MANILA, Philippines?Local TV doesn?t have enough talk shows, so we welcome the arrival of ?I.M.O. (In My Opinion),? telecast 9 p.m. on Sunday nights on ANC.

The fact that the show is hosted by Mo Twister ups its controversy ante. On his radio program, Mo has made a career out of being controversial, taking potshots at celebrities, or asking them ticklish questions that sometimes bring out the worst in them. In fact, it can even be said that Mo?s new TV show is the product of the popularity or notoriety he?s gained from his radio rants.

But, TV isn?t radio, so certain adjustments have had to be made, with varying results. On the plus side, Mo looks good, so he registers well on the tube.

Less on the up-and-up, however, is his tendency to simper when he delivers a diatribe, perhaps to ?cutely? soften its sting. In the light of the pungency of the diatribe, however, the cute behavior comes off as rather hokey.

Like many late-night talk shows in the States, ?I.M.O.? starts with a comedic monologue about this and that. In Mo?s case, however, the comedic patter is more acidic than usual.

On its first telecast, ?I.M.O.? listed down people he felt we would all be better off without. While I agreed with some of Mo?s negative choices, I was still surprised by his rather ruthless candor. If the scoffing, scathing list was designed to make the show?s first telecast sizzle with controversy, it certainly achieved its impish intention.

Reactions

I wondered, though, how the people mentioned in Mo?s smiling diatribe would manifest their reactions to his ?cute? assault. Since some of them have media outlets of their own, we could be in for a rather long series of retorts and counterpunches.

After that sizzling opening segment on his show?s first telecast, Mo settled down for the main feature, a discussion on the similarly controversial Reproductive Health Bill. This was Mo?s chance to establish his credentials as interviewer and moderator, but he didn?t make much of a mark in this regard.

Initially, he asked the right questions, but he lacked ?follow through,? the ability to take a point or argument to the next level in terms of escalating pertinence and complexity. Well, it?s early days for the show, so Mo should be given time to more confidently get his bearings as an interviewer.

The next time I caught the show, the ?controversial? opening ?hit list? was gone, and Mo opted to play it cooler than perhaps his niche market would want. Was he told a thing or two?or three?in the interim? Whatever, but the show?s initial heat had perceptible subsided.

Delicate balance

The topic up for grabs was quite generic, and the discussion came up with little that was new or particularly forceful or insightful. How to recover? The show has to discover the delicate balance between what?s hot and what?s allowable on TV.

It could also feature bigger names as guests, and Mo?s hosting could be more truly dynamic and insightful. With these and other adjustments, ?I.M.O.? could more productively come into its own?in my opinion.