I’m glad Rosie O’Donnell is leaving THE VIEW and Disney/ABC are nuts to have kept her on air as long as they have, if ever — I heard a few Talking Heads talking today that THE VIEW is enjoying greater ratings since O’Donnell began her ensconcement there, but I am nearly sure from a sheerly intuitive level that increased viewer count reflects the “car wreck phenomenon”: people watch because they have to see the disaster, not because they enjoy or value the disaster, but just because they have to see it.
After Monday’s disgusting, garbage-level gutteral crud by Rosie O’Donnell at “a women’s luncheon” (New York Women In Communications) including an audience interspersed with teenage girls — Rosie grabbing her crotch and yelling out, “eat me!” to (so it’s alleged) Donald Trump in absentia — why would ANYone even so much as devote one nickel (or penny) to this irreverant person? Then there’s the ongoing irrational coarseness and cowardly, pitiful nonsense she’s been spouting on THE VIEW itself for months now, why would anyone find any value in what O’Donnell “contributes” anywhere, to anything?
Excuse me? “Women’s” “voice,” “teenagers, “issues”? How can anyone say such a thing without crying? I know no “women” who have “issues” such as does Rosie O’Donnell and the likes of the “issues” that O’Donnell both promotes and seeks attention for run contrary to the goals and hopes and aspirations that most parents want their “teenagers” to be involved in, and, O’Donnell has no “women’s issues,” she has mental and emotional health issues along with various other behavioral problems and concerns. Because she’s female by gender does not justify her deranged behavior and comments as representational of “women’s issues,” however.
I’m relieved that Disney/ABC is removing this troubled person from the airways. There are some things that are of greater value than “ratings.” If they want a watchable, worthwhile Monday-through-Friday daily for “women” and “teenagers,” that’s a good thing. But equating “women” and “teenagers” with deranged commentary such as I think O’Donnell’s commentary is and has been (and likely as not will continue to be wherever she reappears — if Disney is smart, they won’t be allowing O’Donnell to reappear there and if they do, they deserve all the failed interest that will result other than from a marginal group), is downright crude and crippling to anyone with optimistic hopes or the hope of optimism in general.
The last insult to what’s reasonable is the retort if not justification about O’Donnell’s rejectable personna and behaviors as that “she’s a comedienne!” Like that makes it alright to be disgusting and offensive. It works for the likes of Howard Stern, so perhaps it’ll work for Rosie O’Donnell in a sealed radio broadcasting room but don’t dare call it appealing to “women and teenagers” nor even “comedy.”
FOX News’ “entertainment” columnist, Roger Friedman, waxes weird in his attempts to pigeon-hack O’Donnell’s awfulness as being the sham of Barbara Walters — perhaps both of them are significantly bad in this regard but for a disparity of reasons why.
ABC News tries very, very hard to make it all about Whatever with Whomever wanting to spend more time with their family, err, sumthin’ like that. Disney/ABC would look far more respectable if they took a measured stance as to protecting the brand. If ABC is dinged by the “loss” of O’Donnell, what possible worth did they have to begin with or now have afterward? A rotten fruit dropped from a healthy tree leaves more healthy fruit room to grow but a wormy tree bears more wormy fruit. ABC should get the point and work toward good fruit or accept the wormy end.