Ron Fineman's ON THE RECORD

Fliers which KCBS says were racist, were distributed at some homes in a small part of Valencia on Saturday. The fliers were against illegal immigration and in particular used statistics to suggest that Hispanics are not a "wonderful addition to America" and do not have "strong family values." The distributor of the fliers is Virginia based white supremacist group called National Vanguard.

So, I have two issues here. 1) Was this a story? 2) Once it was covered, was it covered well? My answer is NO to both.

You can be sure that the National Vanguard could not have been more pleased than to get a story in both the Daily News and KCBS. They could not have afforded to buy the publicity that they were given from the news stories. Think about it...you have a white supremacist organization which is against illegal immigration (and doesn't want legal immigration for Hispanics either). This is news? KCBS said they were "particularly distributed in a couple of blocks..." I understand that some residents were offended. But I just don't see where distributing these fliers to a very small area of Valencia qualifies as news. Of course one thing it does accomplish is to tar those against illegal immigration with a white supremacist group. I don't know if that went into the thinking at KCBS, or if was just the typical TV sensationalism we've come to expect in local news. Either way it was a bad call.

When I watched the story reported by Carter Evans, I imagined some pretty awful stuff in the flier. After all, the KCBS anchor lead-in called them hate fliers. Later on, KCAL's anchor lead said the flier was filled with racial slurs. I had to imagine what must have been in there, because Evans never told us! He would only say..."You can see what the first page says (see picture above), but the second page goes into great detail about this organization's very dim views on all Hispanic people". Otherwise, all we got was reaction from neighbors.

For example one said "This is not addressing whether its legal, whether it's illegal, whether ya know, it's just totally condemning a whole group of people."

So if you heard that, wouldn't you wonder WHAT it says. While taking a walk (as you may know, I live in Valencia), I found one of the fliers. While it is certainly anti-Hispanic, I didn't see the racial slurs that KCAL claimed were there. It was mostly a bunch of statistics. For example "42 percent of Hispanic women who gave birth in 1999 were unmarried. The black rate of 69 percent was even worse, and the white rate of 22 percent is hardly admirable, but Hispanics were still nearly twice as likely as whites to have illegitimate children." I've seen that stat before from the federal government, so I know it is true.

I figured I'd spot check another one on the list. "Hispanics attack their spouses--legal or common law--twice as often as whites do, and at about the same rate as blacks." I found reference to a study on the internet: "We found higher rates of partner violence in ethnic minority groups," said Craig A. Field, a professor at The University of Texas Houston School of Public Health, Dallas Regional Campus, and corresponding author for the study. "Black and Hispanic couples reported at least twice the prevalence rate of both male-to-female and female-to-male partner violence."

Even though this did come from what most of us call a "hate group" and certainly they are a white supremacist group, it seems like they went out of their way to deal with statistics to make their points, and avoid throwing slurs. You got quite the opposite picture from Carter Evans' report. It was probably TV journalism at its worst.

Very few people would want to align themselves with a group like the National Vanguard. And while the stats presented may make a case of stopping illegal immigration, such information cannot predict the behavior of any individual. And of course most Hispanics, as with any other group, are law-abiding in the first place. So I am saying that if our government could screen all those who come here, the best potential citizens could be chosen which certainly would include Hispanics.

Carter Evans tried but failed to reach the National Vanguard's California office. But what he should have done was try to reach one of the mainstream non-racist anti-illegal immigration groups like FAIR. He might have asked about some of the stats in the flier. And he also might have brought up another issue, which I think may be obvious to you who are reading this. Illegal immigration is a problem which has gone unabated for years. It is real problem as many of Mexico's hard working, yet uneducated people but come here. And of course without screening, criminals come here as well. It is a problem that is ripe for a white supremacist group to co-opt. And the more publicity that groups like the National Vanguard can get, the easier it is for the open borders advocates to paint those of us against illegal immigration as racist.

So, summing it all up.... this was a non-story which didn't deserve airtime. But once the decision was made to do it, viewers should have been told at least some of what was in the flier. Viewers could decide if these sort of statistics amount to racial slurs. The reporter should have attempted to verify whether the stats were accurate, and then interviewed different sides on what, if anything, they mean to this debate.

But this is Los Angeles TV. What I am suggesting would have taken some time, both in preparation and on the air. Unfortunately, it is easier to frighten than to enlighten.

As longtime readers know, reporter and photographer access to shopping malls has been a big issue with me. Recently with the help of Radio and Television News Association General Counsel Royal Oakes, I was able to get the RTNA involved in the issue. My point -- without going into the history again -- is that California Supreme Court case law (backed by the United States Supreme Court) allows for access to those circulating petitions, despite malls being private property. That decision should apply to journalists too. It is an ongoing problem in LA of malls kicking out reporters and photographers, as well as restricting their First Amendment rights while in the common area of these malls.

Recently I checked back with Oakes on this, and a couple of weeks ago he sent me the following note:

We’ve discussed it at several board meetings – I then distributed, at the last board meeting, a letter on my letter head that reporters can hand to mall personnel, explaining that U.S. Supreme Court precedent supports a reporter’s right to operate on mall property. I had spoken to Beth Jones, in –house lawyer at CBS, who had prepared such a letter, and sent it to me – I based my letter on hers. Thanks!

I am hoping that most if not all reporters at local stations have been given a copy of this letter. If you are a reporter and you've not been given a copy, please let me know.

Now I realize that if push comes to shove, you would still need the support of your management. And I've never had the sense that any local news station actually cares. Nevertheless, Oakes is offering some help which could make a difference. I hope you will make sure you have a copy of this letter handy. Sooner or later, you may need it.

Of course it is always nice when the Times calls on me for a comment when they do a story about local TV news. They don't do many of these stories, so I am always glad to help when I can. But there are a couple of things that I probably should have mentioned to reporter Martin Miller.

One, which I don't think I realized at the time, was that during the rating period, KCBS went 20 minutes without a commercial for their 11pm news. That stopped after the rating period ended. Obviously that sort of stunt can affect ratings. Also, something which I had heard at the time, is that KCBS decided ahead of time to drop an 11pm newscast out of the book and use the time for a country music special. This is allowed by Nielsen, of course. But had KCBS kept in their newscast after the Academy of Country Music Awards, it may well have affected them adversely, though I don't know that one night would've been enough to take them out of first.

I asked one KCBS/KCAL insider's opinion of the LA Times article. They answered:

"Well the mood is better, but if these people are suddenly so smart then why are we not number one in all shows. You are right, lead is in key. But also many of us believe KNBC and KABC do not do as good a job as they used to at night. Amazing the 11pm did as good as it did with Soto spending so much time skirt chasing. He should be fired, point blank."

DON'T FORGET KTTV

And of course this sort of newscast manipulation is what KTTV has been doing for years. They will cut their one hour newscast to just a half-hour on Thursdays and Fridays during ratings. I've seen KTLA do that sort of thing on occasion though not with the regularity of KTTV. And KCAL has been doing 45-minute newscast for several years now at 10pm throughout the year, which certainly helps boost their ratings against KTTV and KTLA.

Of course the advertising people who spend money on newscast know all of this, so they know what they are buying. But in terms of PR, coming in #1, no matter how you did it, looks good.

"Citing your web site raised the question of whether you're "the same Ron Fineman" from a former Bakersfield TV station. Your bio said yes and I'm truly happy for you!

Congratulations on all the hard work which got you this far, Ron."

You never know when a mention in the media will catch the attention of someone from the past. I assume Dave was viewer way back when. Considering I haven't worked in Bakersfield in ten years, it is nice to still be remembered.

SPEAKING OF KCAL/KCBS

The apparent plan to rotate anchors with Pat Harvey continues. As you can see, this is Harold Greene week.

But say, what is with the Harvey cleavage? Mia Lee, we expect. But Pat Harvey?

I know why reporters do it, but that doesn't mean that it still doesn't mean it doesn't get on my nerves. When a reporter wants to reference a magazine or some sort of written material, there seems to be an urge to drop that material on a table.

You can just hear the ka-thunk, can't you? I'm sure reporter Ross Palombo really believes that the sounds of a dropping newspaper and turning pages made his story more interesting. Certainly there is something to be said for natural sound. But think about the thought process..."If I just drop this newspaper on the table, that'll make viewers pay attention and it will be a better story." To be sure, you can't miss the sound of the dropping newspaper. But when you have to manipulate your "natural sound," does it really help?

Speaking of Palombo. Have you noticed what an annoying style of speaking he has? Almost like yelling. Certainly affected. Someone should tell him to relax a little. I realize he is not staff, but it still seems to be more proof that news director Nancy Bauer Gonzales has NO ear for a natural broadcasting voice. Or maybe she just doesn't care.

Sometimes when technical things go wrong, you just have to smile. That is what Chuck Henry decided to do.

Hal Fishman read a story about a weather phenomenon called sundogs, which is refraction and reflection of sunlight thru ice crystals in certain clouds. Leila Feinstein ad-libbed when it was over: "And silly me. I thought the sundogs were when the sun was chasing too many women."

Too often when Feinstein ad-libs to be funny she just seems rather juvenile, and I think tends to embarrass herself. This may be one of the reasons that OTR readers graded her so poorly in our grading poll.

I hate to be a broken record, but I still am finding readers voting twice. I realize this is not like a vote for president, but I want it to be fair. And I'd really rather not have to take the time to delete the extra votes. Also, last night some of you graded anchors after 6pm, which meant they didn't count. So if you are familiar with the anchors, please do vote, but please do it before 6pm on Thursday. Thanks!! Just click on the appropriate link and then hit "send."

Leo Stallworth was voicing a package on an accident involving a CHP car. During the story, we heard someone other than Stallworth interviewing the guy who caused he accident. I assume it was the photographer who shot it. Does it look right to you when you are watching a story by a particular reporter, and suddenly someone else (and obviously not a reporter from another station) is asking a question?

Further, in this case, part of the answer from the subject was inaudible. I think a little more editing work on this piece would've been a good idea.