I worked at NBC and MTV for two years, and it was very interesting to see the comparisons of audiences and the way that I would have to present a story to the two different places.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
At MTV, although the audience is smaller, I found it more interesting to deliver news to a specific group of people, because my story then did not have to try to be all things to all people.
For better or worse, MTV sort of bridges the whole country together almost like the BBC does in England. It's opened up everything so wide that it's possible for everyone to have different ideas.
For me, I think there's a lot more room in cable television to tell broader stories. NBC and the networks, they're all very mainstream, and they're a little more conservative in how they approach storytelling.
If you create a good story that has a lot of story value... I think audiences like that. It's why they stick with the same TV show over and over.
I was a pioneer in MTV and I was there from the very beginning. So I saw how that developed and how loose it was and how much fun it was in its looseness. And I was influenced a lot by that.
I've been lucky. I've had this history of having an appeal to more than one type of audience.
I was fortunate to be part of a very successful show on CBS in 1986. I switched to NBC for eight years and through these experiences have gotten terrific insight into television; it's a fascinating medium.
I knew I wanted to do a show on NBC - it's rooted in its history; it's part rooted in nostalgia and part rooted in the potential of it. For me, there was no other choice.
I was one of the first veejays to take the camera out on location, and that's what was unique about MTV at that time.
My first job with a network was 'General Hospital,' and that was ABC. I feel like I have so much history with them, that they treat their shows well and they have good, discerning taste.