Staying positive while the world keeps turning

Happy reading: It's 738 pages

       So after a 2 1/2-week blogging break, we're back because I know you eagerly -- anxiously? -- have been waiting.
       The blogs are supposed to make a point, but sometimes I'm just writing to be writing, just to say hello and catch you up on our lives.
       We have a big day -- anniversary -- coming up in 11 days. Wait for it; watch this space. 
       There were several reasons for the break, most notably the change in the political atmosphere. I'm not going to go into politics again -- much -- since we all have our minds made up anyway.
       What I will say is that, no matter what, the intention here is to remain positive. Heck, no, I don't like a lot of what is happening; I think it's a bizarre world -- you must remember that from previous blogs -- but the only control I have is over my own thoughts.
       So I take the positives out of each day, and I keep my gratitude journal, and I always find something for which to be grateful.
       Hope you do, too.
       Life has its challenges, though. Let's see:
       • My cellphone died two weeks ago on a trip to  Shreveport; there was no bringing it back.  Hello, new cellphone. Still trying to figure out how to use it.
       • Yesterday afternoon the water heater in the apartment went cold. Not good. Work order turned in; repairs made. Looking forward to a hot shower after my daily walk in a few minutes.
       • Facebook changed its Messenger page; I don't like it. Technology wins out again. Quit messing with me.
       • Then there was this: A two-week battle with bronchitis. A first for me -- cough, cough. It only took nine days for my caring, overly concerned wife to convince me to go to an urgent care clinic. A few meds -- and a thousand more coughs later -- and I'm (almost) well. 
       You know when, for 13 days, I don't go to the Downtown YMCA for yoga/stretching and when I get in only one daily walk in the same time frame that I'm off-course.
       Please hold the sympathy notes. I am not often sick and I don't do it well, but I have a friend who injured herself in a fall while running, one who is paralyzed and mostly bed-ridden, a couple dealing with cancer (and treatment), and one who had open-heart surgery Thursday. So bronchitis is nothin'.
       The time away from blogging left me with other goals, and a lot on which to comment: 
       • Still promoting my book, Survivors: 62511, 70726. Uh, sales are down a bit from November and December. So check Amazon or CreateSpace, and tell your friends.
       • Spent much time researching professional baseball history in Shreveport, a project that might lead to a publication. It is a daunting task. If anyone reading this has stories or photos to share from the Shreveport Sports/Captains/Swamp Dragons days, let me know.
       • Lots of time to watch sports ... but it has its limits.  Friends can hardly believe this when I tell them: I seldom enjoy watching games, in person or on TV, these days. I find much hypocrisy in athletics, college and/or pro. Just where I am in life; it's probably a blog piece in itself.
       • I did record a number of the college bowl games and College Football Playoffs and watched them later. (Bea is so anti-football that I don't subject her to the sport, and I'm less of a football fan every day.)
       Did not even watch LSU-Louisville live. Had other things to do that day, and did not begin watching the game until a couple of hours it was over (stayed off social media, so I did not know the score). Great effort by the Tigers. 
       • Did not watch any of the NFL playoffs live; no, not even the Cowboys. Sure I rooted for the Cowboys -- I always have -- and it's easy to root for QB Dak Prescott (from Haughton, La.), but it's hard to feel sorry for Jerry Jones and the Jones family.
       • I won't watch the Super Bowl, haven't watched it live for several years. Will record it; might or might not watch. Bottom line: I just don't care much about the NFL.
       I will root for the Atlanta Falcons, although I think the New England Patriots -- again -- will win the Super Bowl. As a New York Yankees fan, I should appreciate a "dynasty" franchise. But I am not a Patriots' fan, never have been, never will be.
       Believe, strongly, that Tom Brady is the best quarterback ever -- that's for my old late 1980s friends from  the Florida Times-Union sports staff who argued about that status every day for months -- and that Bill Belichick is arguably the best NFL coach ever. But Belichick (my opinion) is a boor, or a bore, whatever. Takes the fun out of the game, although some people thinking winning is fun.
       And speaking of boor/bore/no-fun-except-winning, how about Belichick's close friend, Nick Saban?
       No question the Clemson-Alabama national championship game was tremendous, and to me it proved how great an effort it takes to (barely) beat Alabama (and Saban). You have to know that nationally the only fans not rooting for Clemson were Alabama fans.
       • Also in my "don't care" category: the NFL's Pro Bowl; the NHL All-Star Game; the NBA All-Star Game; tennis (Australian Open). OK, I'm more cynical than ever.
       • Which takes me to college football recruiting, as it nears National Signing Day. I've written this previously, and I repeat: This is so overblown, so overdone, so unhealthy -- I believe -- for the kids' egos (and the fans' egos). I advise again: Don't put so much stock in the "verbal commitments" by these 17- and 18-year-olds. Waiting until they sign the scholarship papers and, beyond that, they actually qualify academically and enroll in school.
       • I wish I could care more about college basketball, but with the way LSU's men are playing -- 30-point losses are mounting -- it is discouraging. The less I say, the better. March Madness can't come soon enough.
       • We're going to miss Mary Tyler Moore. She was one of America's Sweethearts -- Laura Petrie of the 1960s, Mary Richards of the 1970s. Like many of us, she had her issues, but didn't you love her smiling face? 
       • No more "you're looking live" at Brent Musburger, thank you. Sorry, not going to miss him. It's about time he left TV sports play-by-play to others. I liked that he was a newspaper sports columnist decades ago, but once he went to television -- and we saw him so often -- I got the feeling that Brent's biggest fan was/is ... Brent.
       So I mostly used the "mute" button for his games on TV, and I occasionally would turn on the sound to hear him proclaim something stupid. He never failed.
---
       And speaking of "mute" -- fair warning -- I now turn to a bit of politics. You can stop reading here. 
       • We won't be listening on our TV to President Barnum's omnipresent "spokespeople," known here as Wicked Woman and Press Attack Dog. They have no voice here.

       • Here is the coolest thing I did in these 2 1/2 weeks; I fulfilled a promise to Bea, and myself, to (1) finish reading Hamilton The Revolution, the book on the genesis, writing, production and organization of the play and (2) kept reading Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton (I am through 106 pages; only 632 to go).  
       You know Hamilton, the "overrated" Broadway play that won only 11 Tony Awards.
       It reminds me that a couple of months ago when you-know-who was critical in two tweets of the Hamilton cast's "statement" to the Vice-President-elect and I posted how outrageous that was, I was told -- repeatedly -- that the statement was ill-timed and out-of-place. 
       And my reply was: If you think this was a protest, you haven't seen anything yet.
       Now you're seeing the protests, in all forms ... day after day after day, from shore to shore and beyond. And it's not going to stop for four years. 
       Hamilton, of course, reminds us how divided our political world always has been, since the beginning of this great country. It did not start with the previous President.
       George Washington had his critics, but Hamilton had enemies, among them Thomas Jefferson and -- yes -- Aaron Burr. And Burr, the then-Vice President,  shot the former Secretary of the Treasury to death in a duel.   
       Build that wall. Attack the "dishonest, lying" media. Send federal troops to protect the Alamo from the Mexican army. Watch the bizarre world turn every day.
       Take heart: No duels are scheduled ... yet.
       Here's what I repeat: Stay positive. Deal with it.   
                           

One more time: the media and politics

       So here is my challenge for the readers today: When you say "mainstream media" or "liberal media," be specific. Tell me -- by name -- who you are talking about.
       Not by network (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, whoever else you consider the main ones), not by just a newspaper name (The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, etc.).
       Give me the TV reporters/analysts/and, well, entertainers you watch -- or don't watch. Give me the newspaper reporters/columnists you like -- and don't like.
       In other words, where do you get your news? Where do you get the information to confirm your opinions?    
       Don't just say the "liberal media" or the "conservative media." That's too easy. That's too general.
       I am not promoting any cause here, or criticizing one. I'm just curious to know what you think.
       I welcome the feedback to my blogs -- positive, negative. Whatever. I will post the comments ... if I think they're decent. If they cross the line into name-calling or if they're ugly, most often I will not post them. I might leave them on Facebook for a while, but not forever.
       The lack of civility in this campaign the past year and a half was the most galling aspect to me. Not only from the politicians, but all over social media. Disgusting. Enough already.
       So no bashing Mr. Trump, or President Obama, or Hillary.
--- 
       Before I return to the media scene, we interrupt our beginning message for a few thoughts:
       I keep seeing the Hate Hillary comments; I received a couple. Here is my view: She lost. She is no longer relevant. She is history. You don't have to keep beating a beaten candidate. It's piling on.
       On the other side, stop whining about the popular vote and 2.5 million. It doesn't matter; it's not what really counts. The Electoral College counts, and there's no reversing that. It wouldn't be right. And can you imagine the chaos in the streets if it was reversed?
       And when I see "sore losers," count me out.
       I was involved in athletics long enough to know that it's a competition; one side wins, one side loses. If you win, don't gloat too long. There is another game coming. If you lose, don't let it linger. Life goes on.
       An inside joke with some of my friends is that I am "a bitter man." I'm only bitter for a few moments, believe me. But if you want a list of the most painful sports losses, I did a blog on that.
       There are a thousand, ten thousand, games I wish would have come out differently. That doesn't happen.
       So this election is done, and as I wrote four years ago after President Obama's re-election, "get over it and move on." We have a President-elect, and we should wait and see what happens.
       Even if you're a Trump supporter, you might not  particularly like him, you might even admit that he is  unpredictable. You don't know what's coming next, what he's tweeting about at any moment. But you probably also believe his administration can fix what needs fixing.
       I was told by one friend that I must be a "Trump Hater." Nope. I try not to hate anybody; it's a waste of time.
       Didn't support Candidate Trump, but now that he's President-elect Trump, I wish him well. The Presidency should be respected, and if he and the Congress improve health care and immigration and veterans' needs, schools/education, inner-city issues, violence in the streets,  rising terrorism and its threats, etc., etc., we're all for it.
 ---
       Back to our regularly scheduled message ... 
       I believe that many people lose sight that many media people are paid to offer their opinions, whether in print or on television and radio. So you should not expect them to be unbiased. 
       You might expect reporters to be more straight-laced, factual. But they are human; they slant their stories through their own filters. And journalism/the media has changed over the years. It is more analysis-based now.
       This hit home with us as we listened to our latest audio book Tuesday. Early in This Town by Mark Leibovich (of The New York Times), published in 2013 and based on life and politics in Washington, D.C., he writes, "Punditry has replaced reporting as journalism's highest calling. ... " 
       After my most recent blog about Mr. Trump and his "war" with the media, one comment in particular triggered the idea for this blog.

Chuck Todd photo from nbcdfw.com

    John Dittrich, a baseball lover like me and a former Fort Worth resident, wrote: "Like you, I watch the Sunday morning political talk shows religiously (no church-related wisecrack intended). Although I continue to record and watch Meet The Press, it seems to me that [host] Chuck Todd is not very objective. He takes a very obvious hostile approach to the conservatives, particularly to anyone affiliated with Mr. Trump.
       "While I do not like President-elect Trump and consider myself left-leaning, I do feel that Todd gives credence to those in the right who accuse the media of being too liberal. He is so obviously argumentative toward certain guests that it actually makes me uncomfortable. This approach is exactly what damages the credibility of the mainstream media."
       We want to like Chuck, but I must add that I agree with John.
       I will stick with my contention that PBS has the best-balanced newscasts. I'd like to think that Meet The Press is also balanced, that Chuck Todd can be as tough with questions directed at Democrats, or left-leaning people -- as he was last Sunday with U.S. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi -- and that the panel discussions always have both sides represented.
       Same for Face The Nation, where host John Dickerson also asks the hard questions of both sides, but is more congenial than Todd.
       We do miss the late beloved, respected Tim Russert.
       We still see the old anchors from time to time. From left to center to right -- Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Fort Worth's Bob Schieffer. They are venerable.
       I think today's network news anchors -- Lester Holt (NBC), David Muir (ABC), Scott Pelley (CBS), Wolf Blitzer (CNN), Judy Woodruff (PBS) and, say, Brian Williams (MSNBC) --  play it pretty straight down the middle, they don't take positions. You might not agree. They ask tough enough questions to people from both ends of the political spectrum.

Katy Tur photo from mediamatters.org

      But it's different for reporters. We mostly watch NBC, so Andrea Mitchell, Hallie Jackson and Katy Tur were following the Clinton and Trump campaigns. My view was that they were demanding of the candidates they covered, but I had to feel for Katy, only 33, when Mr. Trump named her  specifically in a rally or two, and she needed security at events and afterward after receiving threats.
       We like the CBS 60 Minutes regulars, especially the venerable Lesley Stahl. Anderson Cooper (also on CNN) is clearly slanted toward more liberal position.
       Maybe so are Jake Tapper (CNN) and fast-talking, loud Chris Matthews (MSNBC). They can be tough and argumentative interviewers. Matthews is a small-dose guy, but I loved his reverent commentary when Pope Francis visited his hometown, Philadelphia.
       If you want to go right, go FOX. We don't watch it often, but Chris Wallace seemed like a fair moderator in the first Republican debate and even better in the third Presidential debate, and I wasn't familiar with Megyn Kelly until she squabbled with Mr. Trump in that debate, and he helped make her famous.
       Then there's Bill O'Reilly. Read a couple of his books we liked. Funny guy, at least when he banters with Stephen Colbert on The Late Show. His politics? Not for me, but he's entertaining. 
       You really want to go right, here's some names: Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, George Will, Thomas Sewell. We think Mr. Will is an outstanding columnist (Washington Post), and I loved his baseball book Men at Work, but seldom agree with his viewpoint. He also did not back Trump or Clinton. 
       Step to the right with FOX anchor Sean Hannity and to the left with Keith Olbermann wherever he is. Neither one appears on my TV; they are too much. Didn't like Olbermann in the sports arena, either.
       And then there is -- spare me -- Rush Limbaugh ... ultra-right. Is he "media" or "entertainment" or "human?" 
       (Of course, in the sports world, I feel the same about Skip Bayless and Mark May, and a hundred others. You could not pay me enough to watch them. Rarely watch or listen to any TV/radio talkfests. I've blogged on this, too.)
       Two conservative "pundits" who we did not pay attention to before, but impressed us in this campaign with their reason and their calm: Hugh Hewitt and -- surprisingly -- Glenn Beck. Hewitt wasn't enthused about Mr. Trump; Beck flat-out rejected the idea.
       Columnists to the left: No one more left, more critical of the right, than Paul Krugman (New York Times). Leonard Pitts (Miami). We like the very smart Thomas Friedman and the acerbic, rip-'em-all Maureen Dowd (both NYT).
       Also far left: MSNBC's nightly hour shows -- Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell. We watch regularly because they give us perspectives (yes, liberal) that we think are well-researched.
       And even farther left: Jon Stewart. Master of satire and The Daily Show on Comedy Central for all those years. Outspoken liberal. Generous benefactor of so many comedians/show hosts/commentator.
       Stewart, of course, is more entertainer than politician. So is Bill Maher. If you are a conservative, either Stewart or Maher might be Public Enemy No. 1 (outside of politics). Think we know who No. 1 and 1A are in politics.
       We don't watch the morning TV shows; too early. So we're strangers to Morning Joe, but it must have balance with Mika Brzezinski (Democrat) and Joe Scarborough (Republican). Do they have verbal battles?
       But have there been better verbal battles than those between Whoopi Goldberg and Elizabeth Hasselbeck -- political/social opposites -- on The View a couple of years ago? Sorry, I missed those (sounds good, but not really).
       Our favorite "pundit" is David Brooks, a New York Times columnist. He and syndicated columnist Mark Shields are regulars for us on the PBS NewsHour each Friday and for big political events.
       Brooks is conservative, but not overly so, and his columns are complex. On television his analysis is usually spot-on, but this campaign, he kept admitting that he was so wrong so often (as were the polls and so many other "experts). David consistently was not happy with either Presidential candidate.

Amy Walter, PBS photo

       Shields has been around forever and he's a liberal who seldom comes out of a left lean.
       Here is who I think provided the best, most balanced analysis of this Presidential race: Amy Walter, national editor of The Cook Political Report. She was a PBS regular, a political-panel regular who seemed to be on 25 hours a day. She is knowledgeable and insightful -- and cautioned to the very end that the Presidential race was wide-open. She was as correct as anyone we heard.
       Our favorite reporters/TV pundits are the Washington Post's veteran Dan Balz and young star Robert Costa (who covered the Trump campaign). They were often on talk/news shows. Two words for them: factual and fair.
       Away from politics: Mitch Albom, a sports columnist who ventures off into books and movies and plays on the real world, is always a good read. Dave Barry is the funniest read.
---
       My feeling is that all the honest/dishonest, fair/unfair, lying/truthful perceptions about media just depends on each individual and how they perceive it. There's no right or wrong.
       I don't like the attacks on the media -- especially from politicians. Media positions are jobs, and there are different ways to do the job.
       It is just people's opinions, and you know what they say about opinions.
       If you are right-leaning, you likely think the media is mostly liberal. If you are left-leaning, you think the conservatives are off-base. If you're independent -- and I have friends who are -- you don't agree with the media, period.
       So I've given you a lot of names, and there are many more. If you've read this far, you're tired. And so am I.
       Here's a rule I try to live by: Don't let politics spoil friendships. Friends -- true friends -- are valuable.
       I welcome responses and your favorites/least favorites. Tell me who influences your thoughts. Just be civil about it. 

        

Late Night, Late Show ... it's too late for me

A Letterman appearance on The Tonight Show with Johnny
(from usatoday.com)

     Except for one month in 1994, I never watched David Letterman regularly. So what's all the fuss about these last few months?
    Was Letterman the greatest late-night talk show host ever? Ha! Are you kidding?
     Even he will tell you he's only No. 2 ... if that. Because it has been obvious over the years that he revered Johnny Carson -- the all-time King of late-night television.
     As I said in a blog piece almost 2 1/2 years ago, a year after I began this blog, Johnny was -- is -- my favorite entertainer ever.
     Shows how "old school" I am. Because Letterman, only two months and four days older than me, should have been my guy. But while I watched the Carson show as many nights as I could, and now I revisit the many Carson highlights out there (especially on YouTube), I don't often visit with Letterman.
      He was too hip for me, too contemporary maybe, too crazy, too weird. I wasn't into stupid pet tricks or throwing things off buildings, or his often sharp-edged comments and interviews.
      My bad perhaps?
      After Carson left, indeed, I watched Jay Leno on NBC, on The Tonight Show, much more often. Of course, Jay had become a semi-regular during Johnny's infrequent absences (yes, that's a joke).
      Then in the summer of 1994, I had nothing to do ... no regular job, just baseball and scorekeeping a lot of nights. And one night in the press box, the discussion turned to Leno vs. Letterman, which was then a hot topic, NBC having picked Leno to succeed Carson permanently (although Carson had publicly stated he preferred Letterman).
      So David went from Late Night on NBC to Late Show on CBS ... with a mega-deal, of course. The guys in the press box kept touting how much fun and how funny Letterman was.
      For the next month, the post-baseball routine at home for me was to watch Letterman. If baseball ran long, I recorded the show, then watched.
     I liked him, but not that much. The music was too loud, Paul Shaffer was too zany looking and acting. Doc Severinsen (loved him) dressed weird, but what a band he led, and I can't even tell you who Letterman's announcer was (or is). He was no Ed McMahon; that I can tell you.
     And nothing ever will equal The Tonight Show theme music. Period.
     I found Letterman's Top Ten lists funny at times, but too often a reach. Much preferred Carnac The Magnificent (but not necessarily Art Fern, Floyd R. Turbo or Aunt Blabby).
     I thought many of his stunts also were too wacky. And, yes, I know Carson had many skits that were duds.
     As for Leno, he was -- and many people still think he is -- a funny, witty stand-up comedian. I was not particularly impressed with his interviewing skills and he often was stiff/contrived doing skits. As he aged, I thought the humor in his monologues became too hard-edged.
     Eventually, I did not watch Letterman or Leno very often, except when I was aware -- through promos or TV listings -- of guests I wanted to watch. But I will say that I began to appreciate Letterman's poking fun at himself or being the butt of the jokes.
     His personal life, his flaws, his stalker, his health issues ... he didn't hide from it. Carson might've joked about his divorces, but we never really learned much about his private life and ways.

Our last live look at Johnny Carson on TV: A cameo, non-
speaking bit -- May 13, 1994 (www.people.com)

      Unlike Carson, who was almost always classy with his guests on the air but -- as we came to find out through stories and TV features -- could be dismissive with people he felt crossed him (good-bye, Joan Rivers), Letterman could be short with guests. But anyone who can put down Bill O'Reilly regularly or make fun of Sarah Palin is OK.
     One other comparison: Carson rarely, maybe never, turned serious about political and national matters on the air. I saw Letterman make some statements, after national tragedies such as 9-11, that were timely and inspiring. He hit the right tone.
      I think Letterman also is correct in making his exit. He realizes that the men in the 10:30 p.m. Central late-night spots -- Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon (our daughter's favorite) and Stephen Colbert (taking over for Letterman) -- are terrific entertainers and comedians ... and today's guys.
       Letterman has been humble as guests make their final appearances and offer tributes. And while the recent tribute show to him on CBS had many highlights, you can guess my favorite portion -- the Carson-Letterman relationship.
       Maybe we'll see more of Letterman in the future than we saw of Carson after his retirement. Johnny was on TV only a couple of times afterward, just cameo spots on the Letterman show. The audience response when he appeared unannounced on the May 13, 1994, show was one to remember.
       We kept hoping, but ... no more.
       So for those who'll miss Letterman, good for you. He had many, many great moments, and he was a great one, I suppose. He wasn't Carson.

SEC on CBS, Verne and Gary: I'm a fan

     This might bring the wrath of civilization on me, but I will declare this: Verne Lundquist and Gary Danielson are the best television announcing team in college football.
     Darned right I'm partial -- nothing I like better than watching SEC football on CBS. And nothing is better than the 2:30 p.m. (Central time) game on Saturdays (or the occasional night-game/holiday feature).

Gary Danielson and Verne Lundquist: No college football broadcast
team is better than they are, not on my television.

      As I look over Facebook and Twitter and the Internet, I realize that there are many people out there who can't stand Verne and Gary. Frankly, I am surprised ... and dismayed.
      What is wrong with those people?
      I will come back to this, but remember this phrase: lunatic fringe.
       More than a week ago, I happened upon a web site discussing the announcing teams for that week's SEC games, and the CBS feature that Saturday -- with Verne and Gary -- was Florida-at-Alabama. Fine with me.
      Except then I saw a storm of rejoicing from LSU fans (and I use the term loosely) that Lundquist and Danielson were not doing the LSU-Mississippi State game that night. If I saw one comment belittling Verne and Gary, I saw 25 ... or 50.
      Man, I thought LSU fans were smarter than that. I was wrong. They're just as biased and slanted -- and misguided -- as any other school's fans.
      Gosh, I never realized how much Lundquist and Danielson hated LSU, how prejudiced they are toward LSU.
       What a bunch of crap. What they are is ... flat-out honest. Verne Lundquist, who does the play-by-play, is a reporter; Gary Danielson, the analyst, sums up what's happening.
        My view: When LSU (or any team) does well, they say so. When LSU (or any team) deserves criticism, they say so.
        I was willing to let this subject pass until this past Saturday when I watched the Arkansas-Texas A&M game from Cowboys Stadium (that's what I'm going to call the place, thank you), with Verne and Gary at the mikes. That was an old Southwest Conference rivalry -- now in the SEC -- revisited and, just before the second half began, in the weekly SEC feature, the CBS crew did a short tribute to Mr. Lundquist.
        It recapped his career, building on his ties to Texas, the Southwest Conference, and the Dallas-Fort Worth market. It was well done, and Verne was surprised -- and emotional -- as he thanked his co-workers.
        It made me realize how much I appreciate his place in sports announcing, and that I wanted to write this piece.
---
        I've never met Verne Lundquist, but do have a couple of personal favorites that he was associated with -- Terry Bradshaw and the Dallas Cowboys (yeah, that's a heck of a combination.)
        Through much of the 1970s and through 1983, Verne was the sports anchor at WFAA-TV (Channel 8) in Dallas and -- maybe even more prominently -- the play-by-play announcer for the Dallas Cowboys. Beginning in 1976, he teamed with Brad Sham, who succeeded him as "Voice of the Cowboys" and still holds the job. 
         I spent many a day listening to them doing Cowboys' games on radio, much preferring  their broadcast over whatever TV announcing crew was there. 
         When Bradshaw retired from the NFL after the 1983 season, he began his broadcasting career in '84 doing NFL games on CBS as an analyst alongside the play-by-play guy, Verne Lundquist.
          They became good friends, close enough that -- as someone remembered -- Lundquist was one of the first people at the hospital when Bradshaw's first daughter was born. Close enough that when Terry was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio, in 1989, his presenter was not someone tied to the Pittsburgh Steelers; Terry chose Verne.
---
         I know from my journalism career that discussing TV sports announcers is always a popular -- and controversial -- subject. We could do ratings or take polls, and any story our staff did drew lots of attention. Everyone has their opinion.
         I don't profess to be an expert; I'll leave that to others. I do have my likes and dislikes.
        As I've written previously, I don't watch or listen to pregame, halftime or postgame shows, or any of the talk shows and, more often than not, I will "mute" the sound on live sports events. Just can't, or won't, deal with the announcers any more.
         I do make exceptions. On college football, in addition to Lundquist-Danielson, I like the Chris Fowler-Kirk Herbstreit and Brad Nessler-Todd Blackledge teams on ABC/ESPN. On NFL games, I can take Joe Buck and Troy Aikman (only because I love Aikman's honesty, and how diplomatic he is with criticism on the Cowboys). I think Al Michaels is one of the great play-by-play announcers of our time; his partner, Cris Collinsworth, is sharp, but won't shut up.
         Another who won't shut up: Brent Musberger. He wants to be bigger than the game itself. Enough already.
         On the few times I watch the NBA -- only the Dallas Mavericks -- I like their TV announcing team of Mark Followill and Derek Harper (and the pre- and postgame comments by Coach Bob Ortegel). But my wife is the Mavericks' expert at our place.
          I do listen to Jim Nantz on CBS' golf coverage, partly because Verne Lundquiest is usually part of the announcing team. But the pompous, know-it-all Johnny Miller is a complete turnoff on NBC.
          Miller is right there with -- here we go -- Lou Holtz, Mark May, Lee Corso, Dick Vitale. Cannot listen to any of them. I know they're good people, knowledgeable, and lots of people are entertained by them, but they're not what I want.
          If I happen upon Bradshaw on Fox's NFL coverage, I will listen to what he has to say, crazy as he can be.
          And speaking of crazy ... Charles Barkley. He's wild and unpredictable on NBA coverage -- mostly on TNT -- but he can be so funny, and as "out there" as he is sometimes, he's often correct.
---
          Back to the original topic: Lundquist and Danielson. In addition to the critical comments from LSU fans, I found criticism of them from other SEC schools and -- in my usual 5 minutes of research for this piece -- I found them linked to web sites entitled awfulannouncing.com and Uncle Verne/Aunt Gary. How stupid.
          Lundquist is a Hall of Fame announcer, several Halls of Fame. He's been doing this for 40-plus years, he's wonderful at football, basketball, golf; he's done figure skating and bowling and the Olympics.
          He does it with accuracy -- sure, he has some bobbles ... who doesn't -- and with humor, with self-deprecation and, as I said before, with honesty. He doesn't scream or go out of control at big moments; with a minimum of words, he knows how to let the moment carry itself (such as Auburn's game-ending return of the short field-goal try against Alabama last year).
          He's been at the mike for some of the great moments in NCAA men's basketball tournament history and at the Masters (Jack Nicklaus, 1986; Tiger Woods several times). Look 'em up on YouTube or elsewhere.
           He's modest about all his honors and his success, and this year he received the Vin Scully Award for lifetime achievement in sports broadcasting. My opinion (and that of many others): Vin Scully is the best ever in the business, for more than 60 years. 
            I keep seeing that people think Verne is too old, has been around too long. That's called age discrimination, and it's not right.   
            Danielson has been Verne's partner on SEC football since 2006. He was a very good quarterback at Purdue and a pro QB -- not a great one, but decent -- for 14 seasons, but he's a much better TV analyst than he was QB.
            He obviously does his homework, he studies the teams he's covering -- the personnel, the formations, the strength and weaknesses, the trends. He's bluntly honest and he's right on top of the game. He spots what's going on almost immediately, often calls penalties before the referee announces them.
            If fans don't like his bluntness, that's their problem.
            And let's revisit the lunatic fringe phrase. I had two Shreveport-media friends use that term Monday -- one in a phone conversation, one on Twitter -- in reference to all these people being critical of anything and everything, on Facebook and Twitter and the Internet.
            It applies to politics -- I don't even want to start on that -- and to sports. There's no reasoning with these people. They believe they're right, and there's no dissuading them. There's no "gray" area for them.
            These are the people who booed LSU sophomore QB Anthony Jennings on Saturday night at Tiger Stadium; it is, in my view, just inappropriate to boo college kids. These are the people criticizing Cowboys' cornerback Morris Claiborne, belittling his play and his career even after his season ended with a knee injury Sunday night. Cheap shots. It's not enough that the young man faces surgery and rehab.
             These are the people who criticize the offensive and defensive coordinators, no matter how successful they've been, and the QBs -- and, of course, the head coach -- for every little thing that goes wrong with their football team.
             I wish they'd go away, or shut up. Or maybe I just should stop doing social media. Not a bad idea. One of these days ...
             Look, I'm not all that happy with CBS Sports. They let an old Shreveport buddy, Tim Brando, go from the host role in the SEC studio desk show after last season, and I thought -- think -- that was a mistake.
             But as long as Verne Lundquist and Gary Danielson are doing the SEC games on CBS, I will tune in ... with the sound on. Even if people (LSU fans, too) don't agree or don't understand, those guys know what they're doing.