A media critique... and then some! 10/26/01 - Friday Friday Letters  are UP. Links to Recent Issues 10-22-01 Monday's OTR 10-24-01 Wednesday's OTR 10-19-01 Friday's OTR OTR can use your help to keep publishing. If you like it, feel free to send ten dollars to Ron Fineman PO Box 42364 Bakersfield, CA 93384    OR you can send $ electronically by clicking on the PayPal logo   Thanks to our latest contributors...Craig Hines*, and a media member who wants to be anonymous. Your help is very  much appreciated! *Given more than ten dollars Send your opinions to BRUIN74@aol.com.

To get on the OTR email reminder list, email me at BRUIN74@aol.com.

INTERVIEWING BIN LADEN

I'm surprised about all the fuss that has been made over CNN's attempt to interview Osama Bin Laden. Certainly there is no journalist worth a damn who wouldn't want to interview him.  He's #1 on the FBI's Most Wanted List. Our government has evidence that he is responsible for the worst terrorist attack in our history. And journalists aren't supposed to have questions of him? Don't all of us have some questions of him?

The fact that he's a bad guy should not deter the effort. It's because of his hatred and evil that makes him someone we should hear from.  After all, since when do reporters not interview bad guys?  In the past, I've seen interviews of Khadaffi, The Ayatollah Khomeni, and Yasser Arafat (before the US recognized him as a legitimate spokesman for the Palestinians). No matter what you thought about them personally, they were part of major news stories and their opinions needed to be heard.  If you shouldn't ask questions of Bin Laden, where would you draw the line? 60 Minutes did a story last Sunday about his right hand man...a man who one person said actually makes more decisions about Al-Qaeda than Bin Laden does. Would you not interview him either? How about the leaders of Hamas, Hizbollah, the IRA? This sort of thinking just strikes me as so contrary to an open country, where we should want to know what leaders think, including evil ones.

In the case of Bin Laden, yes we've heard his anti-American anti-Jewish hate spewed from his video releases.  But aren't we better off knowing where he stands? Perhaps there is more to learn if he answers questions from CNN? Maybe he would outright admit responsibility for the attacks. Maybe he would tip his hand in some other way.  There is no telling what you may learn from someone once you ask some questions. Putting our head in the sand and just saying "he's evil, what he thinks doesn't matter" is really short-sighted. This guy put the United States through hell. He may be responsible for the Anthrax attacks too. It is clearly the job of journalists to interview and further explain people like him to the best of their abilities. And I imagine many people who say CNN should not be asking him questions, would not turn away when the answers were aired. 

THE BIG LIE

You know the strategy.  A lie is repeated so often, so consistently, after a while some people start to believe it. That seems to be a strategy in the Muslim world with regard to the 9/11 attacks. While listening to Larry Elder's radio show yesterday, I heard that the defense minister of Syria actually said the attacks were carried out be Israel. This lie began circulating soon after the attacks, but this seems to be the highest ranking official in any government who is giving this nonsense some credence. Like many other bits of disinformation about Israel over the years, there seems to be no limit to the absurdity of what its enemies will say. In this fairy tale, the Mossad informed Jews who work in the World Trade Center not to show up for work on September 11th.  It would be laughable, except that you have to realize that are a lot of people in the Muslim world, many illiterate, who believe this. Heck, you'll recall that right after this happened, one of LA's most respected Muslim leaders suggested that Israel should be on the suspect list. I realize that when some people are filled with hate and anger, they'll say or believe anything. It's just sad that in 2001, this sort of anti-Semitism is so alive.

SPEAKING OF SYRIA

Last week I heard about the US allowing more than a dozen men from Syria into the US to learn how to fly. This was AFTER 9/11. Keep in mind, Syria is on the United States list of states which sponsor terrorism. I realize that many of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian, coming from what is supposed to be a country friend to the United States.  So it is not a black and white issue as to whose citizen you can trust, and whose you cannot.  But after what happened, wouldn't it make sense to keep out all citizens from enemy states, unless there are some special circumstances? After all, we don't have to let anyone into the US. This is a time of war. I hate to see us look like chumps.

FINALLY - A RESPONSE FROM CHERYL CARSON

Earlier this month, I wrote about KTTV Senior Executive Producer Cheryl Carson, and the fact that she was no longer coming to work, but no one in the newsroom had been given an explanation. You can see what I wrote by going to www.RonFineman.com/la_tv011008.html  Anyway, it looks like I'm finally able to get a comment from Carson, sort of. Actually I got an email today from an attorney representing her. It came in an attachment, which I've been unable to open. But info in the email tells me they also sent me a hard copy through the mail. So come Monday, I should be able to tell you what she has to say about this.

PART  TWO OF OUR INTERVIEW WITH HAL EISNER

(5) OTR - Has your style or the way you approach a story changed much since you first started reporting for TV?

Hal - "Ron, in so many ways, I've always considered myself a "work in progress." From my first days in radio, when I tried to sound like Walter Cronkite & Paul Harvey (Good day!), to my first days in TV trying to figure out how to write to pictures and even to right now -- it's a never-ending process.

Of course, I've gone through many changes over the years. Most have been the result of experience. Many have involved writing and story weaving techniques. Sometimes storytelling styles have mirrored the pacing and approaches of the management at the time, and for the most part, those were good changes. Those types of adjustments might have included such things as more "people-izing" of pieces and searching out microcosms that helped make a story more relatable. But, I've done a fair amount of reinventing myself on my own; making efforts to be more flexible so that if called on to do stories about such things as hip-hop or younger trends I'd be able to handle them.

One style issue I've always liked, that some used to criticize me about, has changed with time among others. It used to be, for some, that the only acceptable approach was a "network" style -- hairlights, little movement, interviews done as one shots with cutaways being the only vehicle for showing the reporter at work. 

There were certainly times when interviewing someone I'd do that, but I preferred to show myself walking, talking in two-shot soundbites and interacting with subjects. I've always liked calling it A-Roll, B-Roll and ME-Roll. To me, it sometimes seemed awkward hearing the disembodied voice of a reporter asking a question over a shot of the interviewee just listening. My preference was to have the camera pan from me asking the question to the interviewee answering or ask it in a two shot that might also include the answer. To some, that had the appearance that I was too much the story. I never thought that and now you see the "reporter involved" style everywhere -- even on the networks. Yeah!

(6) OTR - I sometimes see local reporters re-ask a question to a subject, just so they can be seen with their face on camera asking that question. Whatever the motive, I consider that staging, and not ethical. Do you agree?

Hal - I wondered when you were going to toss a hardball this way! I can't presume to know what you're seeing no more than I can indict reporters that may be putting something on tape that they may or may not be putting on the air. Let's talk this one out. 

You know as well as I that when someone comes to an interview they often come prepared with an agenda. Sometimes you have to fire the same question more than once, perhaps in different ways, to break through to what's really going on. 

As long as a camera is rolling and a microphone is on an interview is never over. Sometimes revisiting pertinent questions in those wider shots produces more candid answers than in the traditional interview setting. Sometimes attacking a question persistently breaks down the agenda. Sometimes if you can't pull that off in the initial interview you may be able to do it in the cutaway shots, which I remind you is still stuff that can go on the air with full sound, because the camera is still rolling, the microphone is still on and the interview subject knows that.

If the story is about something being "green" and the interviewee wants to spin it so it's sounds like it's "red," healthy doses of questioning and, yes, requestioning may ultimately get past the spin even if it takes on the appearance of someone putting something on camera so they can see themselves on TV. I remind you that a lot of interviews these days are showing reporters more even during the initial interview.

So much is recorded on tape; sometimes to the point of a 5 to 1 ratio of what's really used on the air. It may be that in this broadcast world of more "reporter involvement" the question re-asked draws a shorter more-to-the-point answer. And, in a TV news environment where reporters are given 1:15 to tell a story, maybe the shorter more concise answer in the re-asked question explains it better to the viewer. 

Is re-asking a question staging? If a reporter stands before a camera acting as if he or she's talking with someone whose not there. Yes. But, I submit if a reporter is talking with someone whether it's in the initial interview, a wider shot showing the interviewer or even a reverse question, if the person's really there and really answering the question, there is nothing unethical about a truthful answer in any form.

(7) OTR - I'm not talking about asking a question more than once because you don't get a decent answer. I mean re-asking the same question ONLY for the purpose of getting their face asking the question? So, in other words....when the viewer watches the story, they see a reporter asking a question, and the answer they see is the one the subject gave five minutes earlier. Is that ethical?


Hal - Ron, are you re-asking the question? Trying to break through my agenda??? :) 

Look, in the academic example you're offering in this question, it certainly sounds unethical. This question, though, is different from what you asked in the last one. In that you offered up observations you've made in the field in which you've seen these things taped. You never said if they were aired. You never said if there were any answers given by the interviewee when the same questions were re-asked.

As I said, in the previous answer, if someone is re-asking the question on camera without the interview subject present -- that's staging. That's unethical! If the person says to the interview subject something to the effect of "I'm going to ask a question again, but you don't need to answer." Ron, that's questionable in anyone's book! If the re-ask is to the person and there is an answer (whether used or not) there is still the transfer of information -- maybe new information. That's valid! 
------------------------------------------
We'll continue next week with Hal. However, I should clear something up. In my question to Hal about re-asking questions, it was not from what I've seen in the field, but from what I've seen just watching TV. I think it is usually pretty obvious. Anyway, I'm sorry I didn't make that very clear in my question.

THE WINDSHIELD

When I told my story about my windshield getting hit by rocks which fell off a truck, I wasn't sure if I should tell it. I've used personal tidbits before, but I wasn't sure if this would be appreciated. Yet, it seems to have gotten more emails than any other subject in a while. I guess it's something everyone can relate to. Anyway, the problem has been solved. I took my car to a nearby glass repair shop. They were able to repair the crack, without having to replace the windshield. 21st Century told me they would pay for that, so problem solved. However, it has left a bad taste in my mouth.  Now, what do you think? Should I repair my leaky roof, should I get a new one, which I can't really afford now, or  just try to make it for another year? Let's face it, it's stuff like this that consumes much of our lives.

WORLD SERIES

Diamondbacks in 7.  I don't see the Yankees have much success against Johnson and Schilling. The time has come to de-throne the Yankees.

NFL PICKS (9-13-2)

I lost three of four last week. Hey, it was a tough week...wasn't it?

Saints vs Rams  + 12 1/2

Panthers vs Jets  +2 1/2

Dolphins vs Seahawks - 2 1/2

Steelers vs Titans - 3

OTR ONE YEAR AGO THIS WEEK (10-25-00)

POLITICAL OVER-CORRECTNESS

I am amazed on what some people think requires an apology these days. Before I tell you the story, let me ask you something? Is it rude to suggest that some people, particularly a group of Mexican-Americans, are like Cesar Chavez? Is it insensitive to suggest that some people are liberal and sympathetic with the United Farmworkers Union? 

Well, consider this. Republican and former TV news anchor Rich Rodriguez is running for Congress in the central valley of California against incumbent Democrat Cal Dooley.  Dooley was given the endorsement of the Mexican American Political Association.  According to the Bakersfield Californian newspaper, Joe Galli, campaign manager for Rodriguez, was quoted as saying the group endorsed Dooley because it is full of "liberal, UFW, Cesar Chavez types." Rodriguez says the comment was insensitive, and that Galli has apologized.  

The birthday of Cesar Chavez has recently been declared a paid state holiday in California.  There are many people who are proud to be UFW supporters and are not ashamed of being liberal.  Now I understand that Galli's quote suggests that those qualities are not consistent with Rich Rodriguez's conservative politics. But is that something to apologize for? Back in the 90s, Republican Assemblyman Phil Wyman referred to Mexican Immigrants as "wetbacks." Now THAT was something to apologize for.

 In California's central valley, some conservative Republican  politicians over the years never minded suggesting Chavez wasn't too many steps above the devil, and I don't remember any apologies. Now Chavez is dead, and there isn't much point of running against him anymore. And in a district where 35% of the voters are Latinos, maybe Rodriguez fears putting the name of Chavez in any negative light could hurt him with some of those voters. Fine. Maybe MAPA isn't that much of a liberal organization these days. Maybe their politics are more diverse than Galli gave them credit for.  But an apology for being "insensitive?" Ridiculous.

YAK YAK YAK

Sometimes, I think someone needs to tell KNBC 11AM anchor Ana Garcia that she is doing a newscast, and not the Today show. While teasing a story about someone selling a school, she just had to ask co-anchor David Cruz "How would you like to buy a school?" That gave her a chance to say that she would want teachers to be part of the deal, as if the rest of us care.  On another newscast, she was yakking so much, she was cut off in mid-sentence as the station went to a break. Really, do viewers care if David Cruz would like to buy a school? Does David care if he would like to buy a school? Will Ana ever stop babbling and just read the news, which she does very well, when she's not running off at the mouth? Stay tuned, if you dare.

JUST A LITTLE BIAS

Yesterday, KABC's David Jackson told the story of a woman who tried to kick her sick and elderly mother out of her home. It was her mother's home, but somehow the daughter got control of it.  Based on facts presented in the story,   which included a judge coming to rescue of the mother, this daughter sounds like a nightmare. I always thought Jackson was a very good reporter, going back to his days at KCAL. But even the good ones must be careful. In referring to the daughter, he reported "she has incredibly not ruled out an appeal." To steal a slogan from Fox....if David would only report, I think the rest of us could decide whether an appeal would be so hard to believe. And considering the way this woman has behaved, I don't find an appeal hard to believe at all. But I guess that is a matter of opinion.

BRA BIAS

Didn't I see a similar story on the news not too long ago?  This time, TV news was able to tease a story about a 15 million dollar bra!  When we finally get to the story, there is shapely babe in a bra laced with diamonds. It's just so funny.  Anytime an LA newscast can get a woman in a bra on the news, they're so happy to do it. But tell me this; if someone came up with a jock strap lined with diamonds, would we see the story of the 15 million dollar athletic supporter? Sexual bias? Yes!  Would I want it any other way?  No.

HAVING FUN ON MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL

While I can do without Dennis Miller's planned jokes during the game, he had a good bit before the game. When the half ended, they showed a tape of Miller trying to get Roger Clemens (who was being interviewed at the stadium) to autograph a baseball bat. Actually, Miller asked him to break it in half, and then autograph it. Miller said he's always wanted to be on QVC. But the funniest line actually came from Dan Fouts. He told Miller, "I wanted you to ask him to sign the part of the bat that looked like a baseball." 

BOSTON PUBLIC

I think David E Kelley has another winner. As usual, he knows how to create some distinct personalities and finds the right actors to bring them to life.  Oh sure, like his law shows, reality can be heavily tweaked so that as Roseanne Rosanna Dana would say "If it's not one thing, it's another."  In particular, we saw a teacher fire a gun several times in class to make some sort of point, yet the principal decided not to fire him! Like that would happen in real life.  Kelley is so creative though. He's created a student with a website, which allows him to show some wacky animation involving characters in the show. And probably the best news of all.....now that the first episode is over, we will no longer have to see that overplayed promo of the  hot looking student calling the old teacher a "perv". 

WHAT ABOUT NIXON/HUMPHREY?

We keep hearing how the Bush/Gore race could be as tight as Nixon/Kennedy. Sure it could be, but that's not likely. In popular vote, the two were just a couple of hundredths of a percentage point apart. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon were a percentage point apart, which is still pretty close. Plus that year there was a third party candidate.  Yet, it seems like I'm the only guy who thinks the 68 race might be the best comparison. I realize that Ralph Nader will not win any electoral votes, as George Wallace did. But remember Humphrey had to try to separate himself from Johnson, which also seems to be a problem that Al Gore believes he has with Clinton. While I think I have a point, I won't wait for Sam and Cokie to call. 

IS RACISM THE RIGHT WORD?

More than one station in LA referred to some anti-Jewish vandalism in the news as "racist." Since Judaism is a religion, and in fact there are people of different races who are Jewish, maybe "bigoted" would be a better term.

A NOT-SO-USEFUL SOUNDBITE

No doubt it is pretty frustrating to cover spot news after the fact, and then not have any witnesses to interview.  But it happens. In a story which shows the ever lowering standards of parental behavior involving sports, family members of a high school football player in Torrance are accused of beating up the coach, because the player didn't get enough playing time. In covering the story, KNBC reporter Gordon Tokumatsu interviewed one kid who said "I wasn't there, but I hear it was pretty out of hand." I know that news is not a court of law, but what good is that sort of hearsay? When Gordon, like other reporters, got opinions from students about the craziness of this attack, that made a lot of sense. Maybe I'm just being too picky Your Honor, but once the story began, it was pretty clear that something was very much "out of hand." So I submit this kid added little or nothing to the story. Objection sustained.

HEY EVERYBODY

I just wanted to put in a word for one-to-one communication. Whether you're talking on the radio or television, I believe you should not only speak conversationally, but also as if you're talking to ONE person. That is my way of saying that KTTV's Lisa Joyner might reconsider the next time she wants to say "Hey everybody, I'm Lisa Joyner." She's just one of many people who maybe never learned, or don't remember that basic lesson that many of us did learn when we started out in broadcasting. I still think it's a good idea.

THE GLOVES HAVE COME OFF

When the campaign began to start school vouchers in California, the TV commercials were very upbeat. They showed us faces of smiling school children who could really thrive, as long as they have the best education possible.  But that has changed. Now we're seeing commercials accusing Governor Gray Davis of making backroom deals with the California Teachers Association.  The last poll I heard about showed the ballot measure trailing. I wonder if going negative will do any good.

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.