Category: Media Watch

So much has been written in the aftermath of David Brinkley’s death that it borders on the presumptuous to add anything. But I’ll presume that my lone encounter with the iconic Brinkley qualifies.

He was speaking at Eckerd College in the mid-1980s. I was a staff writer for Tampa Bay Business Journal and had arranged for some pre-lecture interview time with Brinkley. His itinerary was cramped and his availability limited, so I shared the time slot with the Tampa Tribune’s television columnist, Walt Belcher. John Wilson was setting up nearby to do a video version.

Several things made a lasting first-time impression:

*Brinkley was taller than I thought. Talking heads have no legs, so who is to know? He was 6′-2″.

*He was, however, every bit as candid, self-effacing and wry-witted as I had expected. Television hadn’t distorted anything on that front.

*He was also professional, polite and patient. He was, after all, indulging those who were less adept at interviewing than he was.

*And, of course, there were those inimitably cadenced speech patterns. I kept thinking to myself: “This guy does a great David Brinkley.”

Most of the substantive details of the session and subsequent speech now elude me. But I do recall these:

*He called himself a “skeptic” — not a “cynic.” But he conceded he was challenged by politicians to maintain that distinction. He said the essence of the politician was “the pursuit of power.” That, in turn, led to a need to “dominate and control.” And that’s the kind of people who were coursing through the corridors of Congress.

*He said the “Kennedys never picked up a check” and buttressed it with a story I now forget.

*He said celebrity status and accompanying fame weren’t any big deal. He acknowledged that it was “temporary and somewhat superficial” and didn’t get caught up in it. He said he always kept his success in perspective; to wit: “It was TV that worked — not me.”

*He chuckled all the way through the retelling of a tale from the “Huntley-Brinkley Report” days. A woman stopped him in an airport and said: “Aren’t you Chet Huntley?” He said he didn’t want her to be embarrassed by her misidentification, and since Huntley-Brinkley was a team entity, what was the harm? So he said he was, indeed, Chet Huntley.

She then replied: “Well, I think you’re very good. But I can’t stand that idiot, Brinkley.”

It was vintage Brinkley.

We’ll not be seeing his kind again.

Kudos to Time magazine for its timely cover story on Sen. Hillary Clinton’s book, “Living History.” Were it not for Time, a Hillary-hungry public would be caught in a Rodham-Clinton vacuum with nowhere to turn but Larry King, Barbara Walters, a bunch of press conferences or the book itself.

Time couldn’t be satisfied merely reporting on this bit of highly-teased, high profile, politico-celebrity news. No, it turned itself into a revisionist co-conspirator and honorary chair of the “Hillary in ’08” presidential campaign. Time, The Book Excerpt issue gives checkbook journalism a bad name

Thank you, Hannibal Lecter. Really.

And thank you, to be sure, Atticus Finch.

Amid the daily dispatches from Iraq and North Korea, the sobering updates on SARS and AIDS and bureaucratic business as usual in Washington, it was a welcome respite from real news to read the American Film Institute’s list of all time, favorite villains and heroes. The AFI dubbed the Anthony Hopkins-playing cannibal-psychiatrist from “Silence of the Lambs” as top villain and the Gregory Peck-playing defense attorney from “To Kill A Mockingbird” as foremost hero.

Lecter and Finch are solid choices, but where there are lists and judgments, there are differences of opinion, controversy and some flat-out weird juxtapositions. That’s, frankly, the fun of it.

For example, as derelict a mother as Joan Crawford was, does the portrayal of her in “Mommie Dearest” (#41) deserve to be on a par with “A Nightmare On Elm Street’s” Freddy Krueger (#40)? Is there any way career opportunist Eve Harrington of “All About Eve” (#23) is more villainous than the Martians from “War of the Worlds” (#27), Count Dracula in “Dracula” (#33), Frank Booth in “Blue Velvet (#36) or Auric Goldfinger in “Goldfinger” (#49)?

Heroically speaking, it’s worth pondering that Arthur Chipping of “Goodbye, Mr. Chips” (#41), Father Edward Flanagan of “Boys Town” (#42), Moses in “The Ten Commandments” (#43) and Karen Silkwood of “Silkwood” (#47) finished behind Lassie of “Lassie Come Home” (#39). Further grist for the musing mill is Rocky Balboa of “Rocky” (#7) topping the likes of Oskar Schindler of “Schindler’s List” (#13), Robin Hood in “The Adventures of Robin Hood” (#18) and Mahatma Gandhi of “Gandhi” (#21).

So thanks again, AFI, for the reel world’s respite from real news.

Not that anyone asked, but here are a few suggestions for the Bay Area’s newest entry into television news, Town ‘N Country-based WTTA, Channel 38. The 10 p.m. newscast should be on air by mid-July.

1) Please keep us informed about the weather, but don’t hype and tease and scare us because hurricane season is here. Actually, it’s always here — or the drumbeat countdown to it is.

2) There are countless network, cable and internet vehicles for over-reporting national news. Let the others continue to pile on with redundant coverage of Laci Peterson or arsenic poisonings in Maine. Stick to local news for local viewers.

3) If you’re going to do sports, please place a premium on telling us who won and lost and not on-air “personalities” and inane happy talk.

The aftermath of that notorious New York Times ‘ case of journalistic fraud has prompted a predictable and exhaustive reaction from the Times . It went on the offensive with an unprecedented page-one explanation and expiation of the Jayson Blair affair. With two jumps, the mother of all mea culpas ran to some 7,200 words. An editor’s note also pledged internal inquiries.

Ultimately, however, the public will forgive and forget, even forgetting what it forgave. How many folks — other than hand-wringing media mavens and Ben Bradlee — still remember Washington Post Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter-fabricator Janet Cooke? Anyone still care that it was a New York Times editorial writer, Herbert Matthews, who was duped into romancing the rebel that was Fidel Castro? The Times in time will metaphorically remove that New York strip steak from its black eye and go about its business as America’s newspaper of once-tarnished record.

But talk of “lessons learned” will continue apace. Here are two that should be among them.

The media, especially the New York Times , are serious business, albeit a unique, First Amendment-charged one. There’s a bottom line on the ledger, and there’s a bottom line on employee behavior and ethics.

The media aren’t immune to the venal side of human nature; that’s not the unconscionable part. That the 152-year-old, iconic Times had all the oversight of a mom-and-pop enterprise is. Between October of 2002 and April, Blair filed stories claiming to be from 20 cities in six states. No one noticed — or seemingly cared — that the self-promoting, plagiarizing Blair hadn’t submitted any receipts for hotels, rental cars or plane tickets. Heads besides Blair’s should have rolled.

In addition, no one questioned Blair’s blatant overuse of anonymous sources. They were not just unnamed — but unnameable — and the Times never asked.

Second, and even more important, however, is allowing any priority — including diversity — to trump responsibility to readers, who frankly don’t notice — or much care about — bylines. The Times has been particularly vulnerable on this score. Its track record on hiring minorities in the newsroom has never been a bragging point. It’s always been easier to champion affirmative action than to implement it.

The 27-year-old Blair was fast-tracked since he came to the Times in 1998 as part of an internship program designed to improve the paper’s racial diversity. He had studied at the University of Maryland, but didn’t graduate. He also had done interning at the New York Times -owned Boston Globe . Those are credentials? Reporters at papers much less prestigious than the Times often begin their careers at weeklies and small dailies to learn the journalistic ropes. It can be as humbling as it is educational. Journalists need both.

Blair bypassed such incubators and crucibles — and was soon carving out a reputation for errors, suspect skills and immaturity. But he seemed to have enough enablers, including a black managing editor who apparently acted as a mentor.

The Times readily admits that Blair’s duplicity was a betrayal of trust to readers and acknowledges a need to “examine the newsroom’s processes for training, assignment and accountability.”

What the Times also should have admitted was that it was using Blair. His “scoops” were giving him an increasingly high-profile. He started to appear on camera as well as on page one. He was becoming a promotional coup and a marketing tool. Blair was proof positive that the Times wasn’t just kick-butt aggressive, but it was also “walking the walk” of inclusion.

Ultimately the Times did Blair no favors by allowing him to bypass a meaningful apprenticeship. Worse yet, it ill served the other 375 reporters at the Times, as well as journalists everywhere — especially all hard-working, lower-profile, highly competent newsroom minorities who don’t have to weave a trail of deception to get noticed.

Moreover, the Times’ lousy faire attitude toward accountability only reinforced the troubling trend in the media for news reporters to morph into news celebrities. Ashleigh Banfield was bad enough.

Imagine, the Times expended more than 7,000 words to explain and apologize for itself — and still left stuff out.

Kudos to Mayor Pam Iorio for wooing Paul Wilborn back home to be point man for the creative arts. Wilborn’s appointment as city manager for creative industries underscores the mayor’s commitment to promoting artists as well as a cultural arts district.

Wilborn, currently a senior writer for the Associated Press in Los Angeles, was previously a prominent and popular journalist on both sides of Tampa Bay. He is also a talent on stage and in front of a piano. Look for Wilborn to be a good fit with the creative set.

Many will also look for the return of Paul Wilborn and the Pop Tarts.

Mayor Pam Iorio’s newly appointed communications director, Susanna Martinez, says she won’t have a problem going from television reporter to city official. The former Bay News 9 political reporter is certainly to be taken at her word. Her words, however, included this curious comment to a reporter about her transition to City Hall: “I think a lot of what I do as a journalist is public relations.”

Whatever.

In its recent “developer-mayor” editorial, the St.Petersburg Times made much of outgoing Tampa Mayor Dick Greco’s “loose and forgiving managerial style.” That certainly is true, even if the assessment that the last Greco years were “the most ethically compromised administration in modern times” seems overly harsh.

But to attribute much of Pam Iorio’s impressive mayoral win to being the un-Greco is simply a simplification. As is the assertion that Greco, however enamored of large-scale projects, was personally polarizing “between business and neighborhood needs, between affluent and struggling areas of town.”

Iorio may be the antithesis of polarization, but that is not what catapulted her to victory. Here’s why she was elected.

First, the competition. Irascible Charlie Miranda was too provincial. Blindly ambitious Bob Buckhorn was truly too polarizing. Newly arrived Frank Sanchez was too na

It may be a “whole new ball game” from the Tampa Bay Devil Rays’ perspective, but there remain some hauntingly familiar signs of past failures. Lou Piniella is now on board, but the hitting still looks awful and the losses, albeit of the Grapefruit League variety, continue to mount.

Incredulously enough, General Manager Chuck LaMar continues to retain his job.

There’s also evidence that the Rays can still be ham-handed in their approach to the media and public relations. Witness the Rays’ retaliation against WFLA-TV Channel 8 for airing a clip–with audio–showing Piniella going ballistic in the dugout. The Rays claim the audio was included without authorization.

The Rays have a point, but it’s pointless to take it out on the affiliate’s reporters who had nothing to do with the third-party feed incident. The team is not expediting interviews and other courtesies to Channel 8 reporters as it does with the other affiliates. “I don’t trust their news judgment,” sniffed Rays Vice President Rick Vaughn.

As a result, WFLA has now filed a complaint with Major League Baseball about the Rays’ petulant, retaliatory actions. Moreover, the station also alleges that Vaughn threatened its sports anchor J.P. Peterson. Ironic that the Vaughn who goes on the offensive is Rick–not Greg.

Two things: First, the Rays’ need all the local media coverage they can get. They can get in the face of WFLA news director Forrest Carr without, in effect, hurting themselves. Second, the Rays apparently didn’t recognize a PR coup when it was dumped in their lap.

Showing Piniella’s well-hyphenated tirade, which became an instant ESPN SportsCenter classic, was the sort of national exposure this team needs almost as much as major league hitting. When viewers, especially locals, heard “That kind of bleeper-bleeping stuff is why you lose a 100 bleeping games a year around here,” they didn’t so much think of just a lousy team. That clip said, in no uncertain, vintage Piniella terms: “Lou’s on the case; he’ll kick some ass; and don’t expect this loser tag to last much longer.”

Leave it to the Rays to turn a coup into crap. In fact, there’s something else for Lou to address in his inimitable style.

One more thing: wouldn’t you love to see Chris Thomas back at Channel 8 right now?

The recent mayoral debate on Channel 10 was memorable more for its reporter questions than its candidate answers.

For openers, moderator Mike Deeson, in the name of pinning down candidates Pam Iorio and Frank Sanchez for specifics, made an intrusive pest of himself. Prime example: the voters were done no favor by his insistence on pursuing the non-issue of the all-male Ye Mystic Krewe through countless, fruitless follow-ups.

Sanchez finally had to remind the Channel 10 reporter that except for some media types, nobody thought this was a relevant issue. Not last month when it was “news.” Certainly not now. The resulting applause was not unlike the derisive clapping aimed at a pitcher with control problems who finally throws a strike.

To take the baseball metaphor one step further, the best-umpired games are the ones where fans are barely aware there are umpires. The players are the game.

In an extension of its aggressive marketing, the St.Petersburg Times , the co-sponsor with WTSP, offered up two of its columnists, Mary Jo Melone and Ernest Hooper, to question the candidates.

Melone came out of the blocks by querying them about their commitment to ethics. Not surprisingly, they were both very committed.

Melone, who had to know Sanchez would get her question first, framed it with a cheap shot. She prefaced the ethics issue by trashing Dennis Alvarez, the former chief judge of the Hillsborough Circuit Court, who is a Sanchez supporter. She then asked if there were a place for “a man like Alvarez in your administration.”

As for Hooper, the thinking must have been: “Why assign a black columnist to the panel if he isn’t going to ask minority-related stuff?” He asked nothing but. One of them had to do with the city hiring a “minority liaison” person — in effect a token. Nice, ironic touch.

The upshot was neither candidate would bite, preferring to cite the need to have a meaningfully diverse administration.

Granted, Iorio and Sanchez weren’t exactly Lincoln and Douglas, but they deserved better than they got. Perhaps no talk-radio hosts were available.