“Second Chance” for Marriott

Nice to hear that the Tampa Organization of Black Affairs will hold its annual Martin Luther King Jr. breakfast at the Marriott Waterside. Less nice was a reference, as reported by Times’ columnist Ernest Hooper, of TOBA board member Ken Anthony. According to Anthony, TOBA was giving the hotel a “second chance” after last summer’s unfortunate, infamous and unfair punch bowl incident.

That travesty, lest you’ve forgotten, involved rumors of a white server maybe-possibly-ostensibly tainting a bowl of fruit punch that resulted in 800 attendees of the mostly black Progressive National Baptist Convention walking out on a pricey dinner. Nothing was ever proven except that Tampa is racially profiled — and vulnerable to race-card playing. The PNBC, after smearing a hotel’s reputation and assassinating the character of an employee, won’t comment — except to its attorneys.

“Second chance?” That gives effrontery a bad name. How about a “second chance” for those who walk out on a bill and then try to hold a city’s and a hotel’s reputation hostage to claims of racism? The Marriott, quite arguably, did nothing wrong except give the PNBC a “first chance.”

Editorially Speaking, This Says It All

No one, of course, would ever confuse the St. Petersburg Times with the Tampa Tribune. They don’t even cost the same. But let’s not bother to count the ways. For purposes of this discussion, let’s just talk editorial policy. The Times generally to the left; the Trib to the right.

Rarely, however, has there been such a blatant editorial juxtaposition as was evidenced in the newspapers’ respective takes on the Bay Area’s two high-profile, nationally noted firings: St. Petersburg Police Chief Mack Vines and USF Professor Sami Al-Arian.

The Times’ take: bouquets to Mayor Rick Baker for firing Vines over his “orangutan” reference and stinkweeds to USF for a “craven charade” in giving the heave-ho to Al-Arian.

The Trib’s take: an opposable thumb down to St. Petersburg for permitting “racial sensitivity” to “run amok.” And thumbs up to USF, which had “compelling reasons to fire” Al-Arian.

The Times backed Mayor Rick Baker’s decision to fire Vines in an editorial benignly headlined “Rebuilding trust.” As in “moving on” being the alternative to “second-guessing Baker.” As if second-guessing were the only option to “moving on.”

Baker, noted the Times, had acted “to heal a potentially serious rift in the community, not only between black residents and their police department, but also between white residents who expected continued progress in their city and a chief whose ability to provide such leadership had been brought under question.”

The issue, as summarized in the head, was all about trust — and community appeasement.

The Times even followed up with a subsequent editorial: “A City Getting Back To Work” — an obvious variation on the “moving on” theme.

“A few loose ends need to be gathered as St. Petersburg moves forward, but the operative word is ‘forward,'” opined the Times. “Despite an unhappy event in the Police Department, the city is still headed in the right direction.”

The Trib’s stand had all the subtlety of punch in the mouth. The politically correct episode was well beyond an “unhappy event.”

“Acute Racial Sensitivity Seems To Run Amok In St. Petersburg” read the headline. One wondered why the qualifier “seems.”

Baker’s firing of Vines was, according to the Trib, “a blazing display of oversensitivity or moral cowardice.” It lamented how “seemingly harmless expressions can turn into racial and ethnic tinderboxes.” The Trib also asked rhetorically if a similar “orangutan” reference, if uttered by either Goliath Davis, Vines’s immediate predecessor, or Tampa Police Chief Bennie Holder — both of whom are black — would have resulted in a firing.

No way the Times asks that question.

In its “USF’s charade” editorial, the Times got all over the university for the “dubious and dangerous arguments” it used to explain and expedite Al-Arian’s firing. In other words, Al-Arian was an embarrassing lightning rod for lousy — and disturbing — publicity.

His canning, said the Times, was couched in “flawed logic.” To wit: That Al-Arian violated his employment contract by failing to make clear that he doesn’t speak for USF; that he was an ongoing security concern; that he had violated an understanding by setting foot on campus; and that his controversial affiliation with USF was hampering recruiting and fundraising.

The cost of “getting rid of a nuisance now,” intoned the Times, “may have left the university vulnerable to much more serious encroachments on its academic integrity in the future.”

No such academic caveats were fashioned into the Trib’s editorial: “USF Gets Rid Of A Hatemonger.” Al-Arian’s “views are vicious,” stated the Trib, and he has sought “to raise funds for murderous Palestinian groups.”

In short, summarized the Trib, Al-Arian has “willfully allowed his political obsessions to unsettle, if not endanger, the entire university. He now is facing the consequences.”

And for good measure: “Good riddance.”

At least we know where they stand.

As for the St. Petersburg Police Force, it will only get worse. Racial agendas and politicized misperceptions are more than excused and encouraged. They are reinforced and rewarded. That genie’s not going back into the bottle any time soon. Certainly not while TyRon Lewis is still regarded as a “martyr.” It’s a mess in St. Petersburg, and spineless Mayor Baker made it messier.

As for USF, the balancing act between free speech, academic freedom and university tenure — and “Death to Israel” rhetoric and the founding of a sham Islamic studies institute still seems precarious to many. It’s not. Ivory tower types can unwad their shorts now.

Put it this way. If you’ve not hired, associated with or shilled for terrorists, you’re not likely to get fired over controversial positions. That’s the precedent.

Sami Al-Arrant

For a guy who won’t talk to his hometown newspaper, Sami Al-Arian gets more coverage in the Tampa Tribune these days than Bob Buckhorn, Ronda Storms and Luke Lirot. Sami, the poster boy for guilt-by-terrorist-association and misunderstood rhetoric and erstwhile punching bag of Bill O’Reilly, is, along with Mrs. A-A, a regular ranter in the Trib’s letters to the editor and guest columns. They may not like their coverage by the Trib — indeed, Sami terms it “fascist” — but they should have no complaints about the availability of a forum.

Curious juxtaposition last Monday (Dec. 10), though, between the Trib and the St.Petersburg Times.

The Trib did a page one, top of the fold, Metro piece — with color photo — on Al-Arian’s speech in Largo at an Amnesty International event. The Trib quoted extensively from his presentation that excoriated the Israeli government for its “terrorist” policies and reproved U.S. Attorney General “J. Edgar Ashcroft” for his heavy-handed approach to Arab-Americans and Muslims. Etc. Etc.

Interestingly enough, sibling TV station WFLA, Channel 8 also covered it and did a lengthy piece on Al-Arian’s speech the night before.

As for the Times, it didn’t cover it, although it ran a wire piece with file photo on page three of City & State the following day.

Could it be that predictable Palestinian polemics from Al-Arian are, well, less newsworthy to the Times than to the newspaper Sami won’t talk to?

Not necessarily.

“We either missed it or ignored it and then thought better about it the next day,” said Neville Green, the Times’ managing editor/Tampa.

Handling Heisman hype
Much of the annual media controversy over the Heisman Trophy can be easily reduced. Just change the eligibility criteria.

Being awarded to “The Outstanding College Football Player of the United States” is beyond broad. It invites controversy over offense and defense and hyped statistics piled up by non 1-A players. It also allows periodic bias toward underclassmen.

Here’s the new standard: “The best upper-classman/student athlete playing offense at the 1-A level.”

It means that the Heisman can truly represent the best in big-time college football, a sport too often beholden to commercial interests and double standards for impact athletes. It would officially encourage gifted players to continue through to their junior and senior years and attain something other than a degree of fame and/or fortune. It would preclude bogus students and criminals from being eligible.

By the way, Nebraska’s Eric Crouch was a wonderful choice. He may not be a great pro, but so what?

Drink to that?
Amid all the reaction and over-reaction to more restrictive laws during a national emergency, there’s a tendency in some quarters to hunt for laws that may actually be eased. The Tampa Tribune found some, which could be “eased in the name of logic and liberty.”

The Trib, in a recent editorial, zeroed in on business regulations that only a bureaucrat could love and the federal tax code that gives byzantine a bad name. Here, here.

But what’s with easing off the legal drinking age of 21? Just because it used to be 18, which matches the dubious legal age for voting, is not rationale enough. If you can’t handle the responsibility to vote, then you don’t, which is the case with most 18-21 year olds. Or you vote the way your parents or social studies teachers suggest. Democracy survives and you learn as you go.

But if you can’t handle liquor responsibly at 18, the consequences can be horrific and tragic. Especially on the road. That’s why the age limit was raised from 18 to 21 in the first place. Moreover, when the legal drinking age is lowered to 18, the ages of those trying to pass for 18 is commensurately lowered. Logic — and human nature — should tell us that.

A legal drinking age of 21 is obviously not a panacea for eliminating teen-aged drinking. A societal sanctioning of 18, however, is an invitation. To disaster.

No one should want to drink to that.

Vested interest
Product placement is nothing new to American movie fans. The pricey practice has even given rise to ethical questions, such as those involving tobacco products. But it’s perfectly legal, of course, and can be an effective way to promote a product in a high-profile, even positive, context.

Which brings us to The Protective Group, an American manufacturer of military and law-enforcement equipment that includes protective vests. The kind Osama bin Laden fancies.

Sure enough, one was on display in the infamous “Bin Laden, Done That” video the world has been watching. No mistaking the care-and-use label on the olive drab number featured in the video.

What to do? Two things.

First, express patriotic outrage.

“I am horrified that our enemies are using our products,” said Melvyn Miller, CEO of The Protective Group.

Second, make the best of it.

“On the other hand, I understand,” noted Miller. “If I had a $25-million bounty on my head, I would try to obtain the best protective product possible and get it between me and my enemies.”

Not exactly a textbook testimonial, but at least there’s no placement fee.

Vested interest

Product placement is nothing new to American movie fans. The pricey practice has even given rise to ethical questions, such as those involving tobacco products. But it’s perfectly legal, of course, and can be an effective way to promote a product in a high-profile, even positive, context.

Which brings us to The Protective Group, an American manufacturer of military and law-enforcement equipment that includes protective vests. The kind Osama bin Laden fancies.

Sure enough, one was on display in the infamous “Bin Laden, Done That” video the world has been watching. No mistaking the care-and-use label on the olive drab number featured in the video.

What to do? Two things.

First, express patriotic outrage.

“I am horrified that our enemies are using our products,” said Melvyn Miller, CEO of The Protective Group.

Second, make the best of it.

“On the other hand, I understand,” noted Miller. “If I had a $25-million bounty on my head, I would try to obtain the best protective product possible and get it between me and my enemies.”

Not exactly a textbook testimonial, but at least there’s no placement fee.

Drink to that?

Amid all the reaction and over-reaction to more restrictive laws during a national emergency, there’s a tendency in some quarters to hunt for laws that may actually be eased. The Tampa Tribune found some, which could be “eased in the name of logic and liberty.”

The Trib, in a recent editorial, zeroed in on business regulations that only a bureaucrat could love and the federal tax code that gives byzantine a bad name. Hear, hear.

But what’s with easing off the legal drinking age of 21? Just because it used to be 18, which matches the dubious legal age for voting, is not rationale enough. If you can’t handle the responsibility to vote, then you don’t, which is the case with most 18-21 year olds. Or you vote the way your parents or social studies teachers suggest. Democracy survives and you learn as you go.

But if you can’t handle liquor responsibly at 18, the consequences can be horrific and tragic. Especially on the road. That’s why the age limit was raised from 18 to 21 in the first place. Moreover, when the legal drinking age is lowered to 18, the ages of those trying to pass for 18 is commensurately lowered. Logic — and human nature — should tell us that.

A legal drinking age of 21 is obviously not a panacea for eliminating teen-aged drinking. A societal sanctioning of 18, however, is an invitation. To disaster.

No one should want to drink to that.

Media Self-Policing As Slain Officer’s Legacy

We’ve all had it happen in our communities, especially urban ones. A heretofore anonymous cop, otherwise taken for granted, is gunned down and a whole community is traumatized. In the media aftermath, we’re graphically reminded that a police officer’s life is a precarious one. Ask their wives. And their widows.

The other day we lost another one here in Tampa when a cornered bank robber shot Officer Lois Marrero three times in the neck and face. She never had a chance. The gunman then took a hostage in a nearby apartment, which was quickly surrounded by a SWAT team and a swarm of media. The killer eventually offed himself after hearing on TV that his victim had died. Fortunately the hostage escaped unscathed physically.

Tampa, unfortunately, has had more than its share of such murders. Three years ago the nation recoiled in horror when a piece of human flotsam named Hank Earl Carr, aided by a hidden handcuff key, shot two Tampa detectives at point blank range in a squad car. He later gunned down a Florida Highway Patrol officer before taking a hostage and then his own life.

During the hostage standoff, a Tampa Bay radio station managed to phone through to Carr. Outraged police had to, in effect, wait their turn before getting their negotiator’s call through. The result was a non-binding agreement between police and local media to “voluntarily restrict live coverage” in such circumstances.

This week’s death of Officer Marrero left a family shattered, a police force in mourning and a community aggrieved. She was, as we’ve come to realize, much more than badge number 327. She was one of us, only more giving, less fortunate — and much braver. Her tragic murder appropriately prompted memorials and eulogies to a heroic, fallen officer who had faithfully and courageously served her community — on and off the job — for two decades.

Her legacy is that selfless service for those 20 years. Gratitude, honor and tragedy will be synonymous with her memory.

And yet her legacy can also transcend her own considerable community contributions and the heavy-hearted precedent of being the first TPD female killed in the line of duty. This can happen if we reflect on more than Officer Marrero’s tragic slaying.

We can ask why a compact, semi-automatic submachine gun — the murder weapon — doesn’t even require a permit, but that’s part of another battle.

But we can also ask the electronic media — whose charge is to inform, especially where there’s a public safety issue — to do an even better job of policing itself on live coverage of scenarios such as hostage-taking homicides. Not all TV stations acquitted themselves well. The local ABC affiliate, for example, aired much of the action live and unconscionably released Officer Marrero’s identity before her family was notified. Her killer found out before her parents.

The nature of television, of course, is immediacy. And live video from a crime scene, one where human drama continues to unfold, is as compelling as TV ever gets. But “officer down” should always be more than a media all call, especially when other lives hang in the balance.

Yes, there is a non-binding agreement between the local media and law enforcement to restrict live coverage of volatile and fluid situations such as those involving hostages and would-be suicide cases. It asks the media not to show — or even describe — locations or actions during tactical operations. But that still permits wiggle room and allows for less-than-prudent decisions made in the heat of coverage. That, of course, cannot be avoided — absent the legislating of responsibility or the morphing into a police state.

But here’s a suggestion: Affix somewhere a copy of the public’s “Marrero Rights” on every news set, satellite van and helicopter. It would read:

*”Never confuse ‘just doing my job’ with doing the right thing.

*Never leave home, let alone the station, without your empathy.

*If I were a hostage, what would I most not want my captors to hear and see on TV?

*Sometimes less is more appropriate.

*In a breaking-news crisis, first priority is everyone’s safety — not the competition.

*Take the news seriously, but not yourself. However important our role in a free society, the public could care less who’s actually informing them.”

No, we haven’t seen the last officer, male or female, tragically fall in the line of duty. That danger is ever present and a variable we ultimately cannot control.

However, there is a variable we should be able to control. Media must never provide counterproductive, possibly life-threatening information — including the status of any wounded officers — to (cop-killing,) hostage-taking criminals with access to a TV set. But if a ratings-challenged station feels compelled to choose otherwise, please don’t do it under the self-serving guise of informing a public that would surely want to wait on the details given the circumstances — and trade-offs.

Election 2000: Not Networks’ Finest Hour

One final note about the bizarre, Byzantine business that was the election of the 43rd president of the United States. The networks need to clean up their act.

The misuse of exit polls and skewed early returns to project a Florida win for Vice President Gore — before folks in the Central Time Zone Panhandle had even finished voting — was unconscionable. “If you can’t be right, at least be first,” seemed the media mantra. Instead, it should be “First, do no harm.” Then the herd instinct kicked in, and everyone ran with the same irresponsibly incorrect information.

Here’s some advice: Leave the exit polling to political scientists, who don’t have to play beat the clock and conquer the competition. But, more importantly, remember who you are and what your function is in a democracy. To wit: Report the news and even analyze it. But don’t make the news. It’s not good for credibility; it shouldn’t be good for business; and it’s definitely not good for America.

Links Between Sausage And Political Conventions

As predicted, the Democrats answered the Republican Convention — stagecraft for stagecraft, defining-moment nominee speech for defining-moment nominee speech. Marketing mavens pitched the two major political parties. Whom we saw was what we got.

However, having watched both conventions, the Republican in person, I think it prudent to remember an applicable adage: some things are best viewed only as final products, for the process isn’t pretty. The list is short: laws, news, political conventions and sausage.

Sausage can speak for itself. As to the rest:

*The wheeling, dealing, back-scratching, horse-trading and quid pro quoing of politics is unseemly up close — regardless of the resultant law, from Jim Crow to Great Society. Compromise is too genteel a term.

*Deciding what is TV news is often a function of what doesn’t wind up on the cutting-room floor. Editing is critical, subjective, problematic and hurried. Ambush interviews and leading questions too often set up punchy, context-free sound bites. Print reporters’ trails and travails of inquiry are typically tedious and boring. Style, however, is as polite, ingratiating, deceptive, intimidating or beseeching as necessary to get the story — and get it first.

*Focusing on silly hats, infomercial ambience and hard news deficits is an inane intrusion into the essence of any convention — in-house cheerleading, incessant back-slapping, non-stop networking and, in this case, celebrity gawking. Unless you’re on assignment for People Magazine, this should be unworthy of media scrutiny.

The networks pretty much got it right by drastically curtailing their prime time coverage. They pared it back to a total of approximately 25 hours, which still left time for over-analysis. In Philadelphia, they largely focused on key elements of the final product — Colin Powell, John McCain, Dick Cheney, anybody named Bush and a couple of acceptance speeches. It was more challenging in Los Angeles where the Democrats were encumbered by Pacific Time and the need to spotlight a lot of Kennedys and a couple of Clintons.

Would that the rest of the media had adopted a relatively minimalist approach. PBS and cable networks CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Channel and C-SPAN combined for an additional 375 hours of TV tedium. Too many media — from multi-staffed daily newspapers and yada yada dot commies to celebrity talking heads — chasing too little substance. The result: inordinate attention paid to goofy garb and a continuous loop of pep rallies and schmoozing delegates — the sausage-making of any political convention.

In Philadelphia, for example, appearances by Bo Derek, still a near 10 despite some weird, faux-British accent, and The Rock, still a mixed-message mistake, seemed almost newsworthy for a party that is still celebrity challenged beyond Charlton Heston.

But just because the nominees have been pre-selected, platform planks pre-set and elephant hats prepared, doesn’t mean these quadrennial gatherings are nothing more than atavistic, pre-coronation exercises in pomp and partisanship — without much value.

“One of the biggest problems we have in this country is voter apathy,” opined Florida delegate Al Austin from the cacophonous floor of Philadelphia’s First Union Center. “An event like this is an opportunity to get people focused on the fact that there’s a presidential election coming up. It’s a way for voters to get aware and interested — and introduced to candidates.”

Austin, a Tampa developer, consummate insider and finance chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, also pointed out that, as with any convention — from hardware to pharmaceuticals — it’s the perfect forum to energize the troops to go forth and, well, sell.

“It fires these folks up and generates a lot of enthusiasm for carrying the message,” pointed out Austin. “If you’re a delegate, this is an honor. They feel like they’re a part of something big.”

Added University of South Florida political scientist Susan MacManus: “This convention is a reward for the county organizations, for those who labor in the trenches, for those who are the backbone of the party. These are the people who can make or break a campaign between now and November

Now playing: “Valessa: Poster Child for Parricide”

For those of us who have had enough of “Parenthood Vs. Politics: All Elian All The Time,” we’ve now been privy to “Valessa: Poster Child for Parricide.”

For those who can’t wait for the supermarket tabs, HBO and “48 Hours,” there have been the daily print and electronic news accounts. But even they, of course, couldn’t keep up with the sheer newsworthiness of Valessa Robinson’s notoriety nor the presumed demand for more details, both mundane and ghastly.

That’s why the St. Petersburg Times ran a serialized feature — during jury selection — on Valessa, the former Sickles High student who was on trial here in Tampa for helping her boyfriend and another chum to murder her mom in a particularly gruesome fashion. The Times’ multi-part report, teased on its newspaper racks and through tabloidy radio ads and available on its Website, was laid out colorfully with lots of photos — some relevant and in focus. (And yes, you can order extra copies of the series from the Times.)

Even columnists, need I say, have proven voyeuristically challenged in the process of decrying the media circus.

It’s not just the allure of the lurid, however, that makes us all stop and look — not unlike knee-jerk rubberneckers at an accident intersection. It’s the human fascination with the ultimate, unthinkable crime: killing the one who gave you life. Moreover, perpetrators, no matter how grizzly or senseless their crime, can morph perversely into a societal celebrity.

Thus we have, sensationally yet simply, “Valessa.” In this culture, someone has truly arrived as a media staple when they join that special pantheon of one-name personalities that includes Cher, Madonna, Sting, Hillary, Junior, Fidel and Jeb!.

Thanks to her public-defender attorney, Valessa Robinson was decked out demurely every trial day like Becky Thatcher looking for Tom Sawyer on the set of a slasher movie. Her defense team knew there was always the chance that a jury, especially one that claims it doesn’t know enough to be anything but impartial, would buy the child-victim makeover.

Too bad Valessa really wasn’t the preppy schoolgirl she so resembled. But that, of course, would have been boring and unworthy of the Jerry Springer Show, let alone a notorious, first-degree murder trial.