Can the Collective Wisdom of the Net Outwit the MSM?

The first time I met Fabrice Florin, I thought he looked a little like a mad scientist.

Still, with flyaway hair, a harried, preoccupied manner and a lot on his plate, the former TV producer and online netertainment executive revealed an intriguing project during last year's Media Giraffe politics and media conference.

He called it NewsTrust, and it was supposed to help ease the suspicion of news consumers about the quality of news stories, by presenting stories selected as high quality by a huge array of users who visit the site.

Unlike Digg and some other, similar sites, Floin developed an online form to help his users rate the journalism they were evaluating. Users could grade stories they rated on a scale of 1 to 5 in 12 different areras, including accuracy, fairness, sources, balance and style. Those who called up the story could see those ratings tallied up, along with comments on the piece, to help them decide whether it was, indeed, trustworthy news.

And this wasn't something Florin implemented lightly. When we met back in July, he was dreafting select folks -- myself included -- to help with the final development of his review criteria, which initially came from scouring ethical codes and guildelines from journalism organizatrion across the globe and boiling them down to key questions. Over 1,000 people helped quietly test the format.

Now Florin's ready to reveal his baby to the world.

Click on the above link to see the beta version of NewsTrust which is now open to the general public. If you plan to sign up to rate stories, you will see they ask as much about the reviewers as they do the stories under scrutiny, to better understand the motivations and judgment at hand.

A look at some of the highest-rated news outlets -- The Daily Show, lefty investigative journalist Greg Palast, Amy Goodman's Democracy Now TV show -- and there's a definite political sensibility revealed. Still, the notion that an aggregate of web users with varied expertise and attitudes can help evaluate the work of professional journalists is intruiging, if a bit threatening.

But Florin has said many times he doesn't hve a grudge against traditional journalism, he just wants to harness the collective power of the Internet to make it better. Surf by the fruit of his efforts and judgethe results for yourself.

   

Why I Oppose Banning the N-word and Other Assorted Topics

So now the Michael Richards apology tour has kicked into overdrive.

The former Seinfeld actor stopped by Jesse Jackson's radio show Sunday to apologize again and answer questions about the "personal work" he's doing to explore why he got so pissed that he called a black nightclub patron a nigger when he felt the guy was heckling him.

Of course, in the same way Seinfeld used Richards' apology to insulate his upcoming DVD release (which didn't work; Jesse still asked people not to buy it), Jackson used this most recent apology to push his own oddball agenda -- convincing black folks to stop using the n-word as well.

“We want to give our ancestors a present,” Jackson said at a news conference today. “Dignity over degradation.”

Most surprisingly to me, Jackson was joined by Paul Mooney, a legendary comic who was Richard Pryor's running buddy and writing partner back in the day. He also wrote for everyone from Sanford and Son to In Living Color, with a stage show so blue he once used the n-word about as many times as Robin Williams changes accents onstage.

Now, Mooney has joined his famous pal Pryor in renouncing professional use of the n-word, saying Richards was "my Dr. Phil. He's cured me."

All of which puts me in a weird position. Because I, a proud professional black man who rarely if ever uses the n-word, simply do not agree.

I can't help thinking of all the great art I've enjoyed which featured the n-word prominently: standup routines by Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock; movies by Spike Lee, Murphy, the Hudlin Brothers and Keenen Ivory Wayans; music by Public Enemy, The Roots, N.W. A., Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre, Kanye West and more.

I find myself thinking: Was all that work somehow self-defeating or wrong because it spoke the way many black people speak? Shouldn't we be judging the ideas expressed and the creativity on display rather than just the words themselves? And does insisting on such a standard for artists just force them to choose between middle class intellectuals who hate the n-word and working class fans who use it everyday?

Don't bother using these questions to challenge my belief that black folks can use the n-word in a way non-black people cannot. See here for my past thoughts on that.

But as Jackson and U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters and a host of other well and not-so-well meaning activists stand up to challenge black pop culture to improve itself, I find myself concluding that this is a linguistic shackle which shouldn't be accepted.

It's like watching the disintegration of Chappelle all over again. A Muslim who I suspect is more militant than his easygoing public image indicates, Chappelle left his blockbuster comedy show because he felt fans were regurgitating his trenchant satires on race as empty stereotypes -- using his Rick James and crackhead characters to wallow in the degradation of black people instead of absorbing the larger message.

So he left the airwaves. And now nobody's talking about race, culture and media the way he did. Is that really a better outcome?

Should we raise the bar for our artists? No doubt. Should we challenge the rampant misogyny, homophobia, violence and self destructiveness which fills some black-focused movies, music and television? For sure.

But no word is so awful it can't be used creatively and incisively by someone. and banning a word without addressing the ideas behind it feels more like a panacea than anything -- a feel good moment which hobbles geniuses while letting the knuckleheads continue their awful work without reproach.

So forgive me for standing behind the artist's right to use the n-word, even as I emphasize others: Creativity. Quality. Cultural awareness. Substance.

If we as black people demand those words from our entertainment, it won't matter whether they use the other one.

Other Stuff

With so much race and media stuff out there, I feel I've been missing other topics.

* Think NBC would have had the stones to declare Iraq a civil war if the GOP hadn't been handed its you-know-what during the last election?

* The Project for Excellence in Journalism learned one important thing about media on election night: The two most valuable things the news media offers on these fast-moving election nights now is a quick summary of key results for those wanting the headlines and deep veins of data that users can mine on their own. That may explain why TV Web sites fared well.

* Forget about lame-o TV comedies like the Class and Two and Half Men -- to see a couple of interesting new television comedies, watch TBS, and get a look at the future of TV comedy.

O.J. Says "I Did It" was Never Meant to Be a Confessional

It's got to be the most surreal experience I've had in a long time.

This morning, I sat on the phone, having called into WTPS-AM in Miami, waiting to talk with O.J. Simpson.

The folks at the black-oriented talk station told me they would call me, after I did an interview with them Monday on the Michael Richards mess. Instead, at about 8:15 a.m., I called them and wound up on hold, listening as O.J. dished dirt on his life, current circumstances and his feelings of persecution as the world treats him like a guy who got away with the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman.

What follows are barely-edited quotes from the rambling interview, in which Simpson took questions from a complimentary, worshipful array of callers. I also got to ask about how the book deal came together and how he was paid.

On the ramifications of the $33.5-million judgement won by the Goldmans against him: "Let’s destroy two myths right now: I don’t have any bank accounts in the Bahamas. I don’t have any extra money anyplace. I don’t have the obligation to make money and take it to the Goldmans. I don’t have those obligations. If I’m owed money, and Goldman went to those person and said do you owe OJ money? Goldman has the right – just like my kids…just like DirecTV has the right to say turn that money over to me. I don’t have any obligation to take them money. That’s the law.”

On how the book project If I Did It came about: "“I was approached to do a book from a company that had 12 or 13 best-sellers last year. They presented a book – I think it was Barbara Boxer the politician and Nicole Ritchie, the way they told me those books were written, is they were fiction/fact. The names were changed but you pretty much knew who they were talking about. When I first sat down with the writer I felt that was the book I was going to do. The writer on the other hand, had a different take. He felt that he was told that it was a confession book. (Publisher) Judith Regan had told him, hired him, that it was a confession book. I said confess what? I’ve got nothing to confess. That was almost the end of the deal.

"The powers from L.A. who put the book together called Regan and everyone went back and forth, back and forth...and then by the end of the day they had come up with this (idea), its going to be his word hypothetical. I said 'I can’t sit down and tell you, if you want to do a whole book on a hypothetical.' I thought I would be able to talk about what happened with my lifestyle and what was going on with Nicole and I, the nature of her relationship with Kato...and really clear a lot of things up. They said we can do that, but we’ll put that in the front of (the book).

"So we did that until we got to the Chapter 6 -– actually, its about a half a chapter, that starts with some fictional character named Charlie showing up. Charlie came out of the fact that I’ve always felt two people had to be involved. Even though the prosecution said one, and one murderer only. I don’t think we can do anything really graphic -– knife cutting and stuff. Which they agreed to. He asked me a series of questions and then he went and wrote it. When I looked at it, by the time I saw it somebody had leaked something and the National Enquirer had said only the real murderer could know these facts. So I called the writer and said 'You did it.' We then went to clean a few things up. There were things in it that were so glaringly wrong -- I decided not to correct them, because I knew one day, you would always have somebody saying this is a real confession -– which it wasn’t. So there are some things in there and anybody who wanted to take a closer look at it will see that.”

On how he was paid: “There was a payment to me, and what was supposed  to be the largest portion of it was handled by a corporation that my kids were involved in. They do stand to have a financial windfall....C’mon guys, let’s grow up. Will everybody stop being so naïve? Of course I got paid. I spent the money on my bills. It’s gone…I have a right to earn money if I can earn money. I don’t know why everybody is so confused about this.”

On whether this project is reopening old wounds for the victims' families and the nation: "Don’t ever be led to believe this opened up old wounds. Every month, the Goldmans are on TV opening up those old wounds. My pity -- I used to feel sorry for them, but guess what? I feel sorry for the football player’s family that got shot. I feel sorry for the bodybags that I see coming to this local area from Iraq. You can only feel sorry for one family so long. There’s been a lot of deaths, a lot of unsolved murders, a lot of tragedy in America in the last 12 years. Goldmans and them, they gotta stop being professional victims. There’s other people in this world that are suffering from other things. My family’s suffered. Nicole was the love of my life. I’ve suffered.

"I didn’t kill them – no matter what anybody else wants to say, I didn’t do it. Every book that was written about that – every blood book that was written by every lawyer and every family member and everybody close to that trial, is hypothetical. It’s hypothetical and its blood money – I said it in that Fox interview, before everybody complained. I agree with Goldman. I was hoping the book would never sell. I said it in the interview."    

On people calling him a sociopath: "I was having a conversation with my lawyer…I said to him, when did this egomania and this sociopath (stuff start) – is it like catching the flu? Is it like catching herpes or something? I went 47 years of my life – I was called anything but that. Everybody who ever played ball with me said, 'No, he spread the wealth. He’s generous. He always gives credit to anybody else.' As you know...my reputation was impeccable. As a team player, everybody I worked for…now all I hear the Goldmans and everybody say is, 'He’s an egomaniac and he’s a sociopath.'"

On why people are still angry about the murders and his 1995 acquittal: "It goes down to one thing: race. We all know that everybody wants to look the other way. You know darn well if Nicole and Ron were black, we wouldn’t be dealing with this situation. Michael Richard's comments will be forgotten a lot sooner than the Mel Gibson comments. They will never forgive him – the Jewish people will never forgive (Gibson) – and this country will hold him accountable a lot longer than they’re going to hold Michael Richards accountable.”

(click on photos to enlarge)

 

Michael Richards Apologizes; Fans are Faced with Another Decision

I'm so angry with Michael Richards right now.

Not just because the former Seinfeld star was crazy enough to call a black audience member a nigger several times when he thought the guy was heckling him. But because now I have to decide something I don't really have enough information to conclude.

Do I remain a fan?

This happened earlier this year with Mel Gibson. I'd always been a fan of the guy -- for his fearless enthusiasm in directing Bravehart; his quiet competence in Signs; his scenery-chewing, action-guy theatrics in the Lethal Weapon movies.

Then he goes and shows off his anti-semetic side in a drunken rant, and those days are suddenly over. I can't be down with somebody who hates someone simply because they are Jewish.

Richards is somebody I noticed a long time before Seinfeld. He was brilliant in this Saturday Night Live rip off on ABC called Fridays -- a late-night, live sketch comedy show which aired, well, you can guess when it aired. He would meet a guy named Larry David there who would eventually co-create one of the best urban comedies on TV.

Even then, Richards had a gift for physical comedy, playing this man-child who would try playing with plastic Army guys only to wind up covered in sand. He also had  memorable moment picking a fight with guest host Andy Kaufman -- a prank that sparked a backstage brawl which reportedly only he and Kaufman knew was staged. Check one of his better stand-up gigs here.

So when I saw the footage on TMZ.com revealing the depth of Richards' explosion, it literally made me ill.

""Fifty years ago we'd have you upside down with a f------ fork up your ass," he said while on stage."You can talk, you can talk, you're brave now motherf------. Throw his ass out. He's a n-----! He's a n-----! He's a n-----! A n-----, look, there's a n-----!"

Though he dodged initial opportunities to apologize, Richards taped an apologetic appearance on David Letterman's Late Show today, appearing by satellite in an interview arranged by his friend Jerry Seinfeld in New York.

"For me to be at a comedy club and flip out and say this crap…" said Richards. "I'm deeply, deeply sorry."

But for people of color like me, trust comes hard. Life in 2006 has already become a game of working hard to decide who you can trust on matters of race. Figuring out who is merely tolerating you and who is really in your corner can be a matter of life and death.

One advantage they had in the old days was that prejudice was in your face, like a skin of scum at the top of a putrid waterway. Now, its much harder to know who you can trust, and when the mask falls, it can be a shocking experience. (And please don't trot out that old defense that black people use the n-word, too. there's an obvious difference between people who are part of a group using a charged word and people outside that group using it; just think of the difference between a stranger calling your brother or sister an idiot and you doing it.)

Los Angeles journalist Nikki Finke has lamented that comedy clubs have become a haven for racist, sexist homophobic ideas. But that's nothing new; the unfortunate consequence of the success geniuses such as Richard Pryor, Chris Rock and Bill Hicks have built on exploring the edgy explicit terrain of raw race and class issues, is that lesser lights will wind up trafficking in empty stereotypes and BS. 

Already, I can't buy gas at Texaco, can't eat dinner at Denny's, can't watch Bob Schieffer on the news and can't watch a Lethal Weapon movie without fear of putting my hard-earned dollars in some racist's hands.

Now Richards wants that trust back. He wants people to assume that his tirade was some awkward slip of the tongue -- a lapse which can be papered over by an apology and an earnest face.

I don't think so, Kramer.

You can almost see Seinfeld's calculation in this as well. He's got a DVD collection of the show's seventh season hitting stores Tuesday, just in time for Christmas. And one of the few criticisms which constantly dogged the acclaimed series was its lack of black people in prominent roles -- despite its location in the most diverse town in America, New York City.

So what is this black fan of Richards and Seinfeld supposed to think now?

 

Can the Media Echo Chamber Actually Give O.J. His Comeuppance?

I'm in trouble now.

Just days after making a big deal about avoiding the whole O.J. Simpson media debacle, I've accepted two more offers to discuss it on television.

By the time you read this, I will probably have already appeared on Fox & Friends Monday to deconstruct the scandal (6:15 a.m., if you don't have al ife and are actually reading this before then); I'm also due to visit local Fox affiliate WTVT-Ch. 13 next Monday. And I  joined a panel of pundits and commentators to chew over the issue this morning, on CNN's Reliable Sources.

I'll admit, i'm intriguted by the idea of appearing on a channel like Fox, which seems to loathe me so much. And I'm having a tough time resisting the debate. But I'm also hoping to advocate a radical idea: turning the media circus against those who would profit from it.

And the way you do that, is by using us. Critics, I mean.

It's an idea that journalist Jane Velez-Mitchell advanced during our discussion on CNN. Pundits will dissect the Simpson interview endlessly the following day; YouTube will likely be filled with unauthorized video clips and critics like me will write column after column dissecting the madness. (Some viewers won't have a choice: nine Fox affiliates owned by other companies have already said they will not air the show.)

So you can experience the interview without ever actually watching the TV show (especially, those of you who have Nielsen Media Research ratings boxes on your TVs). I've told people for years that my job as TV critic is to watch the crap so you don't have to: maybe it's time we all took that concept a little more seriously.

The same strategy works for Simpson's book, as well. Read the endless reviews; check out the feature stories on the issues raised. Just don't buy the book. Don't give Simpson the satisfaction of giving the world the finger and making a buck as well -- with a little extra effort, you can soak up all the information he delievers without actually giving him or publisher Judith Regan a dime of your money. And wouldn't that just be the coolest media coup ever?

Speaking of Regan, her statement released last week claiming her history as a battered girlfriend prompted publishing the book will go down with Mark Foley's molestation charges as the all-time worst justification of the year. Especially since the New York Daily News reported that Regan rejected a book from Nicole Brown's sister in 2004 because it wasn't salacious enough; if she wanted to help victims of domestic violence, you think Regan would have started with Nicole Brown's survivors.

I wish I had taken a few moments on CNN this morning to challenge Philadelphia Inquirer TV writer Gail Shister when she said "I don't think we should be in the business of telling people what not to watch on television."

I thought that was funny, because that's exactly what TV critics do for a living. I love Gail to death,  but she's not exactly shy about telling folks when she thinks a particular TV series is tanking; why would we hold ouer tongues when faced with something much more loathesome and potentially corrosive to society?

Anyway, since this is a discussion that's going to happen with or without me, I've decided to try and engage it in a way that makes sense. And what makes the most sense right now is to urge you to use me -- and critics/journalists like me -- to keep Simpson and Regan from using you. (to see how desperate O.J. can get for publicity, click here)

Talk about turning the media circus on its ear....   

Why I Keep Beating the Griot Drum

It's difficult sometimes to explain why I care so much about diversity in media.

Sure, as a black man working in various outlets, I benefit from people caring about this stuff. My most effective writing comes from experiences which are uniquely mine; when the world cares about that perspective more, I benefit personally, no doubt.

But, as I stood before a room in the Poynter Institute packed with area journalists, announcing the winners of the Tampa Bay Association of Black Journalists' Griot Drum Awards -- I serve as association president and coordinator of the awards banquet -- I felt like we had accomplished something special.

Already, we'd given out $2,500 to black kids from Tampa headed to college to study journalism. We'd marveled at kids from St. Petersburg's Soulful Arts Dance Academy, who were learning breathtaking skills in the heart of one of the city's most challenged neighborhoods. And we had a bona-fide network TV talent, the Early Show's Rene Syler, on hand to give encouragement.

I was reminded in a flash of an old advertisement for an insurance company,. which showed a black child with a towel pinned on his back looking into a mirror and picturing a super hero who was white. If we can make modern media as diverse as it should be, when that kid looks in the mirror and pictures himself at his best, I'm hoping he won't have any trouble thinking of a black man gazing back at him.

Anyway, here's a list of the folks who won our contest last night:

Television
Spot News
•    “Martin Luther King Jr. Parade” by Matt McGlashen,
WFTS- ABC Action News 28

Non-Deadline Reporting
•    “Lottery Secret” by Jackie Callaway & John Fulton,
WFTS-ABC Action News 28

Investigative/Series
•    “Small Town Justice” by Doug Smith, Lisa Blegen &
Craig Davisson, WTVT-Fox 13

Community/Public Affairs
•    “Righting Wrongs” by Anne-Marie Fagler & Kathy
Fountain, WTVT-Fox 13

Print (100,000 or more)
Deadline/Spot News Reporting
•    “A Sound of Their Own” by Nicole Johnson, St.
Petersburg Times

Features
•    “The Invisible Men” by Ron Matus, St. Petersburg
Times

Community/Public Affairs
•    “Facing Racism” by Cloe Cabrera, Tampa Tribune

Sports Feature
•    “In 76th Season, Another Barrier Broken,” by Dave
Scheiber, St. Petersburg Times

Print (below 100,000)
Deadline/Spot News Reporting
•    “Migrant Workers Face Hurricane” by Laura Figueroa,
Bradenton Herald

Investigative Reporting
•    “Exposing Pollution, Coverup in Tallevast” by Donna
Wright, Bradenton Herald

Features
•    “Women of the Fields” by Ricahrd Dymond & Laura
Figueroa, Bradenton Herald

Community/Public Affairs
•    “Roots Run Deep” by Donna Wright, Bradenton Herald

Commentary
•    “Tallevast: Exposing the Coverup” by David Klement,
Bradenton Herald

Radio
Spot News reporting
•    “From F to A: Day One” by Bobbie O’Brien, WUSF-87.5
News

Feature Reporting
•    “Looking for Angola” by Bobbie O’Brien, WUSF-87.5
News

Documentary/News Series
•    “The Hat That Started A Riot” by Alan Lipke,
Listening Between The Lines, Inc.

Investigative Reporting
•    “Handcuffs& Schools” by Bobbie O’Brien, WUSF-87.5
News

Public Affairs
•    “Handcuffs & Schools” by Bobbie O’Brien, WUSF-87.5
News

Photo/Graphics
Features
•    “Calculated Move” by Carrie Pratt, St. Petersburg
Times

Sports Feature
•    “Crash Landing” by Carrie Pratt, St. Petersburg
Times

Photo Essay
•    “A New Beginning” by Fred Bellet, Tampa Tribune

Gerald Levert Tribute

His death at age 40 didn't get a lot of ink last week. But the passing of R&B singer Gerald Levert touched me -- he was about my age and had his greatest success when I was trying to be a pro musician as well -- and was captured amazingly well in this column by Leonard Pitts Jr.

"BY LEONARD PITTS JR.
lpitts@MiamiHerald.com
One day, maybe 20 years ago, I ran into Eddie Levert. Eddie, a charter member of the legendary O'Jays, is one of the greats, a singer of thunderous power. Back then, his son Gerald was just starting out as a professional singer but already, people were remarking how much he sounded like his father.

''You better look out,'' I told Ed. ``He's gaining on you.''

''Aw, don't tell that boy that,'' growled Eddie. ``It'll go to his head.''

For all his feigned indignation, he couldn't hide his pride. You saw it in him whenever they performed together, the son mimicking dance steps he grew up watching from backstage, or egging the father on with vocal dives and climbs and barrel rolls straight from the old man's own playbook.

So my first thought was of Eddie last week when the news came that Gerald had died of an apparent heart attack at the absurd age of 40. I can't imagine what it must be like to bury your son. Frankly, I don't want to know.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16033050.htm

Reminds me why I always loved Levert and Pitts.

More Deggans Punditry Than U Can Stand

I'm scheduled to appear on CNN's Reliable Sources program at 10 a.m. Sunday to discuss the O.J. Simpson media frenzy and Dan Rather. And my new buddy Robert Cox of the Media Bloggers' Association has asked me to be a judge in his online debate over whether MSNBC's Keith Olbermann degrades the journalism standards of NBC News by his opinionated stands (he maintains the critical, conservative-friendly Olbermann Watch web site). Check out the judges' responses here.

Hey Nielsen Families! Let's Boycott O.J.!

This is the day media decided to explode locally and nationally, what with Clear Channel's decision to sell off 448 radio stations, the Tampa Tribune admitting its star Al-Arian reporter has left the story after starting a romantic relationship with the one of the prosecutor, news I reported yesterday of WFLA-Ch. 8 being criticized for airing a video press release as news and the arrival in St. Petersburg tonight of Early Show co-anchor Rene Syler, in town to speak at the annual awards ceremony convened by the Tampa Bay Association of Black Journalists, which I lead.

I don't have much time today, but I wanted to write about another media story exploding today: Fox's decision to present an interview with O.J. Simpson to coincide with his upcoming book If I Did It.

I wish there was a way to write about this without adding to the media buzz already surrounding this awful mess. We all know the dynamic: media and TV critics write columns condemning the show, anchors on the cable newschannels convene talk segments with experts condemning the program (I'll be doing one, CNN's Reliable Sources, at 10:30 a.m. Sunday) and then a huge audience turns up to watch the train wreck commence.

It's an orgy of synergy. O.J.'s book is published by ReganBooks and his so-called interview (conducted by his publisher, Judith Regan) airs over two nights on the Fox network. Guess what company owns both entities? Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. (the show is kicking up such a stench that even Bill O'Reilly tried to distance himself from it last night, claiming "Fox Broadcasting has nothing to do with the Fox News Channel." Well, except for the fact that the same guy signs everybody's checks.

I know my little blog is less than a drop in the big media bucket on this issue. But I want to make a plea here, for my own sanity as a media commentator, to any household whose viewing habits are monitored by the ratings company Nielsen Media Research.

PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THIS SHOW.

Doesn't matter if you or I stay away from it, if our viewing habits aren't tabulated by the folks who count ratings. This is the first time I've ever written such a recommendation, because it feels a little like cooking the books -- changing the viewership sample to affect the popularity of a show.

But if this television train wreck actually draws ratings, it will only encourage the networks to do more. If you thought Dateline's To Catch a Predator series was skeevy, imagine what sorts of freakizoids the networks will stick in front of a camera if their O.J. project breaks the ratings bank?

So, Nielsen families, our viewing fate is in your hands. I've met enough of you to know that most of you take your responsiblities very seriously. Do us a favor, and give Fox a reason to never try anything this sordid again.

When the News May Not be Real: Ongoing Use of Video News Releases

The Center for Media and Democracy Tuesday released an update to its April report Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed, in which it claimed to document loads of instances in which local TV stations used footage from Video News Releases without properly disclosing their sources.

VNRs are essentially video press releases prepared by companies, trade associations and even politicians. The original goal was to provide TV journalists with some information and footage to entice them into working up a story on whatever issue product or person they hoped to publicize. But, as local TV stations expand their newscast hours and shrink staffing to maximize profits, more companies have used VNRs wtihout editing them or researching them -- passing along the claims and information provided by publicists without verifying the information independently.

The CMD claims to have documented 46 stations in 22 states airing such material in their newscasts. This time, they found a Tampa station -- WFLA-Ch. 8 -- which incorporated a short snippet of VNR footage and script without citing the source of its material.

But TV industry folks say the CMD exaggerates its claims, comparing use of the VNR material to newspapers using press release copy verbatim in brief columns such as event listings (which is still a no-no at most big papers).

Since I'm pulling together a column on this, I'll keep my deeper thoughts to myself. But I encourage you to check out the WFLA clip for yourself and decide: journalistic sin or harmless shortcut?

Rule No. 2: Don't Put Fight Club Footage on MySpace

A friend emailed a stunning bit of footage originally featured on some people's MySpace pages. It's video of two small boys, probably age 10 or younger, fighting in a yard while adults stand over them, encouraging them to mix it up. The labelling indicated it may have been filmed in St. Petersburg.

As the kids tumble over each other punching, shoving and kicking, the adults form a ragged semicircle shouting awful encouragement. All the people involved are black, and the shouts of "rush that nigga" or "don't let that nigga steal on you (punch you)" made my heart hurt.

Of course, some idiot filmed it and put it on MySpace.

WTSP-Ch. 10 did a story on the footage which said Florida authorities are investigating. But I don't think we'll ever know what might possess someone to inflict something that damaging on young children.

Marie Claire Really Tries to Make News

ABC anchor Elizabeth Vargas did do an interview with Marie Claire about breastfeeding. What she didn't do, was pose for a photo while doing it.

That didn't stop the magazine from using the wonders of Photoshop to create an image showing a smiling Vargas with a baby at her breast.

Vargas has issued a mealymouthed objection: "While Elizabeth Vargas was happy to discuss issues of balancing work and motherhood and is quite proud to breastfeed her newborn son, she was disappointed that Marie Claire chose to Photoshop her head onto a fake image,” an ABC spokesperson said in a written statement.

I, however, would have said something like "I'm incredibly pissed that a magazine which purports to practice something resembling journalism would gin up a fake photo of me using someone who is not my baby showing me doing something I would never inflict on a worldwide audience."

But maybe that's just me.

 

Shatner goes For Laughs -- This Time on Purpose

Could this guy be the new Regis Philbin?

ABC finally released an early video of William Shatner's latest attempt at reinvention -- this time as a black-clad game show host in a hastily-developed quiz program called Show Me the Money (sneak preview at 9:30 tonight).

As you might expect, it's a clone of the modern game show form pioneered first by ABC and most recently by NBC in hits such as Deal or No Deal and 1 vs 100. The flashing, glitzy light show and postmodern set motif comes courtesy of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire; the sexy models helping show off the money at stake, the overcaffinated contestants and the goofy host with a tangled pop culture history -- that's all Deal-inspired upgrades.

So as I watch Shatner waddle across a set that looks like it was cribbed from one of his earlier Star Trek films, I found myself thinking: I liked it better when he wasn't in on the joke.

I'm not sure when it happened. When he told a group of Trekkers to get a life in a Saturday Night Live skit; when his Priceline.com commercials took off; when every Trek castmember except the guy who played Yeoman Johnson wrote tell-all memoirs commemorating what an egotistical jackass he could be.

But at some point, Shatner realized there was a fortune in lampooning his own image as a self-important actor, even when he clearly wasn't past the behavior he was ridiculing. (To see when he took himself much more seriously -- to hilarious result -- watch this)

In Show Me the Money, contestants are presented with three potential questions keyed around a particular word or phrase. Contestants can pass on the first two questions but must eventually answer the last one. Before each question, the contestant chooses a model who opens a scroll revealing the dollar amount at stake. And, oh yeah, one of them has a "killer card" which can stop play immediately.

Yeah, it has the virtue of being both a baldfaced Deal ripoff and a pointlessly   complicated game. Add in the fact that Shatner apparently can't be bothered to explain the rules up front -- at least, in the early version I have -- so he is constantly coaching the contestant through the process of picking models, choosing questions, delivering answers and sweating out the outcome. At least the dollar amounts -- which range from $20,000 to $250,000 in the episode I watched -- make the pressure intense from the start.

Shatner plays the action like Denny Crane on the Game Show Network, dancing around the set with a detached air that seems as if he's not quite sure whether he should act ironically superior or totally invested.

Up against The Unit and Law & Order, he may not have much time to decide.

Rather Redux

Here's some stuff leftover from my story today about Dan Rather. I'll admit, I have buddies here in the building who are tired of stories about the deconstruction of the network TV anchor. But Rather's fall is something else -- the story of the perpetual outsider finally shown the door.

I read a portion of a book on TV anchors where Rather was dubbed Mr. Outside, a perfect example of his quandary in the TV news industry. Never as  accepted as Tom Brokaw, Peter Jenings or his predecessor Walter Cronkite, Rather was perpetualy reaching for the bass ring in his work -- as if total acceptance by the news industry was just one scoop away. Now, he's searching for that scoop on HDNet, of all places.

On the Memogate mess that cost him his job:

"“I learned a lot. That’s getting to be a long time ago. I don’t think much about it anymore. I don’t run across regular people who think much about it anymore. It was what it was and it is what it is. There are lot of aspects to the way it worked out. Including the fact that the story was and is true. It didn’t have to have the memos to prove it. However, we left ourselves vulnerable on the memos themselves, because those who didn’t want the story to get out, looked for where we were vulnerable. We’d left ourselves vulnerable on the memos. The commission – the independent commission that cbs put into being to look into all this. Their conclusions were number one: that no political bias was the motivation for doing the sotry. Number two: that what mistakes I made were primarily post the broadcast, the way we defended the broadcast. the commission said if we had handled the blowback better they neverwould have been put into being. Number three:  given unlimited tome and monmetary resources, they did not conclude that the memos were other than they’ve purported to be.  A lot of that got lost in the coverage of the blowback of it."

On why he insisted on traveling to the big stories instead of sitting in a studio and reading news like Cronkite:

"How can you, over the long pull – consistently stay in a windowless room on the west side of Manhattan, how can you stay there, never go anywhere, never walk the ground, particularly on the tough stories, and have the audience believe you know what you’re talking about. I want to say this gently and respectfully but also directly. Anhoring a network newscast – if you aren’t careful, it is such an ego-centric existence. You’re constantly breathing NASA grade rocket fuel for the ego. You can believe your own bullshit. That can be injurious to your own personal health and career.”

On how to judge whether Katie Couric is a success: "When the new anchor and the new CBS News has to come on the air handling a 9/11 or a tsunami – where they have to stay on for hours on end – sometimes for days on end – without a script. That will be a decisive time. Then we’ll be able to draw a breath and say, OK we have an idea of what the new direction is.”

Alan Weisman, who said he avoided writing about Rather's "extracurricular activities" to keep his unauthorized biography Lone Star from turning into a Kitty Kelley-style gossip repository, noted this about the anchor.

"The problem with dan was that he never thought just being himself was good enough – so he kept creating these personas. I think that stems from his youth – he wanted to be a marine and couldn’t pass the physical. He was always told he went to this little college nobody heard of, and you’ll never make it. Once he did, he still felt the insecurity."

Battle of the Media Bands Saturday

If you have time Saturday, check out this charity event i'm involved with, where bands covened among employees of ABC Action News, Tampa Bay's 10, the St. Petersburg Times and Clear Channel Radio perform hourlong sets of music for the title of Tampa Bay's Best Media Band.

For those who have wondered what Brendan McLaughlin might look like playing lead guitar or how I navigate singing Public Enemy and Peter Gabriel in the same set -- come out to Jackson's Bistro at 8 p.m. Saturday to find out first hand. Proceeds from $5 cover go to a scholarship fund maintained by the Bay Area Media Network, a local chapter of American Women in Radio and Television.
 

 

 

New Network TV Shows + Fractured TV Landscape = Confusion

It's the only move the TV networks have left in a fall season where, once again, the most anticipated new shows have tanked and the stuff no one could see coming -- Jericho and Criminal Minds, anyone? -- has won big.

New shows. Lots of them.

Think about it. Rerunning popular stuff doesn't work -- you can only plug holes so often with various iterations of CSI and Law & Order -- and the only thing audiences hate more than endless reruns is the network's other substitution for a quickling tanking new show: newsmagazines.

But, at a time when broadcasters are going through new shows like used Kleenex, they gotta put something up to replace the Smiths and Kidnappeds of the world. Hence, the flood of new shows coming your way this month.

Check my story today on the three highest-profile new ones, including the most likely suvivor, 3 LBS, a CBS drama about brain surgeons that started life as a pilot for last season starring The Practice diva Dylan McDermott and has hit air with Stanley Tucci and Mark Feurerstein (the name comes from the weight of the human brain; the debut comes courtesy of Smith's early death). 

So what do we think sports fans? It is cool to have a trickle of new programming before the wilderness of December Christmas specials, or is it too much, too soon?

Times Reporter Bill Levesque Forced to Testify

South Florida's Society of Professional Journalists chapter is protesting a south florida judge's refusal to quash a subpoeana forcing Times reporter Bill Levesque to testify regarding a story he wrote on a criminal fraud case. While Florida reporters are protected from testifying in local and state court cases by a Shield Law, the legislation doesn't apply to federal cases.

South Florida's SPJ is using Bill's case to advocate for a federal shield law; lt's hope the new Democratic majority controlling Congress is listening.

WMNF Talks Middle East Coverage

Spurred by some vocal groups' protests over coverage of hostilities in Lebanon seen as pro-Arab, communiradio station WMNF is holding a public forum to discuss its Middle East coverage at 7 p.m. in the Grand Salon at thje University of Tampa. It's open to the public and all are encouraged to attend.

Ed Bradley Update

CBS plans to devote all of this Sunday's 60 Minutes to memorializing their fallen colleague. Here's the just-moved press release...

“60 MINUTES’” FULL HOUR TO BE DEDICATED TO

ED BRADLEY: HIS LIFE, HIS WORK, HIS STORY,

SUNDAY ON THE CBS TELEVISION NETWORK

Memorial Broadcast to Feature a Special Solo Trumpet End-piece by Wynton Marsalis

            The full hour of 60 MINUTES will be dedicated to the memory of correspondent Ed Bradley, who passed away Thursday.  The special memorial edition, in which close friends, his best work and the story of his remarkable life will be featured, will be broadcast Sunday, Nov. 12 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

Steve Kroft speaks to Bradley’s closest friends who share their rich experiences of him off camera to reveal the kind, generous lover of life that he was for those who only knew him on camera. Among those speaking about the other Bradley, affectionately known as “Teddy,” are close friends Jimmy Buffett, the musician, journalist Charlayne Hunter-Gault and Wynton Marsalis, the artistic director of Jazz at Lincoln Center. 

Marsalis will pay tribute to his friend with a trumpet solo at the end of the hour.

Morley Safer reviews and puts into context the contribution Bradley made to

60 MINUTES with his distinctive body of work estimated at 500 stories.  Bradley’s best moments will be highlighted in this eloquent retrospective.

Lesley Stahl looks back on Bradley’s rise from a tough Philadelphia neighborhood to the heights of journalistic achievement and national recognition as one of America’s most esteemed television personalities.

In true 60 MINUTES fashion, Andy Rooney will contribute a remembrance as well.

Ed Bradley R.I.P.

When we met, at an awards ceremony at Columbia University last year, I was struck by how frail he looked.

Frailty was not an adjective I associated with Ed Bradley, a correspondent who had been filing groundbreaking TV news stories from the time I was in elementary school.

From his story tracing new allegations about the murder of black child Emmet Till to his easygoing features of golfer Tiger Woods and jazz legend Miles Davis, Bradley was always an image of quiet strength -- laid-back but on point, with a touch of cool epitomized by the single diamond earring in his left ear. 

But as we stood together in June 2005 -- among an amazing group of folks honored by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism for quality coverage of people of color -- Bradley looked thin, a little unsteady and tired. His coronary bypass surgery had been well-publicized in 2003, and I assumed he hadn't yet bounced back.

Then I noticed on his recent, groundbreaking story about the Duke Unveristy rape case, colleague Lesley Stahl introduced the package. That was notable, because full-time correspondents almost always introduce their own stories.

Now comes news that Bradley has died of leukemia, at age 65. Besides his  status as a high-profile journalist -- delivering a near-exclusive, attention-getting interview with Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh years ago -- Bradley was also widely admired among journalists of color as one of the highest-profile black journalists who seemed to succeed on his own terms.

Weird at it sounds, for me it came down to that earring he always wore - a single diamond stud, perched in his ear while interivewing heads of state, hanging with jazz musicians and competing with the biggest names in TV journalism.

It said to me that this child of Philadelphia's streets found success on his own terms -- no one else's.

"He gave up pride and he gave us hope," Bryan Monroe, president of the National Association of Black Journalists told me earlier today. "He did not have to compromise who he was. He did not have to downplay his Philadelphia upbringing, his street smarts, or his cultured experiences. He could be authentic and still succeed. Especially now, as it becomes harder and harder for black journalists to succeed. Many feel they’ve got to assimilate and compromise who they are. He is the beacon to say be who you are and succeed – you can do both."

Dan Rather, who pulled Bradley into his circle of trusted advisors during election coverage for many years, released a statement: "With the passing of Ed Bradley we have lost one of America's best. As a compassionate, sensitive person, as a gentle but strong man, as a lover of life and a great professional, he was an example of all a conscientious and dedicated journalist can be."

Rene Syler, co-host of the Early Show, remembered how supportive Bradley was when she came to the show from Texas, emailing her occasionally to note when she did a particularly affecting story.

"Not only did I think this was somebody who I wanted to emulate as a journalist -- he’s cool, too!" she said, laughing. "The thing about Ed was that it was an effortless cool. You got the sense that he wore the earring because he liked it and he was that comfortable with who he was. There’s a lesson in that...Forget about the TV cameras and lights and this and that – when he sat down across from you it was you and Ed. And I think that was the key to his success."

Here's CBS' initial obiturary:

"Ed Bradley, one of journalism’s brightest stars whose name was synonymous with the CBS News magazine 60 MINUTES on which he reported for the past 25 years, died a few hours ago in Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York City.  He was 65 and had leukemia.

             Bradley spent nearly his entire 43-year career with CBS News, where he rose to the pinnacle of journalistic achievement, at first on network documentaries and the CBS EVENING NEWS and then 60 MINUTES, where he solidified a body of work that featured a keen talent for the interview and an intense curiosity shown in his investigative work.   In one of his last 60 MINUTES segments, an investigation of the Duke University Lacrosse rape case, he broke new ground with the first interviews with the accused in a story that made headlines last month."

I'll have a fuller column on Bradley and his importance in tomorrow's paper. A giant truly has left us.

UPDATE: Here's some more thoughts on Ed Bradley that didn't make my story for tomorrow...

Terry Martin, a former story editor at "60 Minutes II" who now teaches in the School of Communications at Quinnipiac University: "If you’d known Ed for a while, you knew what a fitness nut he was -– he really took very good care of himself...No matter here he was, he always insisted on a getting a temporary pass to a gym so he could keep gdoing his workouts – or he would get a stairmaster put in his room.”

Martin on Bradley's biggest story: "His biggest legacy, which will always be uniquely his, is the plight of the boat people. After the war was over, all of a sudden we began hearing stories about these Vietnamese refugees trying to do anything to get away from the North Vietnamese. They ended up in the Philippinnes and were ignored by the government. It was Ed who found these refugees who were starving to death and he did a whole CBS Reports documentaryon them. He’s the one who brought the plight of those people to the United States. And 25 years later, they have made quite a successful mark on the U.S.”

Martin on Bradley's roots: "Ed was like Bill Cosby...a Philadelphia boy brought up by a strong mother. He was no-nonsense -- He had no time for people who didn’t put as much effort into whatever they chose to do. And he never wore his pioneering status on his sleeve...It’s the passing of an era – the business has changed. Those guys, Raer, koppel, jenniongs Brokaw, every one of them worked in what is going to be looked back as the golden age of broadcast journalism – when there were three networks and the world was their oyster."

Connie Chung, former CBS anchor: "He was quite the bon vivant. He’s tall, handsome and what an outstanding dresser. Wearing the coolest of the cool clothes...leather andblack before other people werewearing black...We heard lots of stories about his long list of girlfeidns and how they could never, ever catch him. He was a bachelor for a long, long time."

Chung on her early days with Bradley, Lesley Stahl and Bernard Shaw as young minorities and women hire to diversify CBS News: "Ed would be told he was supposed to cover something hat ivolved the first lady and he would tell the assignment editor in no uncertain terms that he was not going. Then, the assignment editor would go down the line and order the rest of us to do it...I really adored ed because...he was not caught up in being a star. Unlike everyone else in the television news business...(he had) this strong, streak of independence that he would not play the network game and do what the suits wanted him to do." 

Did President Bush Admit Lying to Reporters on National Television?

The question came early in Preisdent Bush's backpedaling press conference this afternoon, asked respectfully by a reporter who had good reason not to be so nice.

You told us a week ago Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld was staying indefinitely, the guy basically said. What happened?

Bush came up with a response that sounded more like a Will Ferrell skit than an actual quote from the President.

"I didn't want to inject a major decision about the war in the final days of a campaign," he said. "The only way to answer that question -- and to get you onto another question -- was to give you that answer."

In other words, I didn't want to upset the campaign, so I lied to you (he also said, rather lamely, that he hadn't had a final conversation with Rumsfeld).

Not only did Bush admit lying to reporters to keep from upsetting the campaign -- he also admitted delaying implementing change in the Defense Department, at a time when soldiers are dying daily, to avoid hurting the Republicans' chances at the polls. (MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann also took issue again with Bush's contention that he rarely used the term "stay the course" re-showing his clips proving the president used the phrase 29 times in public speeches.)

I have a feeling we have many more moments like this in our future.

$15 Million for Third Place?

Nielsen Media Research has had a difficult time pulling together TV ratings for last night's election coverage on the big networks, so the final numbers may change tomorrow.

But it looks like CBS' $15-million anchor Katie Couric earned the network a third-place finish Tuesday evening, drawing about 6.3-million viewers with her hourlong, 10 p.m. report.

ABC's Charlie Gibson won the night, retaining 9.6 million viewers for his 90-minute report at 9:30 p.m. from the 23 million folks who watched ABC's Dancing with the Stars the half hour before. NBC drew 7 million viewers at 10 p.m.

But the guy who once held Couic's seat, Dan Rather, urged against paying too much attention to ratings when i asked him about the show last week (my full interview with him will hit the paper next week).

"It’s going to take time...I think it will be the end of February -- by the time they get through November sweeps and February sweeps -- it will be clear what the new direction that they've settled on...They’ll experiment some, and while they’re experimenting, I’ll keep an open mind. We need to see the new CBS News -– when a big, unscheduled news event happens. When the new anchor and the new CBS News has to come on the air handling a 9/11 or a tsumani -– where they have to stay on for hours on end, sometimes for days on end -– without a script. That will be a decisive time. Then we’ll be able to draw a breath and say, OK we have an idea of what the new direction is.”

Actually, that's something I've also thought for a while now. All these breathless stories on Couric's ratings feel a bit premature; she had a good, long ratings bump from people curious to see what she was up to. Now the field has settled back down to the people who watch the evening news regularly, and it will take Couric months to change this crowd's viewing habits -- just like it took her predecessor, Bob Schieffer, a year to gain 300,000 viewers.

As always, click on photos to enlarge

And the Winner Is...Not Network TV Election Coverage

The preview stories promised a historic face-off: the first time all three newly-minted network TV anchors would face each other while covering a crucial news story -- the midterm elections.

But the drama of the moment was sapped by a few simple facts. Anyone who cared what was going on had already been watching cable TV for hours, where the amped-up channels started calling races the minute East Coast polls closed at 7 p.m.

Also, the time the networks picked to deliver their reports -- 10 p.m. on NBC and CBS, 9:30 p.m. on ABC -- was so early in the process that most of the races resolved by then were the "low hanging fruit" (including the Nelson/Harris Senate race in Florida, which was the second race called across the nation. The first, Richard Lugar in Indiana, featured a Republican running unopposed).

Even the Daily Show/Colbert Report hourlong live report felt a little predictable and forced -- with guest Dan Rather spouting canned "Danisms" and the funniest bits coming from animated depictions of winners and losers (they actually had an animated GOP elephant eliminate on one losing Democratic candidate's head! Take that, CNN!)

Still, there were a few highlights among the endless TV coverage for me:

-- Watching Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews debate the meaning of the results on MSNBC, with Matthews insisting that Democrats need to articulate their vision for solving problems. "You need sodium pentathol to find out where Hillary Clinton stands on the war," cracked Matthews, shrugging off those who accuse him of liberal bias.

-- Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer's down to earth wisecracks, deftly nailing the folksy, charming vibe Dan Rather always worked so hard -- and often failed -- to attain. His best line, about a candidate felled by the scandal of throttling his extra-marital girlfriend before the election: "I always thought that hypocrisy was the number one political crime...but I'm beginning to think choking your mistress may (top it)."

-- Tom Brokaw's twist on the cliche of the night: "All politics is local, except when the country is at war."

-- Charles Gibson pronouncing Hillary Clinton's victory held "all the surprise of a Doris Day movie" -- a crack which promptly sailed over the heads of every viewer in the network's target demographic watching the show.

-- Watching Fox News early on continuously show results from races where Republicans were doing well, while Chris Wallace noted their exclusive poll of 900 voters showed the Republicans were in for a long night. Anchor Brit Hume chimed in quickly to downplay the accuracy of such polling; but if they're so inaccurate, why bother doing them?

-- Locally, WFTS offered a game try presenting a three-hour behind-the-scenes webcast from their studios, discussing the electoral issues. Their problem: work covering elections behind the scenes is mostly tedious and not very visual. So their webcast was subject to long stretches of talking heads theorizing on stuff we really didn't know yet. Websurfers would have been better off sticking to areas of the site featuring up-to-the-minute vote tallies.

-- My Prediction of the Night, delivered by Chuck Todd of the Hotline on MSNBC: It's either going to be a landslide, or it's not. Way to go out on a limb, dude...

 

Should We Worry About Pedophiles Caught in TV Sweeps Sex Stings?

I told you so.

That's what I kept thinking while reading reports of a prosecutor in a northern Texas town who killed himself as police moved in to arrest him for soliciting sex from minors on the Internet.

Louis Conradt, Jr. was ensnared in the same web which has caught hundreds of other men, prepared by Dateline NBC using paid consultants Peverted-Justice.com. And hard as it is to feel sorry for a prosecutor who network officials say engaged in explicit sex talk online with someone he thought was 13 years old, this entire, sordid incident leaves me wondering if Dateline's producers really appreciate the forces they set in play with these stings.

It's a controversy I wrote about months ago: Dateline has turned shaming these sex-seeking men into primetime entertainment, as correspondent Chris Hansen quizzes those stupid enough to walk into NBC's camera-equipped home expecting a sexual rendezvous with an underage teenager.

What they get is 15 minutes of bitter fame, as Hansen blows up their paper-thin excuses and exposes their underhanded manipulations for a national audience. It's compelling stuff. It's also totally unnecessary, because the guys are guilty of felony solicitation charges before they even set foot in the house.

But NBC has bankrolled the entire operation -- renting the house and paying Perverted Justice thousands for its time, in a way most police departments could not afford. So Hansen gets his 15 minutes with the perps before they are encouraged to leave the house and are scooped up by cops.

Of course, this also turns NBC into a defacto arm of law enforcement, which could get sticky if a bust goes wrong -- if somebody is injured or killed during an arrest, will NBC report fully on what happens? Particularly if it means they might be liable for funding and initiating the sting in the first place? (personally, I'm amazed and thankful that someone hasn't attacked Hansen or his crew, yet)

Conradt's case was different. He hadn't visited their sting house. In the wake of his death, NBC insists he was likely to visit the house soon and did not see their video crew, which was stationed outside his home when he shot himself in the head. Like so many other aspects of this case, these are details which we'll have to accept from Dateline and the police -- seemingly the only witnesses.

And that's not the first such death this month. Last week, a Pittsburgh-area  minister killed himself after a local TV station began airing promotional ads for a expose of his reportedly "illict" activity. The station had already decided not to air the story -- hearing the pastor might harm himself -- when the guy did himself in, anyway.

Of course, journalists can't be held responsible when someone caught in wrongdoing turnes to suicide after they are exposed. And no one wants to excuse sordid behavior by someone in a trusted position such as a minister or prosecutor.

But these cases highlight what I've been saying for years -- that such stories can set events in motion which journalists cannot control. And that's when the fine line between covering a story and causing one becomes even more important to observe.

Election TV Almost Done, Thankfully

Because media rarely does anything halfway, the final bit of election TV you will be subjected to today is massive. Every news outlet knows we're on the verge of a historic change in power, and they're all trying to get their piece of it. But I'm still left with a few questions.

-- If MSNBC realizes that its strength lies in bringing network news faces such as Tim Russert, Brian Williams and David Gregory in for marathon, high-quality news coverage of the elections, why don't they use that same formula to make MSNBC a high-quality destination for news when the election is over? (extra kudos to Keith Olbermann for naming Sinclair Broadcast Group blowhard Mark Hyman as his Worst Person in the World Monday)

-- How many times will Daily Show "anchor" Jon Stewart beg guest Dan Rather to cut loose with a weird-ass Texas-type expression during their hourlong, live Colbert Report/Daily Show combo coverage at 11 tonight? (and how desperate is Rather to be on TV on an election night that he would agree to appear with two fake anchors?)   

-- Why do I think the best coverage is probably going to come from National Public Radio, which starts its comprehensive coverage nationally and locally at 8 p.m. tonight? And why am I worried about what will pop up on WFTS-Ch. 28's three-hour web cast, which starts at 7 p.m. tonight (they're so desperate for sources, they even asked me to do it; unfortunately, I'll be holed up checking out Katie, Charlie and Brian).

-- And since Bay News 9 is probably the only local TV outlet which will provide coverage through prime time, why isn't their video coverage simulcast online? (Actrually, I know the answer to that one: They want you to access the video one way -- by purchasing a Bright House Networks subscription.)

Faith Hill Loses It: A Joke or Not?

My blog buddy Sean Daly has Faith Hill's statement regarding her amazing awards show faux pas during last night's Country Music Awards (if someone had told me something that juicy might happen, I would have considered TiVo-ing it, myself! Okay, probably not).

Two clues that she may not have been joshing with her too-honest reaction: she's blaming the press for blowing it all out of proportion (of course we are) and taking a self-righteous tone about respecting all her fellow artists and other such hoo-hah.

Tell you what Faith: as bloggers dissect this footage with the care and attention previously reserved for the Zapruder film, you and Kayne West can mud-wrestle for my Sore Loser Award. 

And that's an honor more than one person can win. 

Happy Birthday to Me!

I have no excuse for not having a new post to greet you this week, other than my 41st b-day.

For most of today, I expected to get something up, and I now hope to have one for you tomorrow morning.

But, for now, my only excuse is a pressing Floridian deadline and a real difficulty making myself do much of anything on my own personal holiday.

I'm sure you understand. See ya tomorrow!

Wait. Wait Wait's in Sarasota?