Speaking of his spineless clone, Richard Roeper, who has the personality of a butt-plug, IMHO, it just occurred to me that Siskel's demise may have something to do with Ebert's noticeably higher profile in the political arena. Siskel, a real mensch, was the senior partner in that relationship. Maybe he specifically forbade Ebert from opening his pie-hole about politics, and now that he's gone Ebert is free to spew his nonsense to his heart's content.
Chalk that up as one more reason I wish Siskel was still with us.
Gene could shame him for embracing crap (Summer Lovers was on Roger's 10 guilty pleasures list, I think at the top). Mr. Siskel may not have persuaded Mr. Ebert to change his position but at least to choose his words wisely and be ready to go to bat for a film.
I agree that Roger seems to be more comfortable talking about politics with Gene gone. They probably had some kind of agreement to keep the focus on movies and not a social agenda.
Ebert gets very sarcastic with people who disagree with him. Siskel took it all in stride. He could stand up to Ebert. And could throw a few zingers at Ebert when the fat guy made a terrible pick of his own.
Siskel was older, had gone to a more prestigious college (Gov. George Pataki was a pal), and worked for Chicago's biggest paper. His self-image didn't depend on what Ebert or other film geeks thought of him. He made some bad calls, but his and Ebert's balanced out.
The old show worked because Ebert spoke up for his avant-garde favorites and Siskel represented more middle of the road tastes. Today, Ebert tries to occupy both seats, and it doesn't work.
Ebert's choosing a junior writer at his own paper as Siskel's replacement was a major mistake. He doesn't have anyone to play off him or to stand up to him any more. It weakened the show, and indicated just how insecure Ebert really is.