No Cheers for Sam and Diane

Finally, after months of advance promotion and mounting suspense, Sam Donaldson and Diane Sawyer were appearing on the screen together. There they were in glowing neon, bigger and brighter than news itself. There they were, the multimillion-dollar man and woman, as the media titled them. There they were, “two of the world’s most formidable journalists,” as ABC titled them. There they were.

Not being very formidable.

Donaldson and Ronald Reagan got better information from each other shouted over the roar of chopper blades than America got Thursday night from the premiere of ABC’s “PrimeTime Live” news program. Maybe if we all cupped our ears. . . .

The hour had a narrow target audience: viewers who had been hermetically sealed underground and unable to watch a newscast or pick up a newspaper for the last two weeks.

You can admire a program’s ambition to be incisively topical in contrast to the soft, gumminess of NBC’s “Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow,” which premiered the night before. But bring something new to the table, at least. Instead, Thursday’s ABC entree was live, all right--live, warmed-over “World News Tonight.”

Just why “PrimeTime Live” chose to begin life by interviewing Thomas Root--the much-reported-on figure who survived his private plane going into the sea only to face questions about his gunshot wound and business dealings--is as baffling as Root himself. Sawyer asked the questions that others had asked and, in a real coup, got the same answers.

Did Root shoot himself intentionally? No. Did he have shady business dealings? No. Was he involved in drugs? No. Suddenly the screen filled with a copy of a bounced check Root allegedly had written two days before the incident. Well? Root wouldn’t discuss his personal finances.

Already, new and exciting “PrimeTime Live” was thick with must and deja vu .

Root did complain that while other, bigger news stories come and go, “I linger on. There’s no reason for it.” So bothered was he by the attention that he agreed to be interviewed on “PrimeTime Live.”

Next, “PrimeTime Live” weighed in with its own coverage of the on-going hostage story, checking in with Secretary of State James Baker in Washington, the show’s correspondent Chris Wallace in Israel and ABC News correspondent and former hostage Charles Glass in the studio audience.

The din of sameness reached a deafening level when a studio audience/town meeting segment disintegrated into another of those What-would-you-do-about-the-hostages-if-you-were-President? choruses that have been dominating radio and TV talk shows all week.

There was also this nitty-gritty from former CIA director Stansfield Turner and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Noel Koch: Their own military plans to rescue the American hostages. Like everyone else, they agreed that getting rescuers in without killing the hostages in the process would be almost impossible.

“They’d have to get in that room before that guard heard them coming. . . ,” Donaldson added later. For this they’re paying him a salary?

Well, no. ABC is paying Donaldson and Sawyer the moon--less for their journalism than for their personalities, hoping that together and in the right surroundings they can create TV magic. On paper, yes.

Covering the White House for ABC for so many years made the capable, aggressive Donaldson not only the most recognizable and, in some eyes, most contemptible network correspondent ever, but also an institution whose celebrity often eclipsed the stories he covered. What better match for the rough-edged “beast” than the soft-edged “beauty”? Sawyer’s intelligence, good looks and old-money polish were regularly displayed on the popular CBS series “60 Minutes,” making her one of the hottest commodities in TV news.

Viewers are often attracted to news programs for personalities. So perhaps the mere sights and sounds of Donaldson-Sawyer alone will suffice. Perhaps not.

Donaldson and Sawyer added their voices Thursday to the multitudes complaining about inadequate U.S. ground intelligence in areas of the Middle East where American hostages are thought to be held.

But what about something much easier to attain--advance intelligence by “PrimeTime Live” about its interview subjects, enabling it to anticipate the duds?

“Dud” is a charitable description of what transpired via satellite Thursday between Sawyer and Roseanne Barr, who had written an article in the New York Times earlier in the week complaining about constant media attention.

“PrimeTime Live” is topical and on top of the news, right? So you’d think that Sawyer would have asked Barr to comment on the fact that both the actress and her hit ABC comedy series “Roseanne” were snubbed in the Emmy nominations announced that very morning. Sawyer didn’t.

Not that Barr necessarily would have responded. It was that kind of interview. Sawyer would have had an easier time extracting teeth from a yak.

Hence the drawback of “live” interviews, which are far more dangerous than they are exciting. If the interview dies, so does the interviewer, and the show. Perhaps that’s why Barbara Walters--who got much more from her session with Barr a few months ago--interviews on tape.

Sawyer did get a few words--on tape--from Nora Ephron, screenwriter for the over-covered movie “When Harry Met Sally. . . .” Why do yet another piece on this movie? Because of all the chat “we’ve heard at luncheons and dinners” about the possibility of men and women being just friends, said Sawyer. Would those be luncheons and dinners in Peoria?

“Two of the world’s most formidable journalists” did manage to squeeze in a lot of promotion--of that evening’s “Nightline” and of the next episode of “PrimeTime Live.” That one would be real good, Sawyer and Donaldson promised.