Hampshire primary, before all the votes were in, Matthews, ( and several other television talking heads) all but wrote off Clinton and began touting Obama as the next Christ.
It was especially so for Matthews, who has publicly made his distaste for Hillary Clinton well known. He was waxing poetic about Obama and what an historic night this was going to be for America.
And when later that evening Matthews and others found out that all the network exit polling had been wrong, what did Mr. gutless do? He blamed it on a producer “ who kept handing me a piece of paper saying ‘ it’s going to be Obama.” Pathetic on Matthews part.
The coverage of the Republicans is no better. The national press tried to paint Mick Huckabee as a Gomer Pyle double, and the New York Times keeps digging up old personal dirt on Rudy while ignoring the issues all the candidates are trying to talk about.
Voters in this country, as noted in dozens of surveys, are ill-informed.
The national and to some extent the local media are partly to blame.
We keep reporting on the horse race, the personal faults of candidates while giving scant attention to the issues on which they are running.
I remember watching one debate where NBC’s Tim Russert was the moderator. His first question to Obama was something like “ Hillary has raised the race card, are you offended?”
The “ race card “ hasn’t been raised by anyone except those in the press.
It’s very disturbing to think that American voters decide who will lead their country based on how the candidates look, or how well they can bad mouth their opponents in televised debates.
This lousy and superficial press coverage just highlights the need for the networks to offer free air time to candidates so they can present their positions on important issues to the voters, and let the voters decide, instead of a screaming Chris Matthews, who will make the best president.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTION FOR THE MEDIA

Jim Taricani

Here are a few suggestions for the media to focus on in ‘08:

The national liberal media needs to realize that Hillary Clinton is not God.
The Fox News Network needs to understand that President Bush is not God.
Local television stations need to realize that ratings have nothing to do with good journalism.
Talk radio show hosts need to realize that smart, intelligent conversation and observation beat strident, insulting remarks any day of the week.
Newspapers need to find a way to stay relevant in this world of electronic information gathering.
NBC’s Brian Williams needs to realize he’s not a robot.
CBS’s Katie Couric needs to realize she is not a credible anchorwoman.
ABC’s Charles Gibson is simply good.
Don Imus needs to stop talking about his wife’s green products, and get back to being the sarcastic, witty and funny guy he used to be.
Al Franken is much better at political satire than he is at being a politcian.
Maureen Down of the New York Times needs to keep doing what she’s doing.
So does Bill O’ Reilly.
I-Teams everywhere need to get back to doing long term serious investigations instead of worrying about getting a story done for the “ book.”
TV News directors and managers need to realize that reporting on blood, sex and hardship is just reporting the obvious...which is not reporting at all.
These same t.v. honchos need to realize that anchor chit chat is boring...unless the anchors are Robin Williams and Tina Fey.
And last but not least, people like me who write these blogs need to realize our opinions are like a certain body part: We all have one, and they all stink.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

THE PATS CHEATED-GET OVER IT

Jim Taricani

Once again, in this morning’s edition of the Providence Journal, there is another article that seems to gloss over the fact that the New England Patriots cheated.
One of the lines in the story, “ some people still continue to bash the Pat’s” says it all. They DID cheat, and coach Bill Belichick directed the cheating. The Pat’s so-far perfect record has network announcers fauning all over the team and the coach, and the fans just can’t bring themselves to admit that what Belichick did is not all that different than what Barry Bonds did.
If other teams did it-the video taping of opponents signals-it doesn’t justify what the Pat’s did. There’s no doubt the Patriot’s are a fantastic team. And it certainaly seems that they would have won that first game against the Jets without cheating-which of course makes it all the more ridiculous to resort to cheating.
But we should not forget what Belichick did. He cheated, he set a poor example for young people to follow, and he should not be treated or talked about like he is the reincarnation of Vince Lombardi.
If the Pat’s go undefeated and walk away with another Super Bowl win, good for them. But there needs to be an asterisk aside their record.
Sports fans need to realize there IS something more important than winning-it’s winning honestly.
Because of Belichick’s thirst for victory, this Patriot’s team will forever have a cloud over it, not matter how many records the team breaks.
The cheating soured the outstanding play of so many of the players.
Belichick received a stiff fine and has to forfeit some draft choices.
Big deal.
If he wins the Super Bowl, he should not take his ring.
Super Bowl rings are for winners.
He’s a loser.

Monday, December 03, 2007

IMUS IS BACK-IT’S ABOUT TIME

Jim Taricani

Don Imus is back on the air, courtesy of WABC in New York. Locally you can catch him on 790am, the Score. It’s about time the big Don got back to do what he’s great at doing-making people think and laugh at themselves.
The dust up about his off-base and childish remarks about the Rutgers women’s basketball players was just that. Childish and uncalled for. But those stupid remarks did not warrant Imus’ dismissal and it certainly wasn’t the politically correct crime of the century. Take a look at any of the R-rated comedy shows on HBO and you will see and hear gay jokes, ethnic jokes, sex jokes and disconcerting remarks on just about any so-called off base topic in the universe.
As has been noted many times, black rappers debase women more often than Imus or anybody else for that matter, and you rarely hear anyone from the black community say boo about it.
Imus reminds us not to take ourselves too seriously. If we can’t laugh at ourselves once in a while, we are in sad shape.
There is a documentary on the air now about the legendary comedian Don Rickles. One of his standard jokes is to engage an elderly person from the audience in a conversation, and then tell them in a cutting voice to “go home and die.”
No one has ever asked Rickles to stop his act.
And no one should have demanded Imus be fired.
I, for one, will enjoy listening to this old rascal in the morning.
It sure beats listening to hyped up radio weather forecasts and sportscasters who actually think professional ball players should be taken seriously.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

BIG BIRD IS FOR ADULTS ONLY….THEY’VE GONE TO FAR BUNKIE

Jim Taricani

Oh no! Sesame street’s earliest episodes, you know, the ones millions of kids grew up on, have been deemed ADULT ONLY!  This make believe wonderland of colorful characters is now right up there with pornography and Britney Spears! What is going on with this politically correct crowd that makes decisions like this one?
The producers of Sesame street have decided-now hold on to your seat-that a scene called Alistair Cookie and the parody “ Monsterpiece Theater”, where Alistair played by Cookie Monster, had a pipe which he ate is not suited for children.  HUH?
So the politically correct producers are now worried that Cookie Monster smoking and eating a pipe is a bad example for the tender young children of this generation.
Let’s see, these are the same tender young children that own Ipods, download raunchy videos and songs of their favorite teenage slutty rock stars, and play video games that have so much blood and violence in them that they would make a soldier a little squeemish. AND NOW WE’RE SUPPOSED TO BE WORRIED ABOUT KIDS SEEING COOKIE MONSTER SMOKING A PIPE? ARE-YOU-KIDDING-ME?
The politically correct police are tyring to make sure our kids are going to turn out perfect. They will speak perfectly, think perfectly, walk perfectly, breath perfectly and just plain live perfectly. They will never smoke, gain weight, drink, take drugs, swear, think bad thoughts nor will they compete with anyone becasue that might make someone else feel bad.
Perfection is sooooooo boring. Ever meet and talk with someone who thinks they are perfect? They can put you to sleep, or in serious cases, they can make your heart stop. THESE PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS TO OUR HEALTH!!
Take me now, oh Lord.
If Big Bird and Cookie Monster videos are now for adults only...what’s next? Mickey Mouse? ( Those shorts might cause children to think Mickey’s an exhibitionist!!)
I marveled at the news of Sesame Street going adult. I don’t know how I ever made it this far in life without the politically correct speech and thougt patterns now being demanded by some very demented people.
I’ve got to run now. I’m going down to Amazing Video on Allens Avenue to get my copy of the early episodes of Sesame Street.

Monday, November 19, 2007

TELEVISED PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

Jim Taricani

If you watched the fiasco of a presidential deabte that CNN staged last week in the nation’s adult playground-Las Vegas-you got a good dose of what’s wrong and what’s right about televised presidential debates.
What’s wrong is that the reporters and moderator asking the questions focus on the so-called front runners. For the first 18 minutes of that debate, only Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were asked questions. You could see the frustration on the faces of the other candidates, as they stood there behind their podiums like crash dummies waiting for a bus.
Wolf Blitzer, the moderator, was SO trying to pull off a Mike Wallace routine when questioning Clinton. He pounced and she swated him away like a fly sitting on a hamburg at a summer picnic.
Too many members of the national press approach debates as if they are in a contest to show America how tough they can be while questioning a candidate.
And don’t let anyone kid you; any reporter questioning the would-be presidents wants to get that “ gotcha “ question that will make the candidate babble like a drunk.
National reporters also tend to only ask questions about hot-button issues, such as driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and universal health care. While those are important issues and the questions should be asked, the answers are so canned and predictable that the viewer(voter) doesn’t get to know very much about a candidate’s thinking.
Candidates spend hours prepping for these debates, and they know they’re are going to be asked hot-button questions. They fashion answers that state their position while trying not to offend anyone. It doesn’t make for revealing conversation.
But what these debates are good at is showing the candidates inconsistencies on some of the important issues-that is-if you follow the televised debates or read accounts of them in the newspapers.
I’m all for as many debates-televised or not-of the presidential candidates that can be arranged.
But the national reporters would do well to come up with a more original list of issues to ask questions about.
You never know, you might get a candidate to give an honest, candid answer that would be ever so telling.
God forbid!

Monday, November 12, 2007

T.V. NEWS BLOW’N IN THE WIND

Jim Taricani

Did you happen to catch the article on the business page in the Saturday edition of the Providence Journal on the takeover of Citadel Broadcasting? If you are curious about the ever declining quality of television news, both on the local and national levels, you need to read that article. It basically said that the Providence Equity Partners were re-considering it’s bid to be included in a takeover of the mammoth Citadel empire. Why? Because the auto makers have drrastically reduced their advertising budgets, and many important advertisers are turing to the web to sell their whares.
What this means is that the “ bottom line “ mentality of the companies that own most of the networks and local television stations in this country will only get worse.
And that means that the trend to hire less experienced people in newsrooms will continue. At the current rate of hiring young people straight out of college, we should be hiring middle-school students in the not too distant future.
There are plenty of bright people coming out of college who will someday make great reporters, editors, photographers and producers. But in the field of journalism, experience counts for a lot.
The cutting back on newsroom budgets and the bottom line mandate from the mega-corporations that own us, make for a deadly cocktail that will leave an already dumbed-down approach to news even worse.
Traffic accidents, house fires, sex crimes and of course, is Britney sneezing today? are already the staple of local newscasts across the country.
While some of the above may be, in some cases, actually newsworthy, most of the time the reason we cover the death and destruction stories is becasue they are easy to report.
Send a camera, capture the carnage on tape, ( or a chip) and bingo...dramatic news story.
It’s a lot harder to delve into important issues that have a broad effect on the viewership.
Once in a while we in television news do a great job on important issue oriented stories.
But when the advertisers begin to pull out, the big loser will be the local and national television viewer.
We may all be witnessing the last vestige of commercial news broadcasts as we know them.
I hope whatever comes next is an improvement.

Monday, November 05, 2007

Hillary, Iraq, Iran and the Mainstream Media

Jim Taricani

If you’ve been following the presidential primary contests you may, or may not, have noticed that Hillary Clinton’s positions on the war in Iraq and possible military action against Iran are very, very close to those of President George Bush.
She voted for the war, she refuses to say she would bring the troops home in short order if she is elected, and she recently voted for a bill that in essence would open the door for Bush to make a “ pre-emptive “ strike if Iran gets a little to brazen with aquiring bomb-grade nuclear material.
While Hillary’s positions on these issues have been reported, it seems that the mainstream media is treating her with velvet gloves. With the exception of NBC’s Tim Russert, most of the national reporters are hardly hammering diva Clinton on her one degree of separation from Bush on Iraq and Iran.
I’m not supporing any of the republican candidates and I’m not supporting Hillary. I haven’t made up my mind yet on who I would vote for. I’ve voted for democrats and republicans for president in the past.
But I do find it interesting that many of the commentators who have the freedom to go after whomever they want with their biased opinions, are painting the GOP’s Rudy Giuliani as if he’s the reincarnation of Dr. Strangelove, and Hillary as the serious, thoughtful, cautious candidate when it comes to saber rattling.
The national media, the Fox News Network not included, is perceived to have a liberal bias-Fox, of course, is perceived to have a conservative bias.
The way the national press is covering Hillary Clinton only strengthens that perception.
The New York Times editorial page has been brutal on President Bush on the Iraq war, and any number of other issues.
But it has yet to go after Hillary on her stance on troop withdrawals from Iraq, or her vote that opens the door to obliterating Iran.
Hillary does differ on Bush on many other important issues, most notably health care.
But how is this front-runner cruising through the press without being questioned daily about her positions that are so close to the man in the White House?
Many of the other democratic candidates have made clear their very different positions on the war from the president’s.
Most striking is Barack Obama.
He voted against the war in Iraq, and is looking for a diplomatic solution in Iran, where that wild and crazy guy, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to be trigger happy.
I’m not supporting Obama either, but fair is fair, and the mainstream press needs to take a much closer look at Hillary Clinton, who has a very real chance of becoming our next president.

Monday, October 29, 2007

TOO MUCH CLEAVAGE TALK

Jim Taricani

Adding to the vast wasteland of nothingness on network television was a segment on the “ Today Show “ this morning on cleavage. Three babbling talking heads debated just how much cleavage is appropriate in the workplace, on the street, in your car or just about anywhere where those hairy beasts called men could get a glance.
The talking heads even talked, again, about Hillary Clinton’s cleavage, which I guarantee you will not do anything to solve the war in Iraq.
This segment-I stopped watching after about 5 minutes-could have been used to discuss the war, the economy, the lack of affordable health care in our country or whether Sponge Bob Square Pants really has square pants. But cleavage? C’mon.
There’s nothing new about cleavage. Always been there, always will be there. Go to a public beach in the summer and you can see plenty of cleavage, and more! And no one, absolutely no one, complains.
But if a woman decides she looks or feels good wearing a dress or blouse that is low cut, all of a sudden some people are all in a tizzy.
Maybe the solution can be found in Canada. There, on a cable network, the female and male anchors read the news naked. So, as you might expect, there is no issue with cleavage.
We in the media spend way, way too much time talking about cleavage, Britney, Paris and who Tom Brady is knocking up.
Critical thinking and meaningful debate on television, especially the morning talk shows, is at an all time low.
About as low as some of the blouses some female ( Katie ) anchors wear to get ratings.
And if men can’t control themselves becasue a woman decides to wear something she feels comfortable/sexy/attractive in, that just shows how utterly immature these cavemen are.
Have to go now, there’s a re-run of the Anna Nichole Smith story on the Discovery channel I’ve been dying to see.

Friday, October 26, 2007

Late Night World Series

Jim Taricani

If the start times for the World Series games get any later, they could have Letterman and Leno host them. I remember as a kid looking forward to the World Series-most of the time my Yankees would be playing-and getting so excited about watching them on televsion. But now? With start times around 8:30pm, the games often go into the wee hours of the morning, making it difficult if not impossible for kids to stay up on school nights to watch the contest for the holy grail of baseball and then try to function the next day in class.
The late starts, as you might imagine, are all about money. The networks that carry the series want to hit the prime time, when they can charge the most for those boring commercials.
It’s also no secret that whichever network gets to air the World Series, it will most likely kill the ratings for the competing prime-time shows on the other networks.
So the broadcasts of the World Series now seem more suited for the beer-drinking-too-many-trans-fats crowd, instead of wide-eyed kids who have to pop speed in order to stay up long enough to see the ninth inniing.
How much could it hurt the networks’ pocketbooks if it started the games at 7pm?
For the sake of a few bucks, the kids would be happy to get a chance to watch their favorite multi-millionaires playing a kids game for keeps.