What is good news?

What a long, strange trip it has been. 

Casual viewers of TV's Jeopardy! wouldn't have a clue, but the online world of game show fanatics -- which can include me -- has been at war for a long, long time. 

Some of us thought Ken Jennings, a guy with no professional broadcasting experience that I know of, has been a host on Jeopardy. Others are adamant that Mayim Bialik, an actress with an extensive on-camera resume, was far superior as the host of Jeopardy. 

If you don't know how we ended up with two hosts of Jeopardy after the death of Alex Trebek, you're reading the wrong blog. 

Word circulated the other night that TV's Blossom would no longer share the job of hosting the daily Jeopardy game. She had been hosting a celebrity competition created for ABC's prime time schedule, and a big college tournament that also aired in prime time on ABC.

Bialik made the announcement via social media, evidently. Sony, Jeopardy's parent company, suggested in a statement that while she's no longer working on the daily game, the company looks forward to working with her on future prime time specials. 

Maybe the will, maybe the won't. 

In August 2021 Sony announced that Mike Richards, the show's executive producer, would replace Trebek. Bialik would be hired to host prime time specials. It was a surprise, as there was no indication that Jeopardy was going to have a consistent prime time presence. Bialik, who people seem to agree is beyond intelligent, was a guest host after Trebek's death, and somehow dazzled somebody at Sony. I didn't see whatever Sony execs saw, but I don't have to. 

There were theories as to why Bialik was so beloved by Sony rather unexpectedly. Only the execs know for sure. 

When Richards was bounced from the hosting gig after taping five episodes in late summer 2021, Sony opted to go with a temporary solution, they brought in both Bialik and Jennings as temporary hosts, splitting the duties for what ended up being just about an entire year of shows. In the meantime, Bialik began hosting prime time offerings for ABC. 

Fans, including me, thought that after a year, Sony would choose one as the full-time host of the daily game. The online fanatics made it clear on any article shared via Facebook about the hosting carousel that Jennings was far superior to Bialik, or vice versa. Some vowed not to watch the host they disliked, although I've questioned the wisdom. A bad hosts takes away from a show, but how bad does a host have to rub you in order to boycott a game show. I have noted this before: I'm weird, I watch a game show because it's an entertaining game, not because of who is hosting it. 

After a year, Sony decided to have Bialik and Jennings split the duties on an ongoing basis. That lasted almost one season. The Writers Guild of America strike earlier in 2023 resulted in Bialik bailing out on her Jeopardy duties in support of the writers. Some suggested she was part of the guild, as she might have been a contributing writer to shows she has worked on. I don't know, all I know is that some folks couldn't applaud loudly enough for her standing up for the writers. And because the writers were on strike, and Jeopardy employs guild writers for its questions, Jennings was deemed a scab for continuing to host. 

Never mind he's not an actor, or a writer, to the best of my knowledge. Maybe he is  a member of a Hollywood union. I don't know. Was he a scab? I thought a scab was a person who defied their union's strike to continue working, or took a striking worker's job. Some say it's anyone who goes to work at a job where others are striking, even if their job/union is not striking. 

I wasn't surprised by the lavish praise for Bialik from her apologists. She was doing what she believed in, or what was right. Jennings was a bad guy. 

But funny, nobody seemed bothered by all the other scabs. I never heard anyone call out the production crew of the show. I'm talking about camera operators, sound and light technicians, editors who packaged the production into 30 minutes, contestant coordinators who helped facilitate the daily competition or public relations personnel who send out press releases and handle other media duties of the show. Wouldn't they all be scabs, too, if Jennings is a scab? But nobody seemed bothered by the fact dozens of people continued to produce Jeopardy and continue drawing a paycheck. Bialik apologists were quick to vilify Jennings, but nobody seemed upset that the entire show's crew was working while writers were on strike. 

Bialik wasn't fired by Sony, but she seemed to be a bit forgotten as promotion for the new season of Jeopardy rolled out at the end of this past summer. The strike had been going on for a few months, and Jennings was the only host around. He continued hosting the daily game, but was also given the prime time gig as host of the celebrity edition this past fall. At that point the actors, represented by two merged unions, SAG-AFTRA, were on strike. To this point, no new prime time tournaments have been announced, as far as I know. 

Sony didn't say that Jennings was the permanent host of the celebrity show, which I don't expect will have a long prime time life, but it confirmed Bialik is done on the daily show. The lame excuse Jeopardy used: "To maintain continuity for our viewers."

It's not as if the duo was swapping the podium daily. They'd host the show for weeks at a time, typically. I get that folks who like one host and dislike the other are going to have trouble sleeping without hosting continuity. But it's not as if the show was turning the world upside down by having two hosts. From what I've read, neither host was clearly outdrawing the other in terms of viewership. It that's to be believed, then perhaps I'm not the only person who watches Jeopardy for the game, not the host. 

So why did Bialik get dismissed from the daily game? I've read theories. 

TV's Randy West pointed out that while she was supporting the union(s), her absence and continued favorable ratings with Jennings at the helm only helped entrench him as the host in the eyes and minds of viewers and/or Sony executives. 

Some people think her dismissal was retribution for her support of the union(s). Maybe, I don't know. But it's not as if she backstabbed Sony, it's not as if she left the production high and dry. I have no doubt Jennings was happy to take on the additional workload. Unlike other game shows, Jeopardy had two hosts. It was easy to leave Bialik on the sidelines during the strike and continue business as usual with Jennings at the helm. 

It's not as if Jeopardy had to replace its host on short notice, like Wheel of Fortune did a few years ago when Pat Sajak was ill and unable to host. Vanna White was far from smooth as host for two weeks.

I'll throw out my own theory regarding why Sony handed Bialik an early holiday bonus of more free time in her professional life: Jennings is better at hosting the show and they could no longer deny it, regardless of whatever it was that had Sony execs so enamored with Bialik once upon a time. 

I don't think having two hosts during the season was such a crime, but the fanatics have scorned Sony for the awful decision. (Most of the credit goes to Michael Davies, the current executive producer.) I don't think it helped the show. Viewers were likely to have a favorite host, and be disappointed when their favorite wasn't hosting. The ratings didn't seem to bounce when the host changed, so there's no reason to think the show was going to fluctuate wildly with the return of Bialik. 

But we like consistency and reliability in our world, typically. While I think it's a bit of a farce to claim that it was important for viewer continuity to have the same host, we value familiarity, and Sony deemed it was important, too. Simple as that. 

The $64,000 question: Will we see Bialik return as the host of some future prime time tournament on ABC?

All I can do is guess, and my guess is we've seen the last of Bialik behind the podium. And if so, I have no complaints. 

Happy birthday Bob Barker

Bob Barker was trending on Twitter yesterday. 

And that wasn't a surprise. Although it has been more than three months since he died, Dec. 12 would have been his 100th birthday. 

There has been a modest tribute to Bob's life happening in recent days of faux-cable channel Buzzr. They trotted out episodes of game shows not called The Price is Right to honor Bob. Bob appeared on a few game shows that weren't his own during his lifetime, most notably Match Game and Tattletales. Buzzr got a lot of play out of them.

Although Buzzr does not air The Price is Right, it did air TPIR's very recent tribute to Bob that Drew Carey hosted. 

Barker has been a constant, however, on his own 24/7 streaming channel, launched in December 2020. That streaming channel, originally available only on faux-cable system Pluto, is also available on every Pluto clone I'm familiar with. "The Barker Era" channel has been airing an hour of first season TPIR episodes during prime time in recent days. I didn't watch a lot of those, and wouldn't watch them daily, but it was nice to see a few 1972-73 episodes, then 30 minutes in length, mixed in with the giant loop of early 1980s episodes that the channel has been churning through, and slowly adding to, since its inception. 

All of this was planned in anticipation of celebrating Bob's 100th birthday. His death at 99 turned these into birthday/memorial celebrations. 

I'll always appreciate Bob's natural skills as an emcee and general personality as a host. He was a lot of fun to watch growing up, and I was lucky enough to see him host six episodes of TPIR in my lifetime. I'm bitter I was never called as a contestant, but that's another story. 

As most tributes go, Bob is remembered fondly and praised for his work. And that's deserved. 

I don't despise the man, I don't refuse to watch him in perpetual rerun. But I don't sing his praises, either. 

I remember being slightly stunned when I first started watching early '80s TPIR episodes three years ago. It was a different time, we had different sensibilities, I am well aware. But I was a bit surprised to hear Bob's sexist remarks on the show. Were they criminal? No, but they wouldn't fly today. 

Bob would occasionally remark and lavish praise, so to speak, on young women who might find their way on stage alongside him, particularly if they were wearing short skirts. He'd make simple remarks, such as how a woman was much more interesting once she could be seen fully on stage next to him, or how the camera operators were so interested in a contestant. Far from criminal, but a bit creepy. 

One other comment that Bob made in the early '80s that stands out: A contestant on stage noted that she worked as an aerobics instructor. Bob remarked that TPIR could use her, as they had a lot of fat women at the show. He specified women. The audience leered a bit, I think. 

I don't care if it was a more tolerant era, there's no pretending that wasn't tacky and insulting in the 1980s. 

Bob got older, times changed and by the time he retired in 2007 he wasn't openly leering at young women, not that I recall. I'm sure he wasn't unique in his views and comments back in the early '80s, and watching him four decades ago will make me cringe occasionally, but I can accept some of his lesser moments in broadcasting. I am not without fault in my life, and I have to live with myself. I can live with Bob's faults, too. 

But the reason why I don't celebrate his career and endorse him as my favorite game show host of all time is because, like too many successful, powerful men in television, Bob took advantage of his position. 

Nobody has ever accused him of actions comparable to those of Bill Cosby, not that I recall, but during the 1990s his name was bandied about by former models and/or employees of the show who claimed Bob was less than honorable in his dealings with them. Bob may have been the host of the show, but I seem to recall he was given some executive power as time went on, which is not unheard of. With that power, a near 70-year-old Barker ended up having some sort of relationship with model Dian Parkinson. 

I haven't read a lot of extensive reporting on Bob's legal issues from the 1990s, but Dian was eventually terminated. She filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Barker as a result. Allegedly the legal wrangling would affect the other models on the show, as the women were asked to protect the show through their testimony, and their failure to adequately do so resulted in their dismissals, as well. 

It was a tangled web that spanned several years. How much was Barker guilty of? I don't know, but I'm a big believer in the smoke/fire analogy. Model Holly Hallstrom's successful lawsuit in 2005, 10 years after she was dismissed from the show, certainly makes me think Bob was less than an honorable guy when it came to the models who worked alongside him. 

Bob was a great emcee and an engaging personality. He had incredible success hosting two long-running game shows during his career, with the first being Truth or Consequences, which he hosted for nearly 20 years, the last few concurrently with this Price is Right tenure. He'll always be listed among the greatest game show hosts of all time. And deservedly so. 

But I can't celebrate his longevity and forget how he tarnished his legacy during the 1990s. If nothing else, his would-be 100th birthday reminds me, again, that even beloved, successful people are not without their flaws, too.