Category: Media Watch

You could make a pretty good argument that Florida’s students don’t need any more standardized tests . But, still, there’s sentiment for adding another at the state university level.

Well, here’s an intriguing argument advanced by the St. Petersburg Times as it took issue with such a proposed test. “How could one test fairly assess different universities whose admissions standards may vary widely?” asked the editorial.

Perhaps such a test would be useful in assessing why a statewide university system would have such disparities in admissions standards in the first place?

Call it truth AND consequences.

That’s the dumbfounding, dumb-sounding upshot of a disturbing lawsuit recently –and successfully — brought against the Pensacola News Journal.

Last month a jury found that a former road-paver, Joe Anderson Jr., had been wronged by being portrayed in a “false light” by the News Journal. The jury said, in effect, that references to his past involvement in his wife’s death in a hunting accident were maliciously grafted onto a story about political influence. The net effect, said the jury, was that even though the hunting-death details were all true, it still left the impression that Anderson murdered his wife. The jury also determined that it was all worth some $18 million to the plaintiff.

Anderson’s attorneys apparently scored big on two relatively lame arguments.

First, that interjecting the hunting accident into a political influence story showed the paper’s intent to nail Anderson. Moreover, the News Journal. curiously parsed some language. To wit: it said law enforcement officials had merely “determined” that it was an accident — not that it “was” an accident.

Second, that the News Journal’s. hunting-accident chronology was a little too skewed to be anything but further intent to get Anderson. For example, it mentioned that Anderson “shot and killed” his wife just two days after filing for divorce. Not until a couple of sentences later did the story note that officials had “determined” that it was an accident.

Journalists, media attorneys and most legal scholars were — and still are — shell shocked at the verdict — and what passed muster as evidence. Among the thunderstruck: University of Tampa Criminology and Law Professor — and First Amendment expert — Tom Hickey.

“This is mind-blowing,” says Hickey. “This chills speech. To members of the media it says ‘Even if it’s true, you may be held liable.’ And over what? The order of a couple of sentences?

“How can the truth portray someone in a false light?” asks Hickey. “That’s almost a non-sequitur. It’s logically inconsistent. A falsehood can produce a ‘false light,’ but not the truth.”

‘False light’ suits, which are more an extension of common law, are not even allowed in a number of states because of their dubious constitutionality. And where they are permitted, such as in Florida, they are typically not a substitute rationale in a high-stakes libel case.

Hickey is hardly alone in expecting the News Journal. case to be overturned on appeal.

“Based on what we know, this will be one tough verdict to sustain,” states Hickey. “I don’t think you can hold someone liable — and $18 million worth at that — for bad or inartful writing, if that is what happened in this case. This basically suppresses speech. And we as Americans have never been comfortable with suppression of speech.”

For journalists, the News Journal verdict is sheer blasphemy. It contravenes the intent of the Supreme Court’s seminal and now sacrosanct decision in the 40-year-old New York Times Co . vs. Sullivan libel case. The Court, in a staunch defense of an unfettered and rigorous press, wrapped it in a thick layer of libel insulation. Sullivan said that not only was truth a defense against libel of public figures, but inaccuracies — absent any malicious intent — were also protected.

The News Journal. case appears to set that standard on its ear by saying that the truth can be less of a defense than the inaccurate.

Message from a mess

For all the media’s incredulity and flabbergasting double-takes, however, there is a message from this News Journal. mess worth heeding.

The media are as bottom-line oriented as other businesses, but their product is more than, well, “news.” It’s also people and reputations and livelihoods, including Joe Anderson’s. Sullivan is a shield, not a sword.

Reporters need to be reminded to stay vigilant and not let their healthy skepticism morph into chronic cynicism. Opinion must be properly labeled and never allowed to seep into reporting. And there’s nothing wrong with allowing empathy to emanate from the newsroom.

Moreover, the press should exercise discretion when, in the good name of proper backgrounding, it routinely regurgitates — and perpetuates — old news. To freely inform the public is the charge of the press. But the culture of the press sometimes encourages a “gotcha” game with easily targeted public figures.

I suspect there might have been a bit of that in play in the News Journal. case. As well as some careless writing and absentee editing. Not to the degree, however, that it trumps truth as a defense.

But to the degree that says “We can do better than this.” A constitutional firewall, alas, is no guarantee of journalistic quality.

In the newspaper business, you live and die with your credibility. “Typos” are not just to be avoided, they are to be dreaded. Even the misplacement of a single letter or a transposition can make a big difference.

Witness the Jan. 12 edition of the St. Petersburg Times.

Right there at the top of page two: “Hard-liners in Iraq Reject Candidates for Elections.”

Oops. Big news, big implications, big mistake. Those candidates rejected by hard-liners were actually in Iraq.

At first glance, however, it seemed to make sense. Then it was apparent. Another installment of Iran’s hard-liner-vs-moderate soap opera.

However, it could have been worse. It could have been on page one. Or it could have read: “Hard-liners in Iran Reject Candidates for Erections.”

On second thought, no one may have caught that one. Talk about a country with rigid controls.

Ever find yourself checking your calendar and watch before tuning in to Channel 15 for another episode of “The Mayor’s Hour”? Neither do I.

It’s one of those shows you never see in its entirety. Drive-by channel surfing typically yields it.

If nothing else, it looks like the ubiquitous Jack Harris and the mayor are enjoying themselves. Light banter and bad puns reign. But they also highlight different aspects of the city via interviews and behind-the-scenes perspectives.

On the December show, Mayor Pam Iorio brought on her dad for a segment. It’s something she used to do when she was Supervisor of Elections.

It’s not exactly compelling TV. In fact, I can’t imagine this happening in any comparably sized city. And yet — it works.

Partly, it’s because John Iorio, a former English professor, is engaging and humorous. Partly, it’s because the mayor is so media savvy. But mostly it’s because they have reminded us that we live in a major metro market that isn’t too big to feel — and act like — a smaller, more intimate community. It’s especially welcome over the holidays. But, yes, it is corny.

You’ve probably heard the caveats about “Bad Santa,” the scatological, cruel-yule send-up. The warning is to not, repeat NOT, bring the kids to this R-rated holiday fare. I think that heads-up should be broadened: Do not bring yourself either.

The movie is doing well at the box office, and both local dailies — as well as the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and others — found “Bad Santa” worthy of recommendation. You know the approach: wink-wink-we-know-we’re-all-too-hip-not-to-appreciate-the-outrageous-hilarity-embedded-in-this-iconoclastically-funny-work-that-to-the-uninitiated-is-nothing-more-than-an-inappropriately-irreverent-exercise-in-crudeness-vulgarity-profanity-violence-and-sex.

Find a babysitter and go laugh yourself silly or incontinent — just like “Bad Santa” himself.The promos inform us that Roger Ebert ostensibly said — in some context — that “Bad Santa” was “unreasonably funny.” Whatever that means.

It probably means it’s the times we live in. A lot of people seemingly liked the “Blair Witch Project” too. Maybe it was because they didn’t want to appear unenlightened about cinema verite in the form of hand-held cameras and amateur actors. I thought it was a hoax of Piltdown proportions.

Maybe, in “Bad Santa’s” case, there’s a perverse sort of cachet in not acknowledging that you couldn’t divine the vulgar inventiveness. Maybe no movie stinks if its director is “auteur” enough.

Anyway, “Bad Santa” does not transcend its coarseness and poor taste. It’s not funny. It’s boring. It’s mean-spirited. It’s sad. “Bad Santa” is a bad movie. It just is.

Tampa is no stranger to national news — from Teddy Roosevelt prepping for Cuba to the Buccaneers canning of Keyshawn. National correspondents have reported on a wide spectrum of Tampa-generated stories ranging from MacDill’s role in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the war on terror to city council’s efforts in the battle against lap-dancing.

Never, however, until last week did we have a national network newscast actually anchor itself here. As if Tampa, itself, were of an interest that transcended that day’s headlines.

So when Peter Jennings of ABC’s World News Tonight reported on same sex marriage in Massachusetts, retaliation in Iraq, President Bush in London, Michael Jackson in denial and Rush Limbaugh out of rehab — with a backdrop of downtown Tampa — it was a pretty big deal. And not just to the genuflecting affiliate, WFTS-Channel 28.

Mercifully, there was no mention of lap dances, senior citizens, hanging chads — or fired wide receivers.

In the first of his two Tampa newscasts from outside the Tampa Museum of Art, Jennings stated that he was reporting from the biggest city “on the Western flank of Florida.” It was a place, he said, that was an intriguing barometer of presidential politics, one with a significant Latino population.

He pointed out that in the 2000 election, Hillsborough County voted 48.8 percent for George W. Bush and 48.8 percent for Al Gore. “If you want to win Florida,” opined Jennings, “you’d better get Hillsborough on your side.”

Among those up close and personally privy to the Jennings’ style was Patrick Manteiga, editor and publisher of the Ybor City-based, trilingual weekly La Gaceta . He met with Jennings at Ybor’s Tropicana restaurant. Members of Jennings’ staff had contacted him to see if he would be available to chat “about Cuban politics” and if he could round up a few locals to talk shop. Answering Manteiga’s call were several “yellow dog Democrats” and a lone Republican.

“We had about a 20-minute conversation,” recalled Manteiga. “Jennings has a very easy going demeanor. He’s somebody who talks TO you — not above you. He takes his own notes. He was sharp and witty. I was very impressed.

“He seemed to have a pretty good grasp,” added Manteiga. “He certainly understood the difference between Miami and Tampa Cubans. And he apparently speaks Spanish. The banter certainly sounded good.”

Manteiga was surprised that Cuba wasn’t the focal point of the discussion. Just one of a number of topics, including local reaction to the war in Iraq. But he was satisfied with the sound bite selected from the conversation.

“It’s a potluck kind of thing,” said Manteiga. “You never know what they’ll choose. But what they pulled was fine.” It was a quote about the diversity within the Hispanic community.

“A lot of politicians want to treat us as a tribe

To paraphrase Benjamin Disraeli, there are lies, damn lies and media rationalizations about controversial programming.

There are certainly no legitimate reasons for defending the pay-as-you-go practices of WFLA-TV Channel 8’s Daytime show. The soft-news morning program has a standard practice of charging some guests a fee — $2,500 for four to six minutes of exposure — to chat about their product or service.

Daytime, which airs at 10:00 right after the Today show, is part of a recognized television genre: a fluff-feature A.M. show with a lot of obsequious and vacuous chatting. Some occasionally cut away for an actual news item. It is what it is. If viewers should assume it’s a local version of NBC’s Today, which doesn’t charge guests, then that’s a perception that WFLA can certainly live with.

For those interested in the “news,” there are regular, around-the-clock, around-the-globe sources for all that’s wrong with the world. “If it bleeds, it leads” is a hard-news tenet. “If you’re a client, we’re pliant” would seem an operative credo for Daytime.

Here’s the problem if you care at all about journalism. If you’re doing an infomercial, say so — with obvious, upfront labeling, including proper identification in the TV listings. There’s a place in the market for these paid-advertisement hybrids. Without them, we’d have far fewer options to acquire killer abs, buns of steel and the mother of all blenders. They are what they are.

But programs such as Daytime are not what they seem. They appear to be info-tainment, yet another media amalgam. They are, however, pimp forums, ready to cater to the self-promoting fantasies of customer-johns with a story to tell.

In its defense, WFLA officials note that Daytime isn’t produced by the station’s news department, nor does it conceal the nature of pay-as-you-go guests. True, but quickly noting that “The following segments were paid advertisements” in the final credits is nothing more than an ethical loophole. It’s not to be confused with the sort of obvious labeling that provides an honest indication of what viewers have just seen.

There is, suffice it to say, more than enough on TV that is bad. But the question is typically taste — and the answer is: don’t watch.

When the question is ethics, however, the answer should be: don’t show it.

I don’t remember the clamor for more newscasts, but we now have another one thanks to WTTA, Channel 38 and its recently debuted “38 News at Ten.”

But if I did miss the groundswell, I’ll assume it was for:

*Less “sweeps” sensationalism and gratuitous self promotions

*Fewer over-hyped hurricane teases — no matter how ominous the wave action is off the coast of Guinea-Bissau.

*Less inane, cheesy chatter among news readers

*A ban on news-context promos for the latest silly reality show on the affiliate’s network.

*A toning down of the all-Bucs’-bandwagon-all-the-time coverage

*A prohibition on goofy, man-in-the-street interviews on slow news days

*Eliminating invitations to viewers to vote on pressing issues: up or down on nuking North Korea, yes or no on recalling Vince Naimoli.

Having said that, let it also be said that “38 News at Ten” is not exactly a clone of the other five newscasts on broadcast and cable outlets. The mold is still intact, but they have tinkered.

The hour-long, 10:00 p.m. “38 News” features weekday and weekend anchors — David Klug and Susan Casper, respectively — flying solo. This is an obvious function of cost-cutting resulting from an economies-of-scale relationship with parent company Sinclair Broadcast Group, which provides national feeds from its Hunt Valley, Md., headquarters.

But it’s not insignificant to viewers; two anchors are typically one too many. The tandem approach is driven by demographics, political correctness and on-air chemistry. At its best, it’s a show-biz package of pleasant-looking people and appealing personalities. At its worst, you get awkward scripting and annoying blather.

With the rather reserved Klug there was, of necessity, no “happy talk.” He’s a pro; it shows; and that’s enough. Save the banter for Seinfeld reruns, which follow at 11:00.

“If I had a dime for every person who says they hate ‘happy talk,’ I be rich enough to get out of the business,” says Channel 38 News Director Teresa Mallea. “That probably works better in the a.m. than at 10:00 p.m. Yes, we did it (solo anchors) for economies, but that’s a bonus.”

The “38 News” format — as with all of Sinclair’s 63 stations nationwide — includes commentary, which almost nobody does anymore. It means taking a stand, risking the perception of bias and using time that could otherwise be allocated to covering fires, accidents, murders and scandals.

Too bad, though, that the commentary wasn’t local. In the case of the debut newscast, it was conservative commentator Mark Hyman, Sinclair’s Maryland-based vice president for corporate relations, delivering a piece — from the all-embracing “News Central” — on safe-sex incongruities in San Francisco. That might not even be news in San Francisco.

A couple of other things. There’s a CNNesque crawl at the bottom of the screen, and a perky, easy-on-the-eyes weather person, Megan Glaros. The former is a distraction; the latter isn’t.

It would seem that “38 News'” is off to a credible and respectable start, especially for those otherwise out of the continuous, redundant national news loop. The integration between national news out of Maryland and local happenings from Tampa was smooth.

A fundamental problem, however, remains. Do we really need any more newscasts? Do we, in fact, need one more than we needed the “Jamie Foxx” show that “38 News” replaced at 10:00 p.m.? Not surprisingly, News Director Mallea thinks there’s a viable place for “38 News” in the Tampa Bay marketplace.

“When this station came into the market five years ago, everyone said there was no room for another affiliate,” says Mallea. “The station proved otherwise and is very successful financially. I look at this the same way. Especially at 10 o’clock. I think consumers like to have a choice.

“Our stance is that we’re a little bit different philosophically,” Mallea adds. “We’re more issue-oriented. For example, transportation is huge here

The St. Petersburg Times knew what it was doing when it assigned Tom Zucco to the story of the cryonics facility, Suspended Animation Inc., that’s planned for Boca Raton. He’s a solid reporter with a better than average sense of the absurd and the incongruous.

If it opens for business — and permits are expected to be granted — Suspended Animation would be the nation’s fourth such cryonics facility. About 1,000 people have signed up so far to be “cryosuspended,” including company President David Shumaker. The process goes for $120,000 a deep-freeze pop.

Zucco wove references to the “big chill” and the “ultimate stopover to the great beyond” into the piece. And he certainly knew where to go for quotes, the lifeblood of any good story.

Said Ken Goodman, the director of the University of Miami’s Bioethics Program: “It’s free enterprise, not science

Just when you think you’ve seen it all — thanks to WTSP Channel 10 — you really haven’t.

The local CBS affiliate recently ran an item as a lead-in to John Nugent and sports on its 11 p.m. newscast that had to have viewers wondering if Reggie Roundtree were channeling Howard Stern.

The piece, actually a video clip that ran some 35 seconds, was on “Hunting For Bambi.” To the uninitiated, “Bambi” is a pricey (4-figure fee) “sport” that permits paint-ball “hunters” to stalk naked women on a Nevada preserve. Even with strategic, Jerry Springeresque body-part blurs, it was apparent these women, some of whom are “escorts” when otherwise occupied, were wearing nothing but that bimbo-caught-in-the-headlights look.

By contemporary standards, this would be appropriate fare for, say, “The Best Damn Sports Show Period.” Or maybe run as background ambience at some bar. Something for everyone, including all the less-than-subtle societal messages you care to acknowledge. Someone’s debasement for profit or exercise in exploitation is someone else’s unadulterated hoot.

It’s consenting adults; it’s legal; and it’s your choice. If you don’t like it — don’t watch it; don’t go there.

It’s probably a quaint notion, but shouldn’t the local news, even if it does share a time slot with White Chocolate, not be so easily confused with, say, “The Man Show?” There’s barely enough airtime to report the news — let alone the nudes. Let alone running a promotional clip from a sleazy video that’s now for sale.

Interestingly — and maybe predictably enough — no hue and cry was raised over the CNN-fed, “Bambi” piece. Maybe we’re just inured to an increasingly tabloid culture. According to WTSP News Director Lane Michaelsen, the station received nothing more than a single e-mail on the “Bambi” spot. And that, said Michaelsen, was from a guy — not exactly in the fit of outrage — noting that the female targets should at least wear goggles to prevent injury.

Internally, “There was discussion in the newsroom that night,” acknowledged Michaelsen, but it was hardly heated. “It was one of those stories that was so amazing — that people were actually doing this — that you wanted to tell people about it,” he explained.

So they told and showed.

One more thing.

In her happy-talk banter, co-anchor Sue Zelenko looked a mite non-plussed about the “Bambi” exposure and the “boys will be boys” guffawing of Roundtree and Nugent. Hopefully she was also plussed-off enough to voice it to management. Hopefully “News Gone Wild” is merely a poor judgment call — not a ratings strategy.