A media critique... and then some! 12/14/01 - Friday Friday Letters  are UP  Coming Monday - a little more feedback on KNBC's new ND, and an insider's wishes for the new year. Links to Recent Issues 12-10-01 Monday's OTR 12-12-01 Wednesday's OTR 12-07-01 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...William Carlson* and Sam Meyer Your help is very  much appreciated! *Given more than 10 dollars Send your opinions to BRUIN74@aol.com.

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

WE CONCLUDE OUR INTERVIEW WITH LA TIMES TV WRITER BRIAN LOWRY

(15) OTR- I'd like your candid thoughts on how prime time TV treats
minorities. From what I see, it seems like blacks are well represented, but I
don't see as many Latinos, and few Asians. I also get the impression that the
bigger problem may be getting work behind the scenes.  So, do you believe
that even in politically liberal Hollywood, there is some bias against
minorities? Since the threatened boycott of a couple of years ago, certainly
there is awareness of at least a perceived problem. What is your take on all
of this? Btw...do you know what came of the NBC plan to require a minority
writer on all second year shows?

Brian - "To answer the second question first (and it's a good one), no, I'm not sure how vigorously that's being enforced, and it's worth looking into.
Actually, I think the problem has less to do with race or bias than something equally insidious which brings about the same result -- namely, incestuousness. People like doing business with people they know, and keep working from the same pre-approved list. If you're not on it, you're pretty well out of luck. There's no question the social aspect -- people wanting to hire and/or work with people that hang in their social circles, and thus, more often than not, look like them -- also plays a part and helps freeze minorities out. So I don't think the cause is racism, it's more fear (of unknown talent) and inertia. The net result, however, is the same, and the pattern won't be broken without conscious effort. That's why it's important advocacy groups continue to raise the issue if they want to see progress. It's not like executives say, "OK, the heat's over, we can go back to screwing minorities." It's much more subtle than that, but the net result -- fewer minorities being hired -- is the same.
And you're absolutely right. While blacks have been most vocal and the best organized in pressuring the networks, they are actually pretty well-represented in prime time as a group. The record on Asians, Latinos and (this gets even less attention) older people is far, far worse, though there have been some signs of progress in the former categories."

(16) OTR - If the situation isn't really about racism, do you think the NAACP does
a disservice to everyone involved by framing it in racial terms?

Brian -"No, because the result is the same. While I don't think race is the motivating factor, the result is minorities end up being excluded, so keeping the issue on the front burner does serve the community to a degree. I think calling attention to the issue, reminding the networks of their progress or lack thereof, is worthwhile. Where I think the NAACP and other lobbyists sometimes err is in overstating their case or overplaying their hand. Traditionally, for example, threatened viewer or sponsor boycotts have failed to materialize, and each time an organization threatens to do so, then doesn't follow through, it's a reminder to the networks that while the activists are engaged, the larger community often isn't. It's sort of my feeling about violence on television. If you ask people if there's too much, they'll say sure. If you ask them if they would walk across the street to complain about it, they'll say, "ALL the way across the street?"

(17) OTR - Wait a sec... there can be a number  of situations where certain
minorities have less success than others, where racism is not the cause,
like admission to Cal and UCLA. Isn't falsely blaming racism harmful in
finding a solution?  And doesn't it make it appear that racism is a more serious
problem than it really is in our country, which can give young people an
inaccurate picture of potential obstacles?

Brian - "I think the question was are they doing a disservice to the community by saying it's racism or harping on the lack of representation. I'd argue it depends what community you're talking about. If it refers to minorities working in the entertainment industry, or who WANT to work in the entertainment industry, no, it keeps the issue on the front burner, and anything that reminds executives they need to consider people who aren't on their existing short list helps.
The broader question, whether it does a disservice to society or feeds a sense of victimization, is a completely legitimate point to raise, though I'm not sure I have an answer to that. It would be very easy for me, sitting here as a white guy, to say race isn't a factor, but I think that would be too simple, too dismissive."

(18) OTR - Let's talk sitcoms. I get the feeling that the freedom of today is a
double-edged sword. For example Seinfeld or The Simpsons would never fly in
the 50s. Yet it seems that too many shows abuse the freedom with not much to
show on the laugh meter. How do you feel about the evolution of the sitcom?
And while we're on it...what is today's funniest? And which are the best
three of all time?

 Brian - " I generally find these kind of discussions are best when held in a bar over several cold beers, but I'll give it a shot. I think there's a general tendency to glorify the past which isn't always justified -- the point being that we generally see only the good stuff and aren't re-served the detritus, which also happens with foreign films. We tend to get their best films and thus presume the French don't make many bad movies, etc.
  That said, I'd say the sitcom has remained remarkably consistent, in the sense the best ones are flat-out funny and hold up over time. Something like "Everybody Loves Raymond," which plays well today, will still be funny years from now, just as "I Love Lucy" and "The Honeymooners" still are.
  Pushed into a corner, I'd probably say "The Honeymooners," "All in the Family" and "MASH," though depending on the day I could make an equally strong case for "The Dick Van Dyke Show," "Cheers," "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" and "Frasier."

(19) OTR - Speaking of Dick Van Dyke... That was a show which did not catch on
quickly, but was given a chance...and became one of the best sitcoms of all time.
Do you think networks might ever reverse philosophy and give slow starting
shows time to find an audience?

 Brian - " It still happens occasionally, but the truth is executives operate out of fear often these days, and they frequently don't have the time to wait on something that isn't working. It's sort of like asking a pro football coach to play a promising rookie while the team loses -- sure, you're building for the future, but the coach probably won't be around to see it.
  There are a few shows the networks have stuck with, but notably some of the critical favorites that have hung on haven't blossomed into hits -- "Once and Again" being a prime example. On the flip side, CBS did stick with "Everybody Loves Raymond," which started slowly, and that show is now an enormous hit and source of revenue to the network, since CBS produces it."

(20) OTR - So, would CBS have stuck with the show if it did not produce it?

 Brian - " Probably not, which is just the way of the world these days. ABC also owns "Once and Again." The networks own most of their shows and desperately want to cash in if they become a big hit, a la "ER" or "Friends." They also don't want to get fleeced paying huge license fees to the production company, as NBC had to do on those shows. It's a cart-dragging-the-horse way of doing business, but it's how things get done these days."

(21) OTR - So is the public served any better, worse or does it matter for the
viewer?

Brian - " Much of it is imperceptible to the viewer, but I'd say overall the public is served worse because decisions are being made based on factors that don't make serving the public the top priority. If a network can make more money with a show that does a smaller rating, as is sometimes the case, they'll stick with that show. And the question of ownership is insidious, because it freezes out independent producers and voices and sort of strains everything through the network's filter as both the broadcaster and the producer. I've written a lot about this issue, and the truth is, I think most people either don't get it or don't care. But it is significant."

(22) OTR - You do cover a lot of ground. But do you feel like you're
accomplishing something, or like you're spinning your wheels? Is there any one column
you've done of which you're most proud?

 Brian - " I try not to take myself too seriously. Am I accomplishing something in terms of changing the way the business functions or making anyone's life better? No. Can I entertain people to a small degree, and occasionally shine a light on things and maybe inspire them to look at something in a slightly different way? That's probably about all you can ask, and I'd say I accomplish that once in awhile.
  It's hard to pick a favorite column, since I prefer some because of the concept and others just because I think I did an OK job in terms of the humor or turns of phrase. The two that leap to mind were a piece I wrote asking Rupert Murdoch to adopt me after he promoted his son to a key slot at News Corp., and another in which I walked through how I would have gone about signing the "Friends" cast to another season for far less than NBC and Warner Bros. wound up paying them. I just liked the idea of calling Matt LeBlanc and saying, "OK, here's our final offer. You've got five minutes, and don't try bluffing. I saw `Ed.' "
  The other column would be one that sort of exposed the budding controversy over Paramount syndicating "Dr. Laura" on television -- that many people at the studio were unhappy about the show, and how a huge media company can actually have kind of a soft underbelly if you know precisely where to poke it."

(23) OTR - What are you thoughts about there being a liberal bias in the media, as
former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg has talked about?  Do you suppose a
majority of reporters see life through a liberal prism?

 Brian - " My guess is that more reporters probably vote Democratic than Republican, and certainly some of the top papers' editorial pages tend to be liberal. Whether that manifests itself in liberal bias within news coverage, however, has been wildly overstated by conservative critics, based on what I see and read. Moreover, most newspapers are now owned by much larger companies that are not exactly anti-business. There are certainly examples of liberal bias, and talk radio has a field day with them, as they should. But I generally think that most reporting by major news organizations endeavors to be fair and for the most part succeeds."


(24) OTR - Thanks for giving OTR so much of your time. If you have any final
thoughts, warnings, or predictions....the floor is yours.

Brian - " Nothing special. The only point I guess I'd like to make is that I think it's sort of a shame the Internet market has dried up so much, because I feel like this site and others like it provide a service. Many print journalists have sort of feared the Internet, but I've actually been rooting for it, assuming that any service that puts a priority on being able to write and convey ideas will ultimately make what we do more valuable. The current economic hard times newspapers and broadcasters are facing, in terms of ad support, are troubling just in terms of whether they will maintain the resources necessary to provide serious, top-notch journalism.
  Of course, if they don't, we still have the "KTLA Morning News" and "Good Day LA." Sorry, just couldn't resist."

DISCOVER CARD BAIT AND SWITCH?

I normally blow off telemarketing calls.  But I got a call a couple of weeks that sounded interesting. First of all, it was from people I do business with every month - Discover Card - so I was willing to listen. They offered me a really good deal to pay off any balance I have on other credit cards or loans. Since I was about to take out a loan to have a new roof put on my house, the timing could not have been better.

To make a long story short, when I called back to the Discover Card Balance Transfer Department, they said they never heard of the offer I was given by their telemarketer. Yet when I talked with one of their customer service people, she told me that a customer had mentioned the same offer to her.  When I called back to the balance transfer department, I reached a guy who was not aware of the offer, but then put me on hold to talk to someone. When he came back, he said I could have the offer. I told him I would call back the next day to finalize it. The next day the offer again no longer existed.  When I talked to a supervisor she said she was also not aware of the offer, but said it may've been a one day only offer and that Discover had no obligation to tell me that when the offer was made. I was then of course offered a balance transfer rate which was far different than the one initially offered. 

I pursued this to the CEO's office where I talked to his assistant - a woman named Casi Phillips. She claims that after investigating, they could not find the offer I was given ever existed. She says she was not claiming I made this all up, yet she asked me if I taped recorded the initial call.  I suggested they should stand behind their original offer, or at least give me a reasonable compromise. Her offer wasn't close to what got me interested in the first place. I am of course very suspicious. It feels like a "bait and switch." I KNOW the offer that I was given, yet Discover could find no evidence that it existed? I have to wonder how many others got the telemarketing call I got. 

I'm not willing just to let it go. I've filed a complaint with the California Attorney General's Office. I'll let you know if they take any action. Let's hope so.

JUST AS WE MIGHT HAVE GUESSED

Even with the smoking-gun Bin Laden tape, some in  the Arab and Muslim world don't believe it. It's fake, some say. You have to wonder if they really don't buy it, or just won't admit the obvious. Yet I did see some people in Egypt interviewed who did believe it.  Though I saw one Egyptian who tried to suggest some morally equivalency between Bin Laden and Ariel Sharon.  Absurd.  If Israel wanted to kill innocent civilians in the way the Arab terrorists continue to do, there would be nothing left of the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas and Islamic Jihad would not have been able to pull of their recent murders.  It appears that the Bush Administration really understands that Israel is reacting to terror the same that we are. And sadly, this latest mess in the middle east could've been avoided if Arafat had accepted the Clinton/Ross  peace plan last year, which would given him a Palestinian state. It didn't have everything he wanted, but then again, when you're dealing from a position of weakness, you should know when you've got a good deal, if not a perfect one. Palestinians responded with violence and look where that that taken the situation. Again the old saying is true, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.  And again, both sides suffer because of it.

NFL PICKS (25-24-3)

If you think losing to The Amazing Christina two weeks in a row is bad, consider that last week she beat me while only getting one right herself. That's right...I went zero for four last week. I was doing so good recently, and the suddenly POW! It's like re-living the  NASDAQ trauma all over again.  Help Mr Wizard!!!  Once again, I am battling to stay above .500. Here goes....

MY PICKS

Chargers vs Raiders +4

Dolphins vs 49ers + 3 1/2

Redskins vs Eagles +3

Lions vs Vikings +3

THE AMAZING CHRISTINA (10-14)

49ers vs Dolphins - 3 1/2

Redskins vs Eagles + 3

Cowboys vs Seahawks + 5 1/2

Rams vs Saints - 6

Have a good weekend!

OTR ONE YEAR AGO THIS WEEK (12-13-00)

WRONG VIDEO, BUT PRETTY FUNNY

Seeing the wrong video for a TV story isn't so unusual. Usually it's obvious to everyone that the video doesn't match what the anchor is saying, the anchor then says something like "obviously we have the wrong video", and that is that.  But I suppose the most entertaining scenario is when the wrong video 'matches' the copy in an unlikely or absurd way, and the anchor doesn't seem to notice.  That's what happened on KCOP last week.

Rick Chambers was reading a story which said "a study couldn't find any evidence at all that back belts help prevent injuries. It did find that bad backs cost dearly, both physically and financially. "  Over the wrong video, which I'm about to describe, was a matte which said "Back Belts Don't Work."  While we're hearing the above copy, we see video of a couple members of the coroner's office removing a dead body from a home. We can see one of their jackets says "Coroner" on it, and they're wheeling out a gurney in which we see a white sheet which is obviously covering a body. Now picture yourself watching that video, while Rick is saying "bad backs cost dearly," and the super says "Back Belts Don't Work."  

  I have a feeling that at some point, Chambers realized the video wasn't right. The coroner video lasted about 10 seconds before they went to a graphic of the human back.  Maybe by the time he noticed, he figured it wasn't worth the trouble to say anything. Or maybe I've got it all wrong, and bad backs are far more serious than any of us ever imagined.

AND LET ME ADD...

If I was in any mood to make light of back problems when this video aired, I am certainly not now. While doing my weekly lengthy jog on the treadmill at the gym last week, I got some sort of back pain that lasted for days. Just how I can pull or strain a muscle or do whatever I did to my back while simply jogging, I have no idea.  You don't suppose I'm getting old, do you?  Say it ain't so!

FINAL FIGURE

  The word from Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon is that the dinner and show they threw to honor Jack Valenti cost tax payers 295 thousand dollars.  That includes flying in the entertainers and putting them up in a hotel. When you consider the cost of the food, the drinks and the rental of the room at the Beverly Hilton, I'm told  it was 218 dollars a plate. As I said before, it's not that Valenti and Bob Hope (who was also honored) don't deserve a thank you, but how do you feel about paying for the dinners of Steven Spielberg, Michael Douglas and Charleton Heston....who were among the 350 guests? 

When the defense budget is so large, maybe no one cares that a mere few hundred thousand dollars were spent for a party. Pentagon reporters in DC are certainly aware of this. I wonder if anyone cares besides me?

ARE WE TURNING INTO NICKELODEON?

No we are not. But a couple of moments recently made me feel like news people were talking to kids and not adults. In one story, KCAL anchor Jane Velez Mitchell said that Oracle's Larry Ellison was "one of the richest men in the whole wide world." Gee Auntie Jane, now tell us the story about how Bill Gates came to dominate the whole wide computer world. 

But, the worst example came from Lauren Sanchez on KCOP. In doing a story about stomach problems she talked about "tummy aches" and "tummy soothing medicine." The next thing you know, she'll tell us that shooting victims have been taken to the hospital with severe boo-boos.

By the way...a strange thing about her story. The lead of the story said that LA is the worst city for stomach problems.  Yet, the opening video of the story appeared to be feed video from some other city.  The people seemed to be dressed too warmly for LA, and it looked like feed video. Eventually, there was at least one local sound bite.  But why they couldn't shoot some generic LA video to open the story, I don't know. Of course if it turns out that was actually LA video at the start of the story, I will stand corrected, and humbly eat a little crow....which no doubt will be very hard on my tummy.

GOOD FOR BEV

Last week, there was a murder of an armored car truck driver. As 11pm news time approached, the word came from the Sheriff's Department that they didn't want any TV lights turned on by cameras which were nearby. KNBC reporter Beverly White questioned that. A sergeant on the scene said he thought maybe his Lieutenant didn't want the public to see pictures of blood outside the truck.  White told the sarg that was not a Lieutenant's decision to make, and they already had pictures of blood which would be shown. The sergeant realized that she was absolutely right, and told her that TV lights would be okay. Good for Beverly for questioning a questionable decision, and standing up for a basic first amendment right. Whether viewers saw blood was not the issue of course.  Whether the Sheriff's department should decide to be the arbiter of good taste for the news media...that was the issue.

A REAL MEDIA MOMENT

After MSNBC announced that the US Supreme Court had at least temporarily put a stop to the hand recount on Saturday, they had a live camera at one of the voting counting rooms. The Bush observer told the judges that the stay had just been ordered, yet they still had not gotten any official word. One person said it was a lie. Someone suggested that they turn on the radio or television to see what was going on. One of the judges said they could turn on channels 2, 6 or 9, which I assume represent CBS, NBC and ABC. The Gore representative wanted the counting to continue until some official word came in, but one judge said they'd stop until they could verify if it was true. Soon enough, they got the official word. Yet, I thought it was worth noting, that when there was a question about whether the Supreme Court had acted, the vote counters were ready to turn to the media to find out. I guess it's not a big deal, but it does serve as a reminder of what a great responsibility the media have.

DIMPLED BALLOTS

Since I would not vote for either Al Gore or George W Bush, I don't find it hard to believe that many other people felt the same.  While I did my protest vote for Harry Browne, I don't doubt that many others simply didn't vote for president at all.  Yet, when you have a dimpled chad, I just wonder how that really happens. Do people actually start pushing the stylus, and suddenly stop...changing their mind? How likely is that? Have you ever stopped in mid-vote? Whatever happens now, once again, I hope every county drops this old fashioned style of voting before 2004.

THE SYSTEM WILL WORK

I heard one stupid woman on the news suggest that we're handling this presidential election like a third world country. That makes no sense to me. In a third world country, one of the first questions to be asked would be, which candidate is the military backing?  Troops in the street would not be surprising. None of that is going to happen in the United States. When it's all over, our system of checks and balances will work.  Even if it goes to the House, which has happened before, we will have a new president on January 20th, and it will be a lawful and peaceful transition. 

HEARING THE ARGUMENTS

Today's Supreme Court hearing was being replayed as I finished up this edition. While I hope the audio tape might be the first step toward televising their proceedings live, I also hope they at least consider doing this audio system for all future cases.

It was very interesting when Justice Kennedy asked David Boies if the Florida Legislature could legally have passed a new law after the election, which said what the Florida Supreme Court said in it's ruling. Boies said no, but also said it wasn't the same thing, since the Florida Supreme Court was interpreting the law, not making a new one. And hasn't that always been the case. A supreme court will make a ruling, which some might consider judicial activism, yet the court says they are merely interpreting the law, which is their job.  Kennedy said he was troubled by what I think he was suggesting  is a double standard. I think it's a safe bet that is at least one vote Gore won't get. 

SCORN TO ADMIRATION

After the original 7-0 Florida Supreme Court decision, Republicans were very critical. The judges were called partisan, and some, including John Sununu called them all hacks. Then after the 4-3 decision, with Chief Justice Wells writing a sharp minority opinion, Republicans had no problem quoting this "hack" as a jurist of great wisdom. I guess when you suddenly find someone agreeing with you, they get a lot smarter.

YOUR OPINIONS

They are an important part of OTR. Please send them along to BRUIN74@aol.com. Please remember to include your first and last name. 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.