'60 Mins.' contract ticking off Bradley
Ubiquitous
"60 Minutes" star Ed Bradley and CBS execs are at loggerheads over the
64-year-old correspondent's contract as the network chases a younger
audience for its venerable show.
Buzz around the office is that Bradley has grown so frustrated with the
money he's being offered that he's gone on "strike."
"He still comes to the office, but he's putting off producers until his deal
is resolved," one insider tells us.
Bradley insists that there's no work slowdown.
"I have a contract with CBS, and I'm honoring it," he tells us. "We're in
reruns right now, so no one is shooting much. But I just taped a new opening
for a piece on illegal immigrants," which ran last night.
So he's happy with his compensation?
"I don't discuss my contract with anyone," he tells us.
Some of his colleagues wouldn't blame him for feeling slighted.
"He's just come off a great season," says a source. "He's done stories about
the Mafia cops, Tiger Woods, the CIA. Now that Mike Wallace is retiring, Ed
is the rock of the show. I think he expected to be treated better."
Bradley's contract dilemma comes as CBS chief Les Moonves and news head Sean
McManus have been tranfusing younger blood into the 37-year-old show. Among
next season's contributors will be Katie Couric, 49, and CNN's Anderson
Cooper, who turned 39 Saturday (and who's rumored to be getting around
$500,000 for up to five stories). Also being groomed for "60 Minutes"
stardom are Scott Pelley and Lara Logan, though some of the show's veteran
producers are suspicious of Logan's sex appeal. "She wore low-cut shirts to
interview soldiers in Iraq," says a source.
While 64-year-old Lesley Stahl is hanging in there, 74-year-old Morley Safer
is doing fewer stories. And we hear "60 Minutes" contributor Dan Rather,
also 74, could leave W. 57th St. once and for all in a matter of weeks.
Despite his intrinsic hipness, the earring-wearing Bradley may also be
hearing the tick-tick-tick of the show's clock. "He doesn't need this," says
a source. "He had a heart bypass a couple of years ago. He's not going to
stick around like Mike Wallace till he's 88."
Some feel sure he'll be back next season. Bradley says he'd like to work at
the show as long as it stays true to its legacy. "When someone tells me I
can't do the stories I like to do," he tells us, "then I know it's time for
me to go."
--
The trouble with American journalism, in short, isn't that it's too
skeptical, but that it's too willing to throw skepticism to the wind when it
suits the agenda of proclaiming every war a Vietnam and every Republican
president a Nixon.
jm...@msn.com
> skeptical, but that it's too willing to throw skepticism to the wind when it
> suits the agenda of proclaiming every war a Vietnam and every Republican
> president a Nixon.
please Ubby, I dont know if this is your quote or someone elses but it
is even more absurd than your older one. "Every war"? theres been one
war since Vietnam, come on. The first Iraq "war" was three days and
thats the closest thing to a war we have had since Vietnam and no one
compared it. Grenada and Panama dont count either and if they did no
one made such a comparison.
FDR
<jm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1149526360.5...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Republicans are in denial and must blame everyone else for their own
failures.
Ubiquitous
>please Ubi, I dont know if this is your quote or someone elses but it
>is even more absurd than your older one. "Every war"? theres been one
>war since Vietnam, come on. The first Iraq "war" was three days and thats
>the closest thing to a war we have had since Vietnam and no one compared it.
Actually, they did; In fact, they pretty much recycled the same one-liners
for the recent liberation of Iraq and Aftghanistan.
--
FDR
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:hqudnU8sg_qS9RnZ...@giganews.com...
> jm...@msn.com wrote:
>
>>please Ubi, I dont know if this is your quote or someone elses but it
>>is even more absurd than your older one. "Every war"? theres been one
>>war since Vietnam, come on. The first Iraq "war" was three days and thats
>>the closest thing to a war we have had since Vietnam and no one compared
>>it.
>
> Actually, they did; In fact, they pretty much recycled the same one-liners
> for the recent liberation of Iraq and Aftghanistan.
Considering there's no exit strategy for Iraq, I'd say the comparison to
Vietnam is correct.
Puzzla
Are you even reading what you're typing? There was no 'liberation' for
either country. A 'liberation' means they were being held against their
will by an occupying force. That was not the case in either instance,
though sadly it is true now (with us occupying Iraq). The Taliban was
welcomed in Afghanistan because they represented stability to the people
(and terror to us). If they hadn't harbored and abetting known terrorist,
we would have left them alone. Iraq, otoh, is a can of a different worm.
We just obliterated those people (and continue to do so every day) all in
the name of 'freedom' or 'liberation'. Sheesh
Puzz
Ubiquitous
>"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> Actually, they did; In fact, they pretty much recycled the same one-liners
>> for the recent liberation of Iraq and Aftghanistan.
>
>Considering there's no exit strategy for Iraq, I'd say the comparison to
>Vietnam is correct.
Actually, there is, which is a lot more than can be said about Kosovo and
Haiti. Strange how silent the Angry Left were back then, isn't it?
Ubiquitous
>"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> Actually, they did; In fact, they pretty much recycled the same one-liners
>> for the recent liberation of Iraq and Aftghanistan.
>
>Are you even reading what you're typing? There was no 'liberation' for
>either country.
Wrong in both counts, puzz. Get back to me when you get a clue. Or not.