Ron Fineman's ON THE RECORD

Reminder: you can find out when your subscription is up by clicking on Update Account on the menu.

Suddenly a tentative agreement is reached in the MTA strike, and some busses will be rolling tonight. And that's not a lead story??? At 5 pm, both KABC and KNBC led with the inauguration of the new governor, and KCBS led with the live search for a man who police mistakenly thought might be the guy who killed the Burbank Police Officer. After that came the inauguration.

I think the three got it all wrong by putting Schwarzenneger ahead of the bus strike. The inauguration had been planned for quite some time. We all knew that Schwarzenegger would immediately sign an order to rescind the car tax increase. How can that be bigger news than the apparent end of the MTA strike? (Mechanics still must vote on Wednesday).

We all know how celebrity driven LA TV news is, and obviously the election of Schwarzenegger was a big deal. And I certainly think his inauguration was a legitimate news event. But I think they would have shown better news judgment by putting the end of the MTA strike first. Maybe if Hollywood celebrities rode the bus, their decisions would have been different.

For those who complain about a liberal media bias, it is stories like one last week by KCBS/KCAL's Jaime Garza which gives them ammunition. This was a most sympathetic feature about a husband and wife - both illegal aliens - who are being deported after nearly 20 years here. But Garza was SO politically correct in this story, that not only wouldn't he call them illegal aliens (which many other reporters also won't do), he wouldn't even call them "undocumented workers." In fact, he called them "permanent residents." What?? Why would the government be deporting people who are here legally, which permanent residents are.

According to the article in the LA Times on this couple, which preceded Garza's story, the couple are in fact "undocumented immigrants." So when you consider Garza refused to ever reference them as being in the US illegally and that he actually called them permanent residents, which would mean they have green cards (which they don't), you have to wonder what he was thinking. Could he not know what "permanent resident" means when talking about immigration? You would expect someone doing such a story would at least know that.

What makes this an interesting story is that the couple has two daughters - both US Citizens - and one of them is exceptionally bright, a very promising student who could certainly contribute to this country. If the decision by a federal immigration panel stands, then the father will have to go back to Mexico, and the mother will have to go back to Guatemala. So the couple would either have to leave their children here, or take them to one of them home countries, where there is far less opportunity.

When Garza began his story, he explained how the couple has always paid their taxes, never been trouble with the police, had never been on welfare and always did what the government asked of them. Apparently coming to this country illegally doesn't count as a problem. And far be it for this 'objective' reporter to even ask them about that. And nowhere in this story did Garza ever attempt to give the government's side.

In the Times story, Immigration officials wouldn't comment. Still Garza has the obligation to try to get their side, and tell viewers that they refuse comment, if that is the case. In his story, the attorney for the Cabreras blames John Ashcroft for stacking the Federal Board of Immigration Appeals with anti-immigrant members. What does Ashcroft say about that? Once again, Garza presented no evidence that he even tried to get a comment from Ashcroft or one of his spokesmen.

The board actually reversed a judge's ruling which allowed the couple to stay because their deportation would cause the daughter to suffer "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship." So did this alleged anti-immigrant board even offer a reason for reversing the judge? Well if you watched Garza's story you would have no way of knowing. But according to article in the LA Times, "the board said that granting the exception would essentially open the door to all illegal immigrants from developing countries with bright children."

It would seem ironic, because I recall Garza telling me what a very hard worker he is, after one of his co-workers criticized him in OTR. He was quite emphatic about his work ethic. Yet the appearance on this story is that he didn't work too hard to get the other side, some of which was available in the local newspaper.

I am certainly aware that reporters are people, and this family looks like a hard working good group. It's not hard to see why many people would sympathize with them. But it is a reporter's job to be fair and of course accurate. Garza failed on both.

Last week, a reader in our Letters section complained about Joel Grover's piece on those in the oil change business. I figured I'd pass the letter onto Grover, in case he might like to respond. Here is what Grover had to say:

"In response to your reader questions, I did mention in the story that four out of four Jiffy Lubes we tested tried ripping us off. As for EZ Lube, it was the same situation. I didn't mention the total because I showed a lot more of our undercover visits at EZ Lube. I also mentioned that four out of four Econolube stores we tested did not try to oversell us.

As for why I didn't confront the EZ Lube management with the allegations of the former manager: the manager came forward AFTER I had interviewed EZ Lube's district manager. I called EZ Lube corporate again and asked them to sit down and address the whistleblower allegations, but as I said at the end of my story, they refused.

Joel Grover

YOU NEED TO SAY MORE

KCBS ran a short story, saying that questions of discrimination in the military are being raised, because Jessica Lynch is getting a better disability deal from the military than Shoshanaa Johnson is. That's because Lynch is getting an 80 percent of her salary disability, while Johnson is just getting 30 percent.

When I saw this story, I figured what does race have to do with it? If Lynch is getting a better deal, and IF it's not because her injuries are more serious, then it's likely because Lynch was made a major celebrity by both the army and the news media. And that was because Lynch was rescued from the hospital. But the story never said WHO was raising the objection and on what evidence. It was rather irresponsible to throw that out there without more information.

It appears their story came from the Washington Post. In that story we learn that Johnson's family feels racism is involved and they brought in Jesse Jackson to make their case to the public. Now why couldn't KCBS have included that?

ANYONE REMEMBER THIS?

Like Frank Costanza, I am among those who saved old TV Guides. Here's an ad I found from 1984.

After the major fires, KTLA's Jamie Chambers did a story about concern of flooding in the San Bernardino area. They'd been clearing flood channels to make sure fire debris doesn't clog them. It was a short package, which he concluded by throwing it to his grandfather Stan who would report on the danger of floods. That entire piece consisted of old black and white film of past floods, from 1938 and 1969. No question, it was interesting footage. But that's about all it was. There was no one interviewed in Stan Chambers' story. It was a brief history lesson, as we learned that 87 people were killed in the 1938 flood. In 1969 water broke out of flood channels, bringing overflow to the streets. I applaud the historical perspective, something TV doesn't do very much. But I don't think the piece was set up very well by Jamie Chambers, and since there were no interviews, I would think it could have worked as well if one of the anchors did the story as a voice-over. I guess when you throw a story to a reporter in the field, you tend to expect a little more.

KCAL was showing video of a small plane crash, and obviously there is nothing funny about that. But what Mia Lee said about the story just seemed like such a contradiction, I found it pretty funny. In describing the video she said this "picture says it all, but doesn't tell the whole story."

If it doesn't tell the whole story, then how can it say it all? What am I missing here? As is often the case, I wonder how could someone write that, how could someone else approve it (if it was okayed by someone else) and finally how could Lee read that?

What may be the biggest problem with this story is that KABC reporter Leanne Suter was obviously given interview material that had been done by the network, and it was up to her to put it together. This was the story about Laurie "Bambi" Bembenek suing the Dr Phil show.

She was going on the show to find out the results of a DNA test paid for by the show, which just could clear her of a past murder conviction. The Dr Phil show kept her in a hotel room, without radio, TV or telephone so that she could not hear the results of that test until she actually appeared on the show. Bembenek felt like she was being kept as a prisoner and finally used bed sheets to climb from a second story window. She landed badly and had to have her right leg amputated.

What I want to know is, didn't the show tell Bembenek what her housing would be like ahead of time? I think that's a key point. But it was never addressed. Didn't the network reporter ask her?

I was also confused when Suter explained that Bembenek had escaped after serving ten years in prison, and then pled no contest to 2nd degree murder when she was caught. How could that be? I later found an AP story which explained that Bembenek had escaped to Canada, and as part of her extradition deal, the prosecution agreed to set aside her conviction and let her plead to 2nd degree murder, which meant she was then a free woman because of that plea. Of course that was mere background to the real story, and I assume Suter just didn't have the time to explain. But without that explanation, it didn't make much sense.

I'm just guessing here, but I have a feeling that after she put this thing together, she was glad when it was over.

The reason some of you may be automatically renewed is that when some you signed up, the system was set up for your subscription to be renewed automatically each year. If that happens, and you don't want to be renewed, just let me know. For everyone else it will mean a new login and password, technically meaning a new account, if you choose to renew. Either way, I hope you will all find OTR worth another 25 dollars. You can find the Paypal buttons on the tease page www.ronfineman.com .

For those who prefer the old fashioned way, my PO BOX is 220566, Newhall, CA. 91322-0566. Please remember to include your email address.