Ron Fineman's ON THE RECORD

A media critique... and then some!

12/26/01 - Wednesday

Wednesday Letters are UP

Links to Recent Issues

12-24-01 Monday's OTR

12-19-01 Wednesday's OTR

12-21-01 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

Your help is very

much appreciated!

Send your opinions to BRUIN74@aol.com.

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

Yes it is a crusade here, and it's pretty obvious it's not working. TV reporters continue that knee-jerk no-need-to-think-about-it adjective for children in the news. Whether they be six months old or 12 years old, many, if not most are given the same first name...which is "little." For one thing, I just find it patronizing. For another it has become a rather tiresome cliche. And sometimes, it dos not sound accurate. For example, KCBS's Linda Breakstone reported on a missing eight year old boy who she called "Little Miguel." Yet she said this boy is five feet four inches tall. If that is correct, that is not little for an eight-year old. I would think "tall Miguel" would be more accurate. Using the conventional logic, since she's an adult, shall we call her Big Linda Breakstone?

At the same time, KABC anchor Gene Gleeson also called him "little," though he said Miguel was ten years old. And during Bryan Jenkins story, the boy was four feet five, which certainly sounds more likely than 5' 4". However one problem for reporter Jenkins may've been how to pronounce Miguel's last name, which is Jimenez. For some reason, he pronounced it both as Yimenez, and Himenez. For a reporter born and raised in LA, I'm surprised a name like Jimenez is that difficult.

On KABC-TV, they did a story which consisted of showing us a preview of the new Spiderman movie. No this wasn't one of those semi-commercials where the actor tells the entertainment reporter why their latest movie is so good. Rather this was a blatant commercial, with the anchor telling us a trailer for the Spiderman movie is now available, and so here it is. Exactly when did local TV news sink this low for Hollywood? After watching that, I figured it must be a Disney film. But no, it isn't. I did a google search and found it comes from Colombia. I realize Christmas Day means a slow news day...but come on!

In recent years, I've been disappointed at the lack of Christmas music on the radio until a few days before Christmas. It got better last year, when KLAC radio played solid Christmas music right after Thanksgiving. This year KOST did that in LA, and I heard more Christmas music earlier elsewhere this year than I've heard in a long time. In fact between all the music on the radio, plus my tapes in the car, I figure I've heard enough. Though I didn't hear enough of some my particular favs, like the Ronettes' version of "Sleigh Ride." And actually I heard an awesome version of Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer which I've never heard before, while listening to a Christmas Song countdown on a Fresno radio station. It was unlike any version of the song I'd ever heard. I'm not sure who it was, but with the lead singer and the great harmony, it sounded like it could've been Queen. Believe me, it's nothing like the Gene Autry version. Maybe KOST can include it next year, and possibly cut out one of their 50 versions of Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas.

KTTV's Jane Yamamoto did a live shot from Carson Monday night, but for some reason, the graphic underneath her name said "West LA." Okay, mistakes happen. But why did they keep the graphic up there for what seemed about 15 seconds as Yamamoto introduced her taped piece? The anchor said she was in Carson, she said she was in Carson...so where were the folks in the booth? IF they were snoozing, they must've awoken during the package, because when it was over, "Carson" was placed under Yamamoto's name.

Btw...during her Christmas shopping piece, she ran into a guy who decided to sing a Christmas song, and get some of shoppers involved. Rather than just showing it all at once, she had it interspersed throughout...which was a much better way to handle it. Well done.

The poll is underway. Please head to the Poll section on the menu. And remember, one vote per person.

Not surprisingly, readership was very low for Monday's edition. So, for those who missed it, I figured I would just tack it on to this one.

A GUTLESS DECISION BY TIME MAGAZINE

No doubt about it, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani rose to the occasion in the aftermath of 9/11. He showed leadership, compassion and strength. And as Time Magazine points out, he's had some tremendous success in his two terms as mayor of a city that some used to suggest was ungovernable. But this "Person of the Year" honor is not about being the best American Mayor of the decade. It is supposed to be about the person who has had the greatest impact in the world -good or bad - in 2001. How in the world can you not choose Osama Bin Laden? Giuliani would've just been a mayor finishing out his second term, were it not for Bin Laden's attacks. You get the feeling the Time editors are the kind of people who'd look at the old Chicago Bulls and say "This Jordan guy isn't bad, but where would they be without Luc Longley?" It's as if the editors looked at the facts and news of 2001, and some funhouse mirror of information came back at them and distorted it all. Yeah, if not for Giuliani, we would've forgotten Bin Laden by now, right?

You have to ask yourself, if they could have chosen Hitler, Stalin and the Ayatollah Khomeni in past years, why not Bin Laden this year? True, Bin Laden is a terrorist; he leads no country. And I suppose the attacks of 9/11 hit America in a way more personal than the evil of the others. And in the case of Hitler, he was Man of the Year in 1938. Though that was before World War Two and the 'final solution', he had invaded Austria and had begun his persecution of Jews. For Time, I believe the choice boils down to a lack of courage. Time was probably afraid that too many people would not understand that their "Person of the Year" is by definition, not necessarily a good person. Because our country is still going after this bankroller and perpetrator of mayhem, he is very much on our minds as our mortal enemy. The magazine must have feared that too many Americans would not be sophisticated enough to understand the designation. Time did not want to look like it was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And if you are Osama Bin Laden or one of his followers, you likely would take pride in it, if Time had the courage to do it.

But let's be honest with ourselves; the way we look at the world, the way we travel now, the way our economy has further suffered since 9/11....this is all a result of the acts of Osama Bin Laden. Our country has been at war in Afghanistan and we have a president who is committed to rooting out terrorism elsewhere. That is thanks to who? Not Mayor Giuliani.

The Time Editor says Bin Laden is too small a man to be their "Person of the Year." Apparently being #1 on the FBI's Most Wanted List doesn't impress them. President Bush said he wanted Bin Laden "dead or alive." Donald Rumsfeld says our forces will get him, sooner or later. The whole world watched and analyzed the tape of Bin Laden talking about his evil deed. But I guess Time must think all this Bin Laden emphasis in overblown.

If Time had done the right thing, I'm sure they would've gotten some heat. They would've lost some readers, and maybe some advertisers. But we would all be talking about other bad guys in history who were Man of the Year, and the small brouhaha would soon have been forgotten. Time likely won't lose any advertising dollars over their hometown favorite choice. Some people will praise them for their rah-rah feel good choice. But one thing will be lost. The integrity of Time Magazine will forever be diminished.

As always I'm interested in your opinion. Please head to the Poll section the menu, and vote for your choice of "Person of the Year."

AMAZING

Even though I spend part of every week in Bakersfield, I don't watch much local news there. And when I do, I've generally felt you don't read OTR to see comments about TV Market #130. But last night, the ignorance of one anchor was so blatant, I had to pass it along. To make it worse, this was my old station KERO. After doing the Person of the Year story, the female co-anchor mentioned that many people would be happy Time didn't choose Bin Laden. At that point, the male co-anchor expressed surprise, because he had no idea Bin Laden was being considered. And this guy is a news anchor!

It was during that bus pursuit the week before last that a major technical glitch really hurt KCAL's coverage. The anchors were interviewing an MTA spokesman via telephone. The problem was, we could only hear the anchors. After that prime time screw up, you'd think they would fix their problem. But then last week, during their 3pm news, the same problem happened again. Although in this case, you could actually hear something of the person being interviewed on the phone, but it was impossible to understand them, because they were just barely audible.

Here is what I don't understand. Why don't these interviews stop as soon as it is obvious the viewer can't hear them? Each time, the anchors kept going. This makes me ask; don't their run air audio in the booth? The producer, the director and everyone else should be listening to air audio. That way, when there is a problem like this, they realize it right away. Then they can correct it quickly, if that is possible...or they can tell the anchor to stop, so the technical problem can be solved. For a major market station to continue to struggle with such a basic function is a sign that someone over there needs to take some action.

During one of yesterday's NFL games, the announcer decided to pay a little tribute to Dick Schaap. As he spoke, the camera started with a crowd shot and then tilted up beyond the stadium and into the sky. As the tribute ended, the camera zoomed into the clouds and they then dissolved into the playing field, as the next play was starting. It must've taken only about 15 seconds, but it was perfectly executed.

Yes I know, I bring this one up all the time. But when racist tendencies creep into reporting, even if unintended, something should be said. While covering the arrest of the man accused of paying to have Mickey Thompson and his wife murdered, KCBS reporter Dave Lopez said "He hired two African Americans to do the killings." While he was saying that, we could see the sketch of the two, which clearly showed they were black, which makes it even more unnecessary to mention their race. When Warren Wilson did the story for KTLA, I heard him mention their race too, and of course Wilson is black. That should tell you how pervasive this problem is, and from my observation, KTLA is probably the worst offender when it comes to gratuitous mentioning of race or ethnicity. As I've said here before, a serious look at the large proportion of violent crimes committed by blacks and Latinos in LA would be a worthy story. But I'm not sure any local newsroom has the courage to tackle the subject. Yet they continue to ID criminals (with no other description, or with vague ones) and victims by race and ethnicity, with no explanation of why they're including this information. With Al Sharpton now having a presence in LA to right the wrongs that he believes exist, this would be a good place for him to start.

I heard Larry Elder quote an article in US News and World Report, which quoted an anonymous Palestinian Authority source, saying that the arrests they've done have been for show, and that the serious terrorists have not been arrested. Yet, we do know there have been clashes in which Palestinian Police have killed fellow Palestinians, who are not happy with Arafat's pledge. But will Arafat try to destroy Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the same way that the US is going after Al Qaeda? Israel says he's not doing the job. You've made your opinion heard. Now we can wait and see.

For those of you who listen to LA radio, please head to the poll section on the menu and vote for the best LA radio talk show host. Remember, one vote per person.

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.