|
|
|
|
|
Latest Letters |
|
LA TV |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTR |
|
|
A media critique... and then some!
Friday Letters are up -another viewer wonders about Bogey, answers to why Bakersfield gas is so much cheaper than LA, why LA was not mayorless last Sunday, and more. Coming Monday - Inside LA TV - why KTLA has reason to be upset with an MSNBCer. Links to Recent Issues 07-02-01 Monday's OTR 07-04-01 Wednesday's OTR 06-29-01 Friday's OTR Send your opinions to BRUIN74@aol.com. |
To get on the OTR email reminder list, email me at BRUIN74@aol.com. |
A TRIBUTE TO BRIAN WILSON
If you're a Beach Boys fan, I hope you had the chance to catch the tribute to Brian Wilson on TNT Wednesday Night. The caliber of talent on stage who sang his songs couldn't be any higher. Paul Simon had a somewhat unusual but good version of Surfer Girl...just him and his guitar. Carly Simon, David Crosby and Jim Webb harmonized for a beautiful version of In My Room. I was also very impressed with Vince Gill's version of Warmth of The Sun. And let's not forget Billy Joel singing Don't Worry Baby, and guys from Hootie and the Blowfish singing Sail on Sailor-as good of a rendition of any other song I heard on the special. The worst part was probably Ricky Martin singing California Girls and the Go-Gos doing a very forgettable version of Surf City. They should've had Jan and Dean do it. Martin's California Girls reminded me of Frank Sinatra singing Bad Bad LeRoy Brown......a singer out of his element. His second song, Help Me Rhonda, as I recall, was better, though not on the level of most of the other performers. Toward the end, with Brian Wilson singing lead, they all got on stage to sing a couple of songs, including Fun Fun Fun. What a sight to see Elton John, Bill Joel and Paul Simon gathered around a mike to sing backup. Joel really seemed to be having fun, as he started dancing with Elton John. As a fan, you wonder if it is as much fun for them to perform as it is for us to watch it. As music evolves, with the popularity of hip-hop a low point for many of us, it is good to know that great music is still appreciated. I've thought about doing a best Beach Boys song poll in the past, and I think this should push me into it. We'll do one in the next week or two. The body of music written by Wilson really is exceptional.
WE BEGIN OUR INTERVIEW WITH TOM JACOBS
Tom is considered one of the African-American pioneers in TV news management. He was made news manager at a Cleveland station in 1978. He later worked in Boston, LA and Washington DC. He's the creator of a TV show called "The Calling" which he says looks at issues from a multi-cultural perspective, and reports on stories which don't make it to the national or local news. It's a PBS show which he says is in danger of losing its funding.
(1) OTR - Please explain the show you've done for PBS and why you feel it is
important that it get funding.
Tom - "The Calling is the first regularly scheduled news/analysis program done
from a multicultural perspective. It is designed to take a look at both
current news events and events that are either ignored or marginalized
by mainstream media. We believe that the growing numbers of minorities
in this country are underserved by the mainstream media, either through
exclusion or ignorance. The Calling was designed as a forum for
minority journalists, experts, educators and others to discuss the
issues that are important and relevant to a group that now represents
30% of our population and viewing audience.
After ten years of work to get the program on the air, we finally found
a home at PBS. However we are now in danger of going off the air
because of funding difficulties. We felt that with the increased
interest and discussion about diversity, corporations and foundations
would be eager to provide significant underwriting support. The reality
is, while diversity is talked about a great deal, no company or
foundation has yet stepped forward to help fund our program. Thus far
all of the expense has been shouldered by our production company. We
have asked PBS for assistance and they have indicated that they will
consider giving us a Challenge Grant. We would then be required to
raise the money to match the grant. But PBS is still studying the
issues and as of now, we still have not gotten any funding support. If
it is not forthcoming, the program will die and a unique forum for
discussion of issues affecting a major portion of the viewing audience
will be lost."
(2) OTR - It seems like local TV generally gives shallow coverage on serious
issues. Any evidence that minority issues are treated any differently that
everything else?
Tom - "No, if anything they are handled as badly or worse than other
substantive issues. There are several reasons for this. First, the
media still tends to view racial matters in black and white terms. They
may be somewhat aware of the growing Latino population, but when you
mention race in most newsrooms it means black and that's a major
problem. Other minority groups don't even show up on the radar of most
news managers. Second, race scares most news managers. They have little
background in the racial makeup of their community, don't want to learn
and believe that covering issues of race will turn off their mainstream
viewers. Finally, there are still so few minority news managers or
decision makers in place, there is no one to give the kind of
perspective that would allow news operations to look beyond the
superficial and deal with issues that could be substantive and good
television."
(3) OTR - You mention race and Latinos, as if Latino is a race. Is that also a
problem if people don't realize that you can be a white, black or Asian
Latino?
Tom - "Good point. Too often ethnic groups are viewed as a monolith. Just as
you have different cultures among whites ( Irish, German, French, etc.)
the same thing exists among people of color. And the color differences
among people of color make things even more confusing. I happen to be a
fair-skinned African-American. It's a result of my African, Native
American, Jewish and Spanish ancestors. I identify myself as
African-American, but I understand and claim the other parts of my
heritage. As I said before, one of the big problems is that we tend to
characterize race as a black and white issue, when in fact it is far
more complex than just color. Until we acknowledge these complexities,
race is going to continue to be difficult for us to discuss."
(4) OTR - It does seem that people who're part black, tend to classify
themselves as black. Or even if they don't, as in the case of Tiger Woods, people
just automatically say he is black, even though he is just as much Asian. Or
another example...everyone says Halle Berry is black, even though she is
half-white. Maybe you could expand on that. What does it say about us
that there seems to be a need to give that "black" or "white" classification
that you've eluded to? Would we better off if we as people and those in the
news media stopped referring to people by race, especially when a person is
bi-racial?
Tom - "The superficial labels we apply to each other are not the problem.
Rather the inability to carry on a reasonable and thoughtful discourse
regarding issues of race seems to me a far great impediment to
progress. This lack of discussion is as prevalent in newsrooms as it
is in the larger society. Until we all get past that, we can expect
continued conflict and misunderstandings."
(5) OTR - Earlier, you said race scares most news managers. Is at least part it
the fear of being labeled racist? For example, black conservatives or
libertarians are labeled as sellouts, so a news manager might feel the
only 'black point of view' to present in a story regarding race must be
the standard liberal Democratic view. Or maybe sometimes they figure it is
easier to avoid such issue altogether out of the fear of being labeled
biased. As another example, how many news organizations have looked at
Jesse Jackson's questionable tax returns? What do you think?
Tom - "You've done just what I talked about. You have framed a question about
race and being racist, solely in black and white terms. I don't think
of race in those terms so I can't respond to a question so narrowly
focused.
What I can say is this. If someone chooses to become a news manager, I
believe it is incumbent upon that person to do his or her best to serve
the entire audience. That doesn't mean trying to please everyone. If
you're doing you're job, someone is always going to be displeased. But
if you have a real understanding of who your audience is and that means
the entire audience, you will be less likely to stumble into situations
that will cause you difficulty. If you shy away from a story because
you think you'll be unpopular or be called names, you probably ought to
get into another line of work."
(6) OTR - Wait a second. Just because there are more than two races, does not
mean there are not legitimate questions that sometimes involves conflicts
between black and white people. Why can't you answer a narrowly framed question?
Tom - "I didn't say that the there are not legitimate questions regarding
conflicts between people of various races. Your question concerned a
news manager's fear of being labeled racist if he or she didn't take the
"standard liberal Democratic view" as the black point of view.
As I said before, if you make a decision as a news manager based upon
whether or not your audience will view you favorably, then your in the
wrong business. The very nature of what we do requires that we often
make decisions to cover stories that will make us unpopular with a
segment of our audience. That's part of the job.
I think when you cover stories that involve people of a different
racial or cultural background, a journalists needs to determine whether
or not those racial or cultural differences are part of the story or
merely incidental to it.
If we use your example of Jesse Jackson's tax returns, the first
question for me would be how do we classify Jackson. If it is as a
public figure and activist he goes into one category. If he's a
presidential candidate, he goes into a category that deserve more
scrutiny. The next question involves what "questionable" means. Did he
allegedly commit a criminal act or is he a sloppy bookkeeper?
Then I'd question why we are targeting Jackson versus some other public
figure. If we investigate Jackson, will we also investigate Ralph
Nader, Ralph Reed, David Duke, Kweisi Mfume, Phyllis Schafley, and the
joint returns of James Carville and Mary Matlin. Or are we just
investigating liberal African-American pubic figures? Guess which
investigation will be called a racial witchhunt?
If you do a story on somebody like Jackson or Wen Ho Lee, I think you
need to be sure that you understand the very fact that they are persons
of color will become part of the story. As a journalist you have to be
sure you understand that. For me, the fact that Jackson is
African-American or that Lee is Chinese are not the key elements of the
story although they should certainly be taken into consideration.
Jackson's a public figure who has staked out certain moral and political
positions. If he's cheating on his taxes or misusing public money, he's
fair game. Lee was accused of espionage, a serious crime. But I would
submit that if you read the coverage of Lee's case vs. that of Robert
Hansen, the FBI agent who sold secrets, there was more than a hint of
racial bias in much of the Lee coverage.
The point is, race matters in this country. As journalists we have to
be aware of it and sensitive to how it impacts a story. But we can't be
controlled by it."
NEXT FRIDAY - PART TWO WITH TOM JACOBS
As you know, we've been doing an ongoing Q&A with talk show host
Marc Germain, better known as Mr KABC, about California's energy
problems. Today, I'll be including all of the interview we've done
so far, along with our latest question and answer.
(1) OTR - You have really latched onto this energy issue. What made you jump into it so heavily, and what sources do you use for your information?
Mr K - "The local news stories back in January about why were going to have
blackouts and huge jumps in prices didn't make sense to me. The "blame the
environmentalists" and "the utilities are the victims" leads didn't ring
true. I began researching articles from the printed press and I found them
to be very different from the opinions being expressed on talk radio and in
the local TV news reports. I compiled a list of what I was hearing and
found refutations of these opinions, posted them on the KABC website
[http://www.kabc.com/viewentry.asp?ID=97446&PT=hostsdetail] and told
listeners to get these facts which were all cited from major papers around
the country and eMail them to everyone who cares about the "crisis." I
invited people who had intimate knowledge of the situation on the show to
answer questions and quickly learned who was telling the complete story and
who was spinning. When the first blackouts hit Northern California in
January and again here in early March, I believed this story would grow as
listeners had their power shut off and their electric bills increased
dramatically and would search for good information and a strong advocate for
ratepayers and taxpayers. Big business, politicians, consumer activists,
pundits, lawyers, profiteers, heroes, villains, liberals, conservatives -
have all staked a claim on the power issue which is why it is tailor-made
for talk radio - it has all the elements listeners respond to.
(2) OTR - I heard you say we don't have an energy crisis in California, but a money shortage. Please explain what you mean...
Mr K - "Without building a single new power plant, we have the ability today to
satisfy demand. According to the California Independent System Operator,
the most power we ever used in the state of California was last July 12th.
We used less than 46,000 megawatts and the reason we didn't have blackouts
then was that California can produce almost 55,000 megawatts at peak
production. The reason we had blackouts in January and March when we were
using far less than 35,000 megawatts is that the market for electricity is
being manipulated. It is simple supply and demand. A small number of big
power generators are withholding supply to keep prices high (these
generators are denying it but there is ample evidence). Power is being
produced here and shipped outside the state and in some instances, we are
buying it back at hugely inflated prices. This scheme is called "power
laundering". Demand has not increased in California over the past year, it
has decreased by eight percent. This is why we don't have a power crisis -
we have a financial crisis; an inability to pay for power generated at
hugely inflated rates. Duke Energy sent out a press release on 6/1
reporting that at peak times, California taxpayers paid $3,800 /
megawatt-hour. To put this into perspective, two years ago, we were paying
$30 / megawatt-hour. Imagine going to the gas pumps and one day it costs
$30 to fill up the tank and when you return later it is $3,800! This was
for only a small portion of California's power needs (less than 1/10 of 1
percent) but it helps put the situation into perspective."
(3) OTR - I'm sure you read where Gray Davis quoted Alan Greenspan as saying that deregulation won't work unless you have 15 percent more capacity than demand. Do you buy that, or is that irrelevant if power produced in California is sold outside the state?
Mr K - "Ideally, in a free market to negotiate for low rates, buyers need a float or
a margin which allows them to buy from other producers insuring real market
competition. Since power cannot be stored and California's maximum demand
can be a third higher than normal demand, Greenspan's ideal of 15 percent
more supply than demand seems unnecessary. Even when margins are small, if
there is real competition and bidders are working to underbid others the
marketplace works and prices fall. Aside from the obvious supply
manipulations that the big five generators are engaging in, the DWR and
CalISO buying and distributing by secret bid seems to work against the free
market and keeps prices artificially high."
(4) OTR - IF Gray Davis feels that eminent
domain is too radical of a step, especially earlier on, did he have any other choice but to have the state step in, after the power generators refused to sell to Edison and P G &E? And isn't it logical for him to get help from Edison people, since they know the electricity business?
Mr K - "Edison and PG&E Corp (and SDG&E) have plenty of cash and assets. State
government should have forced the utilities to pay what they owe and
negotiate acceptable rates. If this were any other commodity than
electricity, the state would have let the utilities and the generators fight
it out in court. These monoliths now have buyers remorse for laws they
fought to pass and profited handsomely from over the past four years. Like
any investor owned business, they are on the hook and should not have the
Governor using our tax money to bail them out.
Good sense would dictate that you get the best advice from those who don't
have a vested interest. There are experts all over this country who should
have had his ear. The Governor should seek assistance from those who are
not directly involved in the "crisis." Why aren't representatives from
citizens and taxpayers groups consulting with him?"
(5) OTR - So, I'd like to hear your take on FERC's move toward market based price caps. Since they are based on the most expensive least efficient power generator on the spot market...what is to stop the highly inefficient generators from keep their prices artificially high, as they'll all been doing all along?
Mr K - "There is good and bad in the FERC deal. First the good; by applying the
rules to the entire region (not just California) and around the clock (not
just during power emergencies), it effectively closes loopholes that allowed
generators to export their power out of California only to bring it back in
under more favorable selling conditions - the "power laundering" I've
mentioned before.
The bad news is that the deal calls for a the ten percent surcharge power
wholesalers are allowed to charge California buyers. Senator Lieberman is
quoted in the Wall Street Journal saying, "I'd be hard pressed to understand
why you'd impose a surcharge on people who already are paying through the
nose."
This deal wont effect ratepayers (short term), it wont reduce the ability of
generators to ramp the generators up and down to goose the prices on the
spot market but will probably help California taxpayers by lowering the
amount the state spends on power purchases."
(6) OTR - What kind of impact do you expect the testimony of the three former Duke employees will have on all this? Can you see the state filing some sort of civil action against Duke and others? I guess I'm also wondering if you think the tide has turned and possibly there may not even be any blackouts this summer?
Mr K - "Duke has gone on the offensive with full page ads in the LA Times and
elsewhere claiming the ex-employees were not in an operational capacity to
know that the ISO directs plants to cut production. Davis is using these three and their testimony as the "smoking gun" he needs to prove manipulation.
The marketplace is all the proof of manipulation anyone needs. The real
issue now is whether generator manipulation is illegal. There are many
different and educated opinions about this that I'm not willing to hazard a
guess. But the answer to that question is not nearly as important as the
fundamentals; namely who will pay for power that was and will be generated
and do we have the capacity for sufficient power to avert blackouts.
I am on the record as stating that there is NO POWER CRISIS and that we have
the ability with plants in California to satisfy demand and avert all
blackouts. We have a FINANCIAL CRISIS and if nobody is willing to pay the
prices the generators demand, we will have blackouts."
(7) OTR - Tell us about your interview
with Duke Energy. Did they make a
decent case that they've NOT withheld energy to increase prices?
Mr K - "Tom Williams who was the Duke Energy spokesman on my show Thursday night
made some highly controversial claims. Duke has gone on the offensive by
taking out full-page ads in a number of California newspapers, including the
LA Times, claiming that the "Davis Three" [Governor Davis' whistleblowers]
are not Duke employees - they were SDG&E workers who did not know that the
CAISO directed plant operations to ramp up and down the South Bay's units
and that Duke has not manipulated the supply and in fact has been generating
50% more power than in the previous year. Williams claimed that Duke
offered power contracts to Governor Davis last year a $.05 / Kwh which were
rejected. He claimed that Duke has only been paid $.016 on the dollar and
owes nothing to the state but has entered into settlement talks concerning
refunds on the order of several million dollars to prevent litigation. Mr.
Williams reiterated his belief that we have a real power crisis that many of
the California plants are old and in need of repair and will fail when
needed most.
I challenged him on several issues including his belief that Duke has the
right to run their plants as they see fit. He was very comfortable with the
way his company has conducted business in this state and that they have not
profiteered or gouged California ratepayers or taxpayers. My goal was to
have a greater understanding of the generators' perspective who, until now,
have not been very willing to grant interviews. It was important to get him
on the record with these statements."
(8) OTR - Now we see evidence that Duke was ramping their supply up and
down because the ISO told them to. In the PR battle, how much does this help
them, and hurt the state?
Mr K - "Duke has a great defense and it goes back to what I said in our first
eMail;"We don't have a POWER crisis - we have a FINANCIAL crisis." The focus is
now on the ISO to answer why, if we have such a huge deficit of power in the
state are plants being ordered to ramp down? The whole idea of deregulation
was to have a real spot market where generators and purchasers negotiate for
prices. If plants are shutting down by command of the ISO or by the hand of
the generators, it explains why prices on the spot market spiraled out of
control and why new power plant construction will do NOTHING to correct the
market or keep the lights on."
OTR - ONE YEAR AGO THIS
WEEK
PROBLEMS WITH CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM
I have to say, this is one time where I have sympathy with the bias in a recent story. This one was from Chris Blatchford of KTTV. It was a situation where the judge allowed a camera inside his courtroom, but would NOT allow the defendant to be shown. Blatchford reported that this happens all too frequently. If he had just said that it happens 'frequently' he probably would've been okay. But 'all too' frequently? That would be a matter of opinion, wouldn't you say?
On the other hand, I'm glad he took the trouble to point out a pattern here. In fact, OTR complained about the same thing not too long ago. But the better way to go would be a separate piece on the problem. (Of course it's possible KTTV has done that already.) Because if you want the public to care about this issue, it needs more explanation. You need to talk to a news director or two, to explain why it's a bad idea to hide the defendant. And of course you need a judge, or at least an attorney to give the other side of it. Since courtroom stories don't offer much in the way of exciting video, I can imagine this issue isn't on the radar screen of everyone in news management. After all these years, cameras are banned in federal courts, and judges in certainly state courts (like California) have the final decision. It's a good First Amendment issue, and it'd be nice to see some in depth news coverage on it.
THE BURP HEARD 'ROUND THE TOWN
It happened on KCAL-9's noon newscast. They came back from a commercial and went right into video on a story about the Olympic flame being carried underwater. (I'm guessing just about every station in America showed that one). As soon as the video began, and before anchor Jane Velez Mitchell began her live voice-over, there was this clear and loud BELCH! I know, this sounds a lot more like something you'd hear on a small market TV station, but there it was. I think it's a safe bet that it was not part of this underwater story. And I give Velez Mitchell a lot of credit for getting through the story. She ad-libbed something about the 'sound-effects', and managed to keep from breaking down laughing during the story. You could hear that she had to fight it, but she won that battle.
So the question is, WHO is the guilty party? I don't think it could've been Jane. While I can't prove it, it just didn't sound like her kind of belch. Besides, can you imagine a female anchor doing that just as she's about the read a story on the air? I think Columbo would look elsewhere. Also on set at the time was anchor David Gonzales, and weatherman Carl Bell. Both of these guys have shown a sense of humor on the air, but could either one, even accidentally, have done this?
Let's look at Gonzales. What do we really know about him? A closer look tells us that he is married to Nancy Bauer Gonzales, news director at KNBC-4. Could she have put him up to this? Could she have said "David, either you burp on the air, or I'll make your life a living hell!"? Very doubtful. KNBC doesn't have a noon newscast, so there would be little strategic value. Or maybe it was a test? If it goes over well, maybe she'll have Kent Shocknek try it for KNBC's 11am newscast. After all, it would add more to the news than some of Kent's ad-libs. A better argument, but still the OTR jury remains unconvinced.
This leaves us with Carl Bell. At first glance, he would appear to have too much class for this. But wait a second. Didn't Bell go to USC? And isn't it a fact that he not only went to this 'university', but also BRAGS about it each year before they get beat by UCLA in football? So a man who seems to be a first-rate weatherman, is actually a glutton for punishment! Maybe he did this in order to get caught....a cry for help! Yet, I must admit, except for that one week in November, I like Carl's work. He's one of LA's best, who last year was bumped from the night shift to the day shift. So was he trying to belch himself into the KCAL weekend weather gig? No, I don't think so.
This the point where Ellery Queen would ask, is it the anchorman, the anchorwoman, the weatherman, OR someone else? After all, the folks on set aren't the only people out there, are they? This is where the OTR investigation stalls. While all of the three obvious suspects had opportunity, none had reasonable motive. Until this is resolved, I would suggest that none of the KCAL noon news staff leave town.
SELECTIVE OUTRAGE
This is an issue KABC radio talk show host Larry Elder was hammering on last week. He wondered why is there SO MUCH ongoing publicity about John Rocker, yet worse misdeeds by others seem to be forgotten. For example, he brings up Reverend Al Sharpton. Sharpton was a big supporter of Tawana Brawley, the New York young woman who falsely accused a man of raping her. Sharpton also accused the man, and ended up losing a libel suit. According to Elder, Sharpton still has not paid the judgment. Yet, the Reverend gets the royal treatment by Democratic politicians who want to win in New York City. Elder also points out some of the vile lyrics from rappers, like Eminem. No one seems to care about him. Yet, a baseball player makes some intolerant comments in an interview, and it seems so many people just won't let go.
As a Braves fan, I was glad that Rocker was fined and suspended. I said at the time that Major League Baseball had the right to do that. Sincere or not, Rocker has apologized a number of times. I realize his first appearance at Shea Stadium since the SI interview is what prompted the latest publicity. But, Elder's point is still right on. Certain types of people seem to be easy targets, yet others seem to be easily forgiven, or tolerated. It's another double-standard, and it needs to go.
IGNORANCE
I hesitate to criticize anyone's spelling errors, since after all, this site has been known to make a few. But this one needs to be pointed out. When John Rocker made his first run to the mound at Shea Stadium last week, one Met fan held up a sign which read" How do you spell INGNORANCE?..... R O C K E R." That's right, the word "ignorance" was misspelled. I've wonder if that was part of the insult, but if so, it doesn't make sense to me. So I guess the sign just proves what we already know; we're all ignorant about something. For some it's people different than ourselves, and for others it's spelling. But if you're going on hold up a sign at a baseball game with just a few words, you'd think you'd want to double check that.
ASSUMING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
Last week, a well respected former high school principal was shot and killed in a drive-by shooting, while he was driving on the freeway. Gary Beverly was one of those real good guys of the world, someone everyone seemed to like and respect. The concern here is that when KNBC reported the story the next day, they said that other drivers "looked on in disbelief." True, I expect if I saw something like that, I would find it hard to believe what I saw seeing. But, if you're going to report that fact on the news, you'd think you'd talk to some witnesses to prove your point. Yet, KNBC story had NO witness interviews. They quoted NO witnesses. There seemed to be NO evidence that they talked to any witnesses. In fact, at the end of the story, a phone number was given out so that actual witnesses might call the police with some information, since the killer got away. All of that being the case, how can they just report that other drivers looked on in disbelief? My guess is, it sounds good. Why any station would have to hype such a tragic story is beyond me. But in LA, if you want solid accurate information, that 11AM newscast on KNBC would not be your first choice. On the other hand, if they ever get their act together, it's going make it a little tougher for OTR to find as many abuses to write about.
SPECIAL CITATIONS
It was the kind of sentence where you expect to hear the broadcasteze phrase "at this hour." Much to my delight (and yes, it's pretty bad when a guy gets delighted by such things), KCAL'S Sylvia Lopez read that "a man is holding his son hostage in Orlando, Florida RIGHT NOW."
Maybe my complaint about the term "makeshift memorial" becoming a cliché is having an impact. Last week, KNBC's Chuck Henry reported there was an "impromptu shrine" for a police officer. Like I always say, KNBC is my kind of station.
NEW WORDS AND PHRASES FOR THE DICTIONARY
You may've heard the story. The latest dictionary will now include such phrases as "24/7", "eye candy" and "my bad." When KABC-TV did the story, anchor Maggie Rodriguez mentioned how old those sayings were. Yet, I'm wondering how it is that I NEVER heard of "my bad." To me, it sounds like something a small child might say when he makes a mistake. Tell me, have you ever heard an adult say that, or anyone for that matter? I must be out of the loop on this one, or maybe I just don't hang around people who make "bads." If "my bad" is in new dictionaries...can "broadcasteze" be far behind?
LA TIMES BIAS
The Times has done an excellent job on reporting a big scandal in the state Insurance Commissioner's office. For those outside of California, let me assure you, this has been a big story. Last week, Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush announced he would resign his elected position. One of his sins was that his office collected fines from insurance companies, and didn't use it to help earthquake victims as it was supposed to. Some of the money was spent on a TV commercial which featured Quackenbush. However, The Times reported the commercial "starred" Quackenbush. It's subtle, but it is shows a little bias. I've never heard about anyone "starring" in a TV commercial. Even Michael Jordan. The appropriate word should be "featured." It's a small difference, but it makes a difference.
OTR ON THE ROAD
As this web site evolves, it seemed like a good idea to offer my services for speaking engagements at colleges, service clubs or anyone else interested in the OTR gospel. Of course one of the great advantage to speaking in person is that you get far few typos. If you check the OTR On the Road page on the menu (Netscape users CAN now access it too), you can see learn more. You can also read what some well known OTR readers have to say about this web site. If you are interested, you can email to OTROnTheRoad@aol.com.
YOUR OPINIONS
They are an important part of OTR. Please send them along to BRUIN74@aol.com. Unless you say otherwise, I'll assume it is for publication.
OTR IS PUBLISHED
EVERY MONDAY, WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY Letters to the
editor are updated Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
Ron's disclaimer: Like all reporters I have opinions. I do the best I can to make sure that nothing I say here has any effect on my objectivity in covering stories.
 |
