Did'ja ever wonder what happens to pompous curmudgeons who get paid millions of dollars to sound off in "humor" segments on TV news-magazine shows for several decades after they've ceased being funny? Well, if you're Andy Rooney, you get invited to New York's Overseas Press Club of America, there to browbeat aspiring young journalists on the corrosive influence of money in network news programming.
Addressing the group in January, Rooney said the news business would be better off if it were controlled by a "quasi-government body," as opposed to the greedhead executives obsessed with turning a buck to garner ratings (which helps them pay the selfless newshounds on 60 Minutes, where the average correspondent pulls down seven figures annually).
Rooney conceded that when his contract ends, he'll try to gouge his employers for "twice as much as I'm making now." But he stipulated that he'd gladly drop to a quarter of his salary, if he could find just one network executive that "was dedicated to news instead of money." That way, they could hire 20 more Rooneys, fearless in tackling the day's great sociopolitical conundrums, like, "Which is older, the slinky or the hula hoop?"
During his speech, Rooney did trip over one good idea. He said he'd like to see Nielsen devise a way to rate television shows not by the number of viewers, but by the collective IQ of the audience. "This would be good for news," Rooney said. "It might put an end to the success of such mindless shows as Who Wants to be a Millionaire." Better still, it might put an end to the success of unfunny TV "humorists," not that we're mentioning any names.