DARTS
The Darts & Laurels column is written by Gloria
Cooper, CJR's managing editor, to whom nominations should
be addressed.
SHOCKED!
SHOCKED!
While
the struggle goes on to hold the time-honored lines between news,
opinion, and gossip against the mounting forces of blur, one Utah
daily appears to have thrown in the towel and erased those lines
altogether. In an editorial headed "You Just Never Know . . .
," the Logan Herald Journal took it as its journalistic
responsibility to reveal "a situation that we think needs to see
the light of day, even if only partially." The "situation" it
reported involved "a well-paid public employee" . . . who is "generally
competent and friendly, if a bit quirky," who "every two or thee
weeks . . . pays a visit to a reclusive woman in a central Logan
apartment" . . . from "beyond the walls" of which "can be heard
hours of loud slapping sounds and blood-curdling screams" that
can only be interpreted "as some warped, sadomasochistic ritual."
Lest readers suspect that the revelation -- from an unnamed source
who does "business in the office" where this unnamed man in a
"public position" works -- was presented "for the sake of gossip"
or "to satisfy prurient interests," The Herald Journal hastened
to assure them that it had only the purest of motives. "At least
now you know our community is not immune to such things," the
paper concluded self-righteously, "and that they don't always
involve people you would immediately suspect of such behavior."
Oh.
DUBIOUS
DECISIONS; DETAILS AT SIX . . .
.
. . by WTVJ-TV, Miami. In pursuit of drop-dead sweepsweek ratings,
the NBC o-and-o undertook what might have been a legitimate exposé
of a local chain of funeral homes. But the way the story was handled
raised so many grave questions that it took on another life. For
one thing, the series didn't mention that the reporter on the
series, one Alicia Ortega, was the less-than-disinterested daughter
of a former supplier to the chain who had been involved in a bitter
business dispute with its owner. For another, the series kept
secret the identity, not to mention the questionable motivation,
of the dramatically disguised fellow on-screen who was accusing
the chain of health violations -- but who, as reported by Tristram
Korten in Miami New Times, was readily recognized by former
co-workers as having been fired for actions that the owner claimed
had caused a particularly troublesome violation.
.
. . by KTNV-TV, Las Vegas. Like many other states, Nevada has
a shield law -- achieved through no small effort on the part of
its press -- that protects journalists from having to disclose
confidential information gathered in the course of their work.
And like many news organizations in other states, most in Nevada
subscribe to the principle that whatever muscle its shield law
has must be exercised with vigor to retain its strength. That
principle, however, appears to be lost on KTNV. There in court,
reported an outraged Thomas Mitchell in his Las Vegas Review-Journal
column, was the ABC affiliate's Kathleen "Kit" Williams, taking
the stand with management's blessing to testify about her jailhouse
interview with a man accused of killing one woman and crippling
another while driving under the influence. And there on that sweepsweek's
evening's news was star reporter/star witness Williams again,
shown on the stand while the anchor boasted about her exclusive.
Concluded Mitchell contemptuously, "What price ratings?"
SPARE-THE-HORSES NEWS Question:
How can readers tell the difference between a harmless piece of
amusing fluff and one that purposefully aims to undercut harmful
criticism of its subject? Answer: they can't -- at least not in
the case of The Wall Street Journal's page-one feature
about the American Humane Association's film and television unit,
a little-known group responsible for monitoring the treatment
of animals that appear in domestic productions. Headlined as hollywood
sharks can attest, they wouldn't hurt a fly -- insects receive
star treatment under aha's careful eye, the March 29 profile was
a public relations dream, a tribute to the watchdog group's conscientious
application of its "zero tolerance" policy, as demonstrated by
the laughable lengths the group will go to in protecting roaches,
ants, and flies. Curiously, only six weeks before, in a page-one
article headlined questions raised about group that watches out
for animals in movies, the Los Angeles Times had documented
incident after incident in which horses were horrifically maimed
or killed or inhumanely trained on the sets of films, many of
which nonetheless carried the AHA's "no-animals-were-harmed" seal
of approval. The Times article dug further, exploring the
conflicts of interest apparent not only in the relationship between
the organization and the major studios that fund it, but also
in the personal relationships between key personnel in the film
unit and the trainers they oversee. Such issues didn't faze the
Journal. In the twenty-fourth paragraph of its twenty-six
paragraph treat, it threw a bone to the Times's earlier
disclosures. "Last month the association drew fire after a Los
Angeles Times article suggested it's sometimes slow to criticize
cases of animal mistreatment," the Journal noted dismissively.
"The association says the report blew out of proportion a few
isolated accidents, including some that occurred on overseas movies
where it has no jurisdiction." No flies on The Wall Street
Journal!
