"...if TCM is going to show this kind of bias, I may stop watching." - voranis
While I won't dispute with your personal feelings about Alec Baldwin - what you feel is honest for you - but don't think there is some ulterior motive or something dishonest to having Alec Baldwin co-host for two years. The first years of The Essentials had hosts whose duties lasted two years - Rob Reiner and Sidney Pollack - so it isn't unprecedented.
I didn't mean to suggest an ulterior motive. I just think it's preferential treatment--apparently they didn't like Carrie Fisher or Rose McGowan much, so they only kept them on a year each, but they're drooling all over Alec Baldwin, so they're keeping him on longer. Or did Fisher and McGowan not want to stay on longer?
I was curious about some of the previous hosts of The Essentials. I would have loved to have seen Rob Reiner co-hosting but I only watched TCM occasionally back then and had not become a true fan. If the Wikipedia page is correct, Reiner and and Pollack were hosts before Robert Osborne began co-hosting in 2006. Since Osborne became co-host in 2006, the new format has consistently been a new co-host each year...until an exception was made for Baldwin. So yes, I do consider it bias. I don't think citing the length of service of the hosts during a period in which the show had a different format is a fair comparison or is a good establishment of "precedent."
And in Alec Baldwin TCM has a co-host that truly loves the channel (see this month's "Now Playing: The Show" program) that not only stars in a network sitcom every week but also hosts New York Philharmonic Symphony radio broadcasts this year. I am sure TCM is happy to have one of their "personalities" out there in the public eye every week.
But I'm sure there are other celebrities who love the channel and who love classic film and who are in the public eye on a regular basis who would love to co-host, so the fact that Baldwin is a fan of the channel and of classic film should not be a reason to have to keep him on longer than whatever the traditional hosting length of time has been. I am worried they are going to make him permanent co-host. I enjoy his movie roles when he is playing some other character--as a matter of fact, I think he's a very good actor, but I just don't like listening to him when he's just himself. He seems too arrogant--I think the earlier post about him being "full of himself" at the Oscars is how I see him all the time. I'm sick of seeing him each week and was really hoping to see someone else take over. I'm even sick of seeing the commercials they run of The Essentials with him in it.
I don't know if such exposure of Mr. Baldwin will bring new viewers to TCM - but it is possible. And it is all at no cost to the channel. So it sounds like a "win-win" to me. And probably to TCM too.
It's just not a win-win for me. I think there are other celebrities who could be given a chance as co-host who would bring new viewers at no cost to the channel. Or is Mr. Baldwin the only one who has co-hosted at no cost to the channel?
Or maybe they are having a hard time getting co-hosts and are lucky to be able to keep Alec Baldwin as co-host? I hadn't looked at it that way. I had assumed many celebrities would jump at the chance but maybe most celebrities are not fans of the channel? I hadn't thought of that.
But I would think that there are plenty of celebrities who are (1) fans of the channel, (2) fans of classic film, (3) able to bring out bits of obscure facts about the films (surely no one is claiming Baldwin is the only co-host who has done this or who can do this?), and (4) is in the public eye enough to be good for TCM. So all these reasons don't to me seem to be enough to make an exception for Baldwin--I think there must be some personal bias at the network for him. And that's fine, since they have the right to make their own choices...and I have the right to protest and not watch if they give preferential treatment to co-hosts I don't care for.
