When you do a play, or even a movie, you have weeks to finesse your character. You really understand why they do what they do. In TV, you get new material weekly about your character.
Television is so influential that when an audience sees you day-in and day-out there's a certain acceptance that sets in; you're no longer a threatening personality. They become more willing to accept whatever you present.
When I talk about the Internet, it's because young people are there. TV and radio are still what moves the masses, and you can't ignore that. But you also have to feed that monster that grows daily, which is the Internet.
I think three or four years ago, people would have said my biggest weakness was that sometimes I was awkward on television, with my stammer, but I think they'd say that much less now.
It's about avoiding reality through various escape routes that become addictions and lead to Hell. My character is addicted to television, chocolate, coffee, to her dream of her son, which has no basis in reality.
Whatever I do, it's crucial to me that I give it 100 per cent. It doesn't matter if it's a short film, stage, theatre, TV or blockbuster. It doesn't matter what level of budget or prestige it is.
Television is a lot of fun. It's faster-paced. The schedule is really desirable, I guess. But as far as films go, and I've only done a couple; film is like a definitive beginning, middle and end. You know your character's arch.
I go to see grand prix every year, and I watch every race on TV for sure. I probably go to three or four CART races and three or four Formula One races.
The bosses of our mass media, press, radio, film and television, succeed in their aim of taking our minds off disaster. Thus, the distraction they offer demands the antidote of maximum concentration on disaster.
I know that I'm a quirky guy, to say the least. I don't know how easy I am to cast for a network. It hasn't been because I haven't tried. But am I dying to be on a TV show? No.
When I'm on television, I think that I appeal to the everyday guy, 'cause that's who I am. The guys who go to the football games on the weekends are my viewers, for sure.
I think the Emmy obviously is very prestigious and is the gold standard obviously in terms of television. But the Oscars go beyond that. I believe children, when they're growing up, dream of holding that Oscar.
Surveys have shown going back as far as you and I can remember that people have perceived a leftward tilt in the basic coverage that they get on TV news.
Some people play the piano, some do Sudoku, some watch television, some people go out to dinner parties. I write books.
How can we have critical thinking without being able to quote and being able to compare what happened in the past? Television is dreadfully unrecorded and unquotable.
We didn't know about the rest of the world. We just knew the pictures that we saw on TV, and it was so different that we wanted to try to imitate that, to a certain extent.
TV producers want ratings and are willing to do nearly anything to get them. They gin up artificial conflicts and create an urgency for even the most minor of economic data points.
The timing was terrible, and having one disaster after another didn't help. I think the pictures on television of the way in which the disaster was handled also helped to turn off the public and Congress.
Before broadcasting for 50-some years, I did TV, played 10 years in the big leagues, won a world championship - and played a big part in that, too, letting the Cardinals inject me with hepatitis. Takes a big man to do that.
Not bragging by any means, but I could have done a lot of other stuff as far as working in films go and working in television... I had chances to do that stuff, but I like baseball, I really do.
I'm not going to name some of my colleagues who are very well-known for their television presentation, but they wouldn't know new information or how to report a story if it came up and bit them.
