One More Reason Why People Don't Trust the Media

[NYC Street]

LOS ANGELES — When Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt negotiated with People and other celebrity magazines this summer for photos of their newborn twins and an interview, the stars were seeking more than the estimated $14 million they received from the deal. They also wanted a hefty slice of journalistic input — a promise that the winning magazine’s coverage would be positive, not merely in that instance but into the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/business/media/21angelina.html?hp

People is owned by Time Warner...they're the same people who own CNN. And they're not the only ones doing this kind of thing.

As far as the audience goes, People is the same as CNN. The New York Post is the same as Fox. MSNBC is the same as NBC, etc., etc., etc.

With what dinosaurs like me call journalistic integrity continuing to erode through deals, advertorials, intentional slanting and similar nonsense, is it any wonder that people are looking elsewhere for news?

[John M.]

I'm afraid you're giving people who read People magazine far too much credit. The bigger problem is that too many of them get all the news they read from outlets like People magazine.

[Rosenblum]

Dear Street

You raise an interesting question, and the People Mag story is but the most egregious example. Others are far more subtle.

Many years ago I did a long story for CBS News on a place called Gun Valley in Connecticut, home of Smith/Wesson and other makers of handguns. What I discovered in doing the story was that the people who worked in those places took their craft (and I call it that on purpose) very seriously. They considered themselves artisans and craftsmen, and took their jobs, and the matter of guns very seriously.

They were hesitant to let CBS News in, but I promised them a fair piece, about them. There had been one of those school automatic weapons shoot ups and that was what triggered (so to speak) the assignment. I cut a very favorable piece - favorable to the industry and the people in the factories.

The EP tore it to shreds. Where's the automatic weapons? Where's the mad killers on the loose? It's not scary enough. It's pro gun!!!

I left not long after that.

Today on CNN they did a piece on MacDonald's new 'sell french fries as a healthy food' campaign. MacDonald's, i am sure, is a major advertiser on CNN. The piece was slanted towards MacD's, but when they came back to the studio, the chatter was open. "I never eat those, they're disgusting" said one of the anchors. OOPS!!! you could see the look of horror on everyone's face. "I love them" popped the reporter in the interconnect. "I used to love them when I was a kid" retorted the anchor. "All kids love them"

One can only imagine the discussion in Jon Klein's office.

[Paper Trail]

Q & A with Michael Rosenblum (http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=281407-1)

watch here (http://www.q-and-a.org/Program/?ProgramID=1205)

[Spike]

As far as the audience goes, People is the same as CNN. The New York Post is the same as Fox.

I think you're wrong about that. I doubt very many people know that People and CNN are connected.

[adam & doctor drew]

I doubt very many people know that People and CNN are connected.

I didn't.

[2:30]

Many years ago I did a long story for CBS News on a place called Gun Valley in Connecticut, home of Smith/Wesson and other makers of handguns. What I discovered in doing the story was that the people who worked in those places took their craft (and I call it that on purpose) very seriously. They considered themselves artisans and craftsmen, and took their jobs, and the matter of guns very seriously.

They were hesitant to let CBS News in, but I promised them a fair piece, about them. There had been one of those school automatic weapons shoot ups and that was what triggered (so to speak) the assignment. I cut a very favorable piece - favorable to the industry and the people in the factories.

The EP tore it to shreds. Where's the automatic weapons? Where's the mad killers on the loose? It's not scary enough. It's pro gun!!!

So you're admitting you wrote an unbalanced piece, intentionally, and then complaining that you were ripped for not doing it down the middle?

Lucky you left. If you'd been working for me you'd have been fired - not for doing something that portrayed those who work in the factory as caring about their craft, but for not focusing on their reaction to whatever horror of the moment - Columbine or whichever prompted the assignment.


Today on CNN they did a piece on MacDonald's new 'sell french fries as a healthy food' campaign. MacDonald's, i am sure, is a major advertiser on CNN. The piece was slanted towards MacD's, but when they came back to the studio, the chatter was open. "I never eat those, they're disgusting" said one of the anchors. OOPS!!! you could see the look of horror on everyone's face. "I love them" popped the reporter in the interconnect. "I used to love them when I was a kid" retorted the anchor. "All kids love them"

One can only imagine the discussion in Jon Klein's office.

There are bad stories done everywhere. Sounds like this is another of them. CNN is hardly what I'd call a great news organization. That they're pandering to an advertiser (if that's what they're doing) is disgusting, but, sadly, par for the course.

Have you heard the medical stories sponsored by drug companies or hospitals? Ever notice that the people interviewed tend to have some association with the hospital/sponsor?

[BreakingNews]

Just because a celebrity gossip magazine pays does not mean a television news operation within the company also pays for coverage. For the most part I see a very big line between television news and tabloid magazines... for now at least.

[Rosenblum]

Dear 2:30

You raise an interesting question about the whole business. It's this notion of 'balanced' and 'down the middle'.

I once did a story for MacNeil/Lehrer about life in a Palestinian Refugee Camp. I spent a month in the camp and did a 7 minute piece about what life in the camp was like. (It sucks. really sucks). When they screened it, Robt McNeil said to me "there is no balance here. Where is the Israeli side of the story?"
I replied that I was only showing what the average Palestinian saw and lived every day. If you want to understand why they strap bombs to themselves, look at how they live. He had me interview some flack from the Israeli embassy in NY and slip in his comments through the whole piece. "yes.. but, yes...but". It was this that struck me a journalistically invalid. The piece as a whole told one story. They have an hour every night in which to balance the reporting overall. I don't think it benefits to have every piece balanced, in fact, it leads to a kind of oatmeal journalism - mealy. tepid.

As well, we only 'balance' when we choose to balance. I note that very few pieces on the air give Osama bin Laden's point of view - although he clearly has one. Stories about Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait rarely if ever gave his perspective on the Kuwaiti invasion (the Kuwaiti Royal Family shut off his access to the Shat al'arab). We preferred 'madman'... so much easier. When we reported on Soweto we never ever gave balance to Praetoria's point of view.

You see my point.

So no, I don't think 'down the middle' tells a very good story at all. Nor is it good journalism.

Ever watch 'Harvest of Shame', the Edward R. Murrow/ Fred Friendly classic?

Not much 'down the middle' reporting there, is there? None.

Ever see Murrow's classic attack on McCarthy. A whole hour devoted to slashing Joe McCarthy. At the end, Murrow says, 'we invite the Senator to respond'.

Now that was journalism. Not oatmeal.

[wx or not]

So you're admitting you wrote an unbalanced piece, intentionally, and then complaining that you were ripped for not doing it down the middle?
Let me ask you: In what context is journalism supposed to take no sides on any issue? Journalism, by its very nature, is the exposition of stories that may have otherwise gone unnoticed. In that exposition, a side must be presented; otherwise, one is left with a "blah" report that does not cause action. And that is where journalism, if done properly, shines. When the populace is engaged to take action because something was not previously known, then the journalist has done his/her job well. If reports, from credible news organizations, are provided in a side-by-side comparative, the reader or viewer is left to decipher the message. To decipher is not the purpose of journalism. To cause others to take notice and possible change their daily regimen because of a report, that is good journalism.

[Spike]

Let me ask you: In what context is journalism supposed to take no sides on any issue?

In any context.

You're flat wrong about presenting only one side of the issue. The purpose of journalism is not to tell people what to think, or to imply it by one-sided reporting. The purpose of journalism to give the reader/viewer information to form his own opinions. A viewer can't make an informed opinion if he only has one side of the story.

And as for Rosenblum, trotting out a few extreme exceptions does not negate the rule. Nice try, Hitler.

[s'news]

People and CNN are connected? How long have they been dating? Are there pictures?

[wx or not]

You're flat wrong about presenting only one side of the issue. The purpose of journalism is not to tell people what to think, or to imply it by one-sided reporting. The purpose of journalism to give the reader/viewer information to form his own opinions. A viewer can't make an informed opinion if he only has one side of the story.

Spike, I disagree. As journalists, reporters are not telling people what to think, but to think at all. In today's world, with little time for fleshing out details, giving both sides to a story leaves no devotion to the story itself, just cursory points. I do agree with you, in that we wish to give the reader/viewer info to form opinions, but we must cause that person to investigate further. If both sides are presented fairly, and any additional info just clouds the issue, then you are right. Show both sides. However, in cases that require more research, the reporter can never provide all information.

[Rosenblum]

In my opinion (for what it is worth) the very best journalism aspires to teach, to educate and to inform.

Teaching and educating are not grounds for 'then again on the other hand'.

If you read work by some of the greatest journalists (let's take David Halberstam as an example, as I am looking at The Best and the Brightest and The Reckoning as I write this.. and next to it is A Bright and Shining Lie by Neil Sheehan, these are great works of journalistic achievement. They are in depth and deeply researched. Yet they are not 'balanced'. They aspire to educate.

And education implies that there is knowledge to be imparted on one side, and to be absorbed on the other. If you read Fire in the Lake by Francis Fitzgerald, she clearly says: This is fact.

this is not... then again on the other hand.. stuff...

And that is what makes for great journalism

When the New York Times published The Pentagon Papers, it did not offer the Nixon Administration an opportunity to 'balance' the report. That is the stuff that wins Pulitzer Prizes.

When Teddy White reported on Hitler (since you make your vile comparison), he did not say 'on the other hand, der Fuhrer may have a case in saying that the Jews destroyed Germany', though that would have been balanced.

'Balanced reporting' is oatmeal.

Boring, bland and uncertain. It is a great retreat for the frightened.

[2:30]

My point here is pretty simple. It isn't even inadequate to do a post Columbine bounce about people working in a gun factory that simply reports on the fine technique applied by people with years of experience to the hand crafting of weapons. That isn't to say that every story has to give equal time to both (or more) sides - it's simply to say that you can't adequately tell the story without some discussion, somewhere, of what the other side is.

Rosenblum: I once did a story for MacNeil/Lehrer about life in a Palestinian Refugee Camp. I spent a month in the camp and did a 7 minute piece about what life in the camp was like. (It sucks. really sucks). When they screened it, Robt McNeil said to me "there is no balance here. Where is the Israeli side of the story?"

Perfect example. A story about life in a Palestinian refugee camp isn't going to have a huge "Israeli side" - but presumably you encountered some anti-Israeli feeling or teaching. That's the perfect point in which to provide some balance or perspective...or, perhaps there could or should have been a second piece offering that perspective.

In what context is journalism supposed to take no sides on any issue? Journalism, by its very nature, is the exposition of stories that may have otherwise gone unnoticed. In that exposition, a side must be presented; otherwise, one is left with a "blah" report that does not cause action. And that is where journalism, if done properly, shines. When the populace is engaged to take action because something was not previously known, then the journalist has done his/her job well. If reports, from credible news organizations, are provided in a side-by-side comparative, the reader or viewer is left to decipher the message. To decipher is not the purpose of journalism. To cause others to take notice and possible change their daily regimen because of a report, that is good journalism.

An example of how it's done well from this weekend. You're an ex-CBS guy, so you probably still watch 60 Minutes. Scott Pelley's story on the raid on the South African nuclear plant offered both sides - allowing the plant execs and the South African government to explain their position. That their position seemed stupid wasn't Pelley's fault...they said what they said.

Same thing with Couric/Palin.

Going in with a perspective is a problem. Promising a prospective story subject a specific perspective in a finished piece is a disaster.

It may be that a story comes out showing that action is necessary to fix a problem. I recall a story NYC Street did that I cleared for air regarding a systemic failure at a child welfare agency. There wasn't a real position to be taken in favor of the conduct of the agency...but there was an agency "comment" (though it wasn't much of a comment.)

But those stories are rare. The rule is simple - if what your personal position or belief is can be figured out by watching your story, you're screwing up.

[Diggin' Bear]

I'll give you a example of what Rosenblum is talking about:

I did a three part series on gambling.

In part one, I talked to the people who brought legal casinos to the Mississippi Gulf Coast. (mind you, I said legal. They admitted it was there all along, but without the glitz/glamour/tax receipts to the government)

In that piece, I chose to highlight the local 30 MILLION dollar high school complex built almost completely with tax money generated from the casinos. I pointed out that the school had so much money, they wired the entire place for computers, and that it was so complex the library was ONE room with old style books. The school's computer program was so state-of-the-art the kids built their own machines, originally with the goal of placing one computer for every three kids. The casinos heard about the project and provided funding for one computer for every kid - and they took them home!

The local high school team played on astroturf that rivaled any D-1 team, and the stadium held 15k fans without pushing the limits. The drivers' ed class had new cars. The 'home ec' department didn't just do 'home ec.' They taught hotel hospitality and large-scale cooking.

In other words, the 'trickle-down' effect of gambling extended into developing a workforce.

The Anti-Gambling crowd HOWLED after part one, saying I was one sided.

IN part two, we interviewed a local banker who got addicted to throwing craps, and swindled his own company out of 400-thousand dollars to feed the habit. He's lost his family and he's headed for federal prison. We also pointed out the surge in 'lowlife' businesses like pawn shops, and we looked at the increase in property and vice crimes that came along with gambling. Drug use skyrocketed, and the local cocaine scene boomed.

The Pro-Gambling crowd HOWLED, saying I was one-sided.

IN part three, I looked into the past hidden world of gambling that eventually cost a lot of people their families and saw an attorney general assassinated. I pointed out that gambling was there all along, and that people's lives were still affected by those outside factors - that the only thing different was that employment was low, that tax collections were low, that education was abysmal, that many people chose to leave.

I drew NO conclusions - but said it was up to everyone to do the math for themselves to decide if the overall increase in good was worth the overall increase in the bad.

Nobody howled then.

So....if you do it right, IMO, you can do a one-sided story as long as you make an effort to follow it up with another. That's where you get 'balance.' It's not watering down either point of view. It's providing more sunshine to allow all points of view their time at the forefront.

[Head Janitor]

A past News Director told me, 'You know you're doing the right thing, when both sides are mad at you.'

[Chicago Dog]

In my opinion (for what it is worth) the very best journalism aspires to teach, to educate and to inform.

Nothing. It's worth absolutely nothing. I find it very, very funny that you still believe you have any sort of valid opinion when it comes to journalistic integrity and trust.

Remember when you incorrectly and recklessly accused me of being anti-semitic? I asked you to show me where the supposed comments on b-roll.net/forum were. Not surprisingly, you never responded.

Further, I'd love to hear you explain this one:

But beside all the things we already knew about MR, there were some revelations that really shocked me, the most disappointing was that Rosenblum lives a life of lies. For years he told everybody that his father is a retired high ranking Army officer and that Rosenblum as a child grew up on Army posts following where his father was stationed. This entire lie was in response and an attempt to undermine my Army experience after I served for 3 years as a photographer during the Vietnam War. Well, last nigh it turned out that Rosenblum grew up in a small community in Long Island and his father was an insurance salesman. You can’t sink any lower as a human being when you start lying about your own flesh and blood to make yourself look important.

Full thread available here (http://www.b-roll.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22274).

Shove a cork in it (and up it, while you're at it), Mikey. You have no valid input here. You're a sleazeball of a businessman. You are what's wrong with this industry.

[Rosenblum]

Dear Jelly
I believe you will find your answer here:
http://rosenblumtv.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/service/

Now, go get yourself some help. You have a very very unhealthy fixation.
also.. get yourself a job.
far too much spare time on your hands.

[News Is Broken]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v418/Kace-BTT/popcorn_smiley.gif

[wx or not]

This show isn't Pay Per View, is it?

[News Is Broken]

This show isn't Pay Per View, is it?

No but it was shot on tiny little news cameras placed in news stations all over the country.

[Rosenblum]

stand by boys....
last time he was a no show in Chicago
no refunds.

[News Is Broken]

How about some idle conversation to pass the time, Mike? Tell us about KRON and WKRN. How's the VJ thing going out there?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v418/Kace-BTT/popcorn_smiley.gif

[Rosenblum]

VJ thing is going pretty well everywhere. Lots of stations and networks picking it up. You see it more and more. Gannett is a big fan. ABC using it for overseas. I think you'll see lots more in the next 6 months. Also getting lot of traction in newspapers, of all places. Can't complain.

[News Is Broken]

VJ thing is going pretty well everywhere. Lots of stations and networks picking it up. You see it more and more. No surprise there. Hey, also getting lot of traction in newspapers, of all places.

But what about KRON and WKRN? How's it working out for them? Are they still in last place? How much money did it save them? How much more money have they made by using it? How many awards have they won because of it? And so on.

I mean, I figure anyone procuring your services (or rather, "lots" of anyones, allegedly) might appreciate some details of your prior track record before getting out their checkbook.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v418/Kace-BTT/popcorn_smiley.gif

[Chicago Dog]

What a laugh! Seriously -- give me a second. I'm going to burst a gut here. Pant, pant! You constantly refer to me as "jellyfish," but you don't have the balls to talk about your incorrect anti-semitism accusation directed at me!

Get your sack out of your safe deposit box and face the music about your lame attempt at getting me to shut up because you slung an anti-semitism accusation at me. I'm not the only person you tried to smudge with that bull****. The same goes for your lawsuit "threats." You've got the tactics of a playground bully.

Do you really expect me to take your hilarious blog as an answer? A blog entry -- written by you? How is something you wrote in your blog supposed to hold any resemblance of truth whatsoever? How is it that you can actually believe anyone will take anything you have to say as truth?

What, after such hilarious screw-ups as the "messiahs don't come cheap" post over at b-roll (http://www.b-roll.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8705)?

Mike, did you really say this?

Mr. Rosenblum would not disclose his consulting fee, beyond saying, "Messiahs don't come cheap."

No. It is full of misquotes and non quotes. I never say "local news sucks"... on the other hand, I always say "TV sucks". He makes me look MUCH worse than I am. Also, I wear black suits, not blazers.

I should note that Mr. Stoll never interviewed me, although he quotes me at length, often out of context, particularly with respect to the union negotiations. Some pretty bad journalism here for an article about journalism.

Mr. Rosenblum may dispute the context of the quotes, but he cannot deny the fact of the interview. There are at least half a dozen witnesses who work at KRON who could verify that I talked with him. He and I met on the newsroom floor after I interviewed Chris Lee, the news director, for about half an hour in his office. Mr. Rosenblum then took me upstairs in the elevator for a 10-15 minute private conversation in an office he was using. I have the notes from that conversation transcribed on my computer, if anyone is interested in more quotes.

Mea Culpa.
He did interview me.
I did not remember it.
I may not have the most popular opinions in the business, but I always do try to be as straightforward as possible. This was a mistake on my part.

That, and your silent refusal to talk about your incorrect accusation that I'm anti-semitic.

Yet, you somehow think some crappy entry in your blog is going to sway public opinion about you? Look in the mirror, slimeball. You are the textbook definition of what's wrong with this business, and you have no business lecturing others about journalism and truth. You're an opportunistic leech.

Stop making me laugh, you blowhard sack of crap.

[TVMattNYC]

Let me ask you: In what context is journalism supposed to take no sides on any issue? Journalism, by its very nature, is the exposition of stories that may have otherwise gone unnoticed. In that exposition, a side must be presented; otherwise, one is left with a "blah" report that does not cause action. And that is where journalism, if done properly, shines. When the populace is engaged to take action because something was not previously known, then the journalist has done his/her job well. If reports, from credible news organizations, are provided in a side-by-side comparative, the reader or viewer is left to decipher the message. To decipher is not the purpose of journalism. To cause others to take notice and possible change their daily regimen because of a report, that is good journalism.

Giving "both sides" to a story is not necessarily journalism.

We are paid to be TRUTH SEEKERS.

Believe it or not, quite often only one of those sides is the TRUTH.

[News Is Broken]

Darn, we seem to have run out of popcorn and Rosenblums. I want my money back.

[Rosenblum]

Like I said Jelly...
you have a very unhealthy fixation.
Get help man.
You are sick.

[News Is Broken]

WKRN? KRON? Updates? Bueller? Bueller?

Sigh. First my annual cold and now this. Life is rife with disappointments.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

KRON? I had a colleague offered a Chief Met job there not too long ago for $90,000! I'm not sayin' 90 is bad money....it's great money....except when you do the math for cost of living, etc.

[Chicago Dog]

Like I said Jelly...
you have a very unhealthy fixation.
Get help man.
You are sick.

I pointed out that you're the absolute last person on the planet that should be offering up advice about truth and journalism.

You can only offer a piss-ass retort. How predictable.

Thanks for proving my point.

[2:30]

Word is that Rosenblum's been hawking his wares to a very receptive and almost broke Gannett. Apparently he'll do for them exactly what he did for Young.

Make a bad situation worse.

[s'news]

If it gets a job done in an efficient manner...

[News Is Broken]

I got a PM from Rosenblum over the holiday to answer my questions about KRON. Now I know divulging a PM is considered bad manners so I'll just paraphrase: VJ is a success at KRON because it saved them SO MUCH MONEY that the station was able to keep operating instead of going black, and that will impress management.

No. Sh*t. Sherlock.

All that's left after you've implemented VJ is to replace the staffers with $8 an hour rookies who think shooting up the noses of your subjects without tripods on a FisherPrice handycam, cutting it at a starbucks, voicing it yourself and doing daily turns this way is normal and you've got a clear picture of the future TV journalism. Aren't you glad you spent all that money on J-School so you could compete for jobs with people who can't even get your order right at the drive thru?

SO glad I left when I did. Thank you Baby Jesus, Oprah Winfrey and Tom Cruise for my good paying, Not-In-TV-News-Anymore job.

[WOS]

More and more stations don't care if they are #1 in the ratings. They only want to be #1 in profit margin. You'd be surprised how many stations are content being #2, #3 and so on, as long as they're maximizing their profit potential.....or maybe some of you wouldn't be surprised at all. To more and more stations, ratings are "over-rated."

[Chicago Dog]

I got a PM from Rosenblum over the holiday to answer my questions about KRON.

Me too! Instead of damage control, he sent me this (my manners are apparently far worse than yours):

Seriously,
you are mentally ill.
You need help.
Go seek it.
Seriously.

I don't think he understands what "mentally ill" means. I'm asking straightforward questions and posing very valid arguments that anyone with a set of balls would answer in public. What I'm doing doesn't make me "mentally ill."

Trying the same failure over and over and over again and expecting different results makes one mentally ill. The OMB/VJ system is an excellent example.

So, Mikey: balls. Got 'em?