Monday, August 01, 2005

I Don't Like What I Just ...

A regular visitor to the site sent me a note saying she was very upset by seeing the obviously disturbed women who tried to hurt herself yesterday. She was upset by the video of her trying to elude police who were trying to help her. She wondered if the story was news, why her name was mentioned, especially since no charges were filed.

While I disagree with her that it wasn't news - officers were risking their lives to calm her and save her, and cameras were there - if something happens in front of you it's news.

What she asked was - if she didn't like something and called in to a station or newspaper, would anyone listen? I think in this case we'd politely listen but not really do much about it, or take it out of the next newscast.

What's the policy at various newsrooms around Portland? Should we help folks by giving a common email address or phone number? Newspapers have letters sections, but only publish a fraction, obviously.

How do we let viewers, listeners and readers know we truly do value their input? Or do we?

75 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

the fact is you are parasitic by nature

you selectivly omit or inculde just parts of a story

tom leykis, a very sucessful national radio talk show host (this is a career achievement no one in portland media can relate to) made this topic his program content today 8/1/05

tom identified the man, ken pinyen, who died having sex with a horse in Washington state. the local media in seattle is airing/printing this story over and over but not identifing the man. this is wrong as the media has no problem airing/printing the story for ratings purposes but won't release the name, yet the media has no problem identifing peole involved in other accidental deaths.

then tom went on to expose the la dodgers pitcher derrick lowe's extramarital affair and how the loacl la media is silent on the issue, especially since it involves a reporter for the dodgers who lowe is having the affair with. lowe's wife came on leykis show and confirmed all of this. yet the same wife of derrick lowe was silenced by the local media when she went to them about this story.

the ordinary person knows that you media people are clowns.

only amongst youselves, in your little exclusive clubby fraternity, are you something that matters

Monday, August 01, 2005 6:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

**sniff** I want a hug.

Monday, August 01, 2005 7:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom Leykis, now there's a model for you. following a deranged woman around with a camera would not be a shining moment in the history of journalism, though it might make good television, which is an entirely different matter. the equating of news with being in front of a camera is an astonishing standard. not sure who the truly deranged one is here...

Monday, August 01, 2005 7:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Doing or not doing a story and identifying or not identifying a suspect are judgment calls and you are not going to please everyone but when someone takes the time to comment on it you just listen, explain your rationale if the person actually wants to hear it, and 99 times out of 100 they feel like you did listen. The exceptions are jackasses like commenter 1, who have an axe to grind and aren't interested in an actual dialogue. The people who think the mainstream press doesn't matter have usually been convinced of it by members of the extreme partisan "echo chamber" pseudo-press who have an interest in making folks believe that the REAL "fair and balanced" people in fact are not.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 5:59:00 AM  
Anonymous Gal said...

Aiyiyi, what a question. What exactly are you getting at? Do you really think people don't know how to complain to Channel 8 if they want to? Come on. And in the O Sunday the public editor explained exactly how many letters they get (lots) and how many they publish (lots more than many papers). So, yup, Jane Public knows how to make her thoughts known if she wants to. Do news rooms care? I couldn't give you an opinion on the local TV news as I haven't watched it in the past 3 years. Apparently I am not the desired demographic. If I was the desired demographic, maybe there would be something on the TV news that was worth watching. Local TV news has no business covering national news because it's done so poorly it's not worth the trouble. I can get much better on the net. I'd watch TV news if the local stories were of interest, but they're not because they're also so poorly done. I'm not big on crime, or American Idol tryouts, and I'm not big on 30 seconds max on a topic no matter how complex. Who is the desired demographic for local TV news anyway?

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 6:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm dumbfounded by the news standard espoused by the esteemed ego-blogger "if something happens in front of you it's news."

The anonymous comment dismissing commenter #1 as a jackass only confirms the defensive, nasty response the media gives its critics.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 8:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...officers were risking their lives to calm her and save her"
That's not news... that's their job.

"and cameras were there - if something happens in front of you it's news." And that's the most immature, craven definition I've ever heard of news. It might be good TV, but it's not news.

Local media loudly proclaims the honor and necessity of their jobs, claiming (wrongly, I think) that its an honorable PROFESSION, rather than a job. But you have reduced yourselves to emotional whores and panderers.

The public's right to know has become the excuse for your right to show anything salacious or shocking. Your definition of news has been reduced to "what makes good visuals."

Every time I see a story like this, or watch a dozen cutaways to people auditioning for reality TV shows sponsored by that station (If Gimme the Mike is news, how come only one channel covers the story? Same for The Apprentice auditions, American Idol, etc etc etc.)it becomes obvious that what was once news is now just entertainment programming.

The only news show left on TV is The NewsHour.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 8:10:00 AM  
Blogger MAX Redline said...

Darn. I thought Tom Leykis was blessedly off the Portland airwaves; hadn't realized he'd slimed his way back in. Time to break out the salt, I guess.

But as GAL appropriately notes, "Local TV news has no business covering national news because it's done so poorly it's not worth the trouble. I can get much better on the net. I'd watch TV news if the local stories were of interest, but they're not because they're also so poorly done. I'm not big on crime, or American Idol tryouts, and I'm not big on 30 seconds max on a topic no matter how complex."

That sums things up nicely. When did "Give me the mike" become news? How about giving ME a break?

Unlike GAL, I actually do watch the news from time to time. It's rare, but it happens. Just last night, I caught KOIN's news that's to the pointless.

Of course, when I go to the zoo, I'll occasionally buy a hamburger or something. Just to keep my immunity up.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 8:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Imagine that your daughter, sister, niece or some other twentysomething close relation is already a little off kilter to begin with. Then something horrible happens to her (loss of job, sexual assault, death of family member, financial problems) and it’s just enough to push her over the edge. She is spotted wandering outside and “acting suspiciously” and someone calls the police. The police come and she freaks and tries to flee down a steep hill, putting in her in situation where the police have to now rescue her. After resisting their help for a while, she finally is brought to safety. When the police want to bring her to the hospital she resists again and is tackled to the ground while she screams in a panic. To top it all off – the “rescue” and tackling of this woman are broadcast on the 11 o’clock news in a report that mentions her first and last name. How would you feel?

I do not know the woman in question or her background, but she is somebody’s daughter. No criminal charges were filed against her and she was clearly in a vulnerable state emotionally. I think it is morally reprehensible for the local news to air this story and include her first and last name, especially when she has committed no crime. It’s exploitation of the innocent and possibly mentally ill for ratings.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 9:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

God.... guess we better shutter the cameras because heaven forbid we might capture an image of someone who is emotionally fragile.
Seriously, lets not kid ourselves, it was good tv, it happened in public, we got the video... and KGW got there late for the nice cliff shot.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 9:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's all that matters.. "It was good TV"... nothing to do with its value as news. "It happened in public and we got it on tape." That could apply to any number of antics that might make "good tv." There was a time when airing that video would have at least provoked a debate in the newsroom.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Joe Consumer said...

If you want to be honest about it, then don't call it "news". Call it "Good TV".

How does this disturbed woman effect my life? It doesn't.

How was this information used "for the common good" (as the FCC would phrase it)? It wasn't.


This is just one small, daily example of the difference between News and Entertainment. I have no problem with the content of Fox 12's crime-laden, 10 o'clock TV show. I have a problem with them calling it all News. The media is and always has blurred the line between news and entertainment. If it's not compelling, the people won't consume it. I get it. I also get that not all news is compelling. The lack of state political coverage is an example of that.

It's our job as the consumer to not just be force-fed the content media outlets feed us and believe it all as news. It's our responsibility as consumers to decide what is news to us, what impacts our lives and what is to be discarded.

This idea that someone they are not doing they're jobs but not just reporting the facts is silly. If the media, be it radio, TV, print, internet, ONLY gave you the facts, MOST of you wouldn't consume it.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

56% of Americans believe news organizations do NOT care about the people they report on-Pew Research, 2004. Anyone in the remaining 44% only need read some of these comments to be convinced otherwise.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guys love to slam the politicians for pandering and not showing leadership... but you never look in the mirror.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This wasn't in my coverage area, so I didn't cover the story.

However, as it came across the radio, the incident was regarding a person who had fallen or slipped down the cliff at Oregon City and a rescue was in progress. While I didn't pay close attention, I really don't recall adding that the individual was "disturbed" or such.

Covering a rescue is certainly news. Should the shooters have turned off the camera when they saw the woman was combative and not in full posession of herself? This is part of the "story" it seems.

Good, bad, happy, sad -- that is news.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon @ 9:38 -
Amen, brother.

Anon @ 9:48 -
Did broadcasting this video and/or naming the woman serve the public interest? Did it serve the distressed woman or her family and friends? Did it serve the police? Did it serve anyone besides your station's stockholders and advertisers? Correct me if I am wrong, but the answer to all these questions seems to be a uniform "No." If so, then what your station did it did purely for profit. A sound capitalist motive, but not a sound ethical or moral motive. The word "exploitation" seems to be none too strong here. You don't need to shutter your cameras; capture all the video the law allows. You just need to excersize a little compassionate judgement about what you actually broadcast.
Sadly, the evidence suggests you lack any such judgement. You don't even seem to know what you have done that might be wrong. If you're still wondering why many people detest and despise the current practice of TV news, look in the mirror. You're part of the problem.

Shame on you.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 11:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right on target anon!Unfortunately, none of these comments will cause a millisecond of lost sleep in any of the pompous playgrounds erroneously known as newsrooms.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 11:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

kptv 10pm news cast 8/1/05 was a puzzling mass of dung.

one's head is left spinning like a planet after watching a news story about a sex offender, followed by another "news" story, only this story was about upcoming fox network programs.

"did i just really see and hear that"?

wait it gets better......

four, count 'em, four break ins of "breaking news" in a 60 min broadcast about a bicycle/car collision hit & run

i smell pulitzer prize

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Joe consumer and the above anonymous brain trust - you just can't keep KPTV out of it can you? Don't bother to mention that we didn't even RUN the story about crazy cliff lady.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 1:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Cubfan said...

The only thing wrong with this blog is all the non-media people who butt in. Go away, trolls, pee in somebody else's pool.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>The anonymous comment dismissing commenter #1 as a jackass only confirms the defensive, nasty response the media gives its critics.

wow, someone actually gets it.........

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the long history of journalism (of all kinds) I'll bet you that you'll find 70% of it is death, dismemberment, accident, infidelity, rape, assault, war and goobers acting out. Maybe 80%. All indicators tell us that this is what makes money. If our companies don't make money we get fired.
Grow up.
In employment as in relationships, expectation is everything. Expect the worst in jouralism. As I write this, everything important has gone away (politics, global warming...even pensions)and in its place is a plane crash.
Let's hear the complaints about that. I mean maybe they should be covering the unveling of a new community garden in Buckman. Ya think?

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cubfan, not only are you a frustrated sports fan, but your also frustrated professionally

i mean, how sucessful of a career can you have if you can only do as good as portland oregon?

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>Don't bother to mention that we didn't even RUN the story about crazy cliff lady.


is one to take this comment seriously?

thats like some child molester saying i only molested 17 kids and i could have molested 50 so pat me on the head

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Elbot said...

Should the shooters have turned off the camera when they saw the woman was combative and not in full posession of herself? This is part of the "story" it seems.

Nope, the photogs shouldn't have turned off their cameras, but it's not their job to decide what makes air and what doesn't. That's the producer's, assignment editor's, and ep's job. So, where were they when this story came up in the daily meeting? Surely one of them could have said, "Wait a minute, we thought it was a rescue story, but it turned out to be just a suicide attempt and we don't ocver those." Apparently, either that didn't happen, or the industry-wide policy of not coverings suicide attempts has changed. So, which is it? Anyone in the room when the decision to air this story was made?

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:12:00 PM  
Blogger douchebag sal said...

>All indicators tell us that this is what makes money

what makes money is getting off your fat ass and selling all that excess inventory

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do not sell. I make.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> "Wait a minute, we thought it was a rescue story, but it turned out to be just a suicide attempt and we don't ocver those."

unless it is a MURDER suicide, that your all over, just like a mary kay laternau on a 12 year old student

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:16:00 PM  
Blogger MAX Redline said...

"Cubfan said...
The only thing wrong with this blog is all the non-media people who butt in. Go away, trolls, pee in somebody else's pool."

Apparently a loser in sports, a loser in life, and unable to deal with legitimate criticism from know-nothing non-media people.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a shining example here of why television and print media are becoming so quickly irrelevant to the daily lives of so many of us.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>The only thing wrong with this blog is all the non-media people who butt in

the main thing that prevents this blog from becoming something meaningful are self-absorbed media-types like the above, preening about as if only what they think matters.

and another helpful suggestion is to grow some balls and stop with the the defensive, nasty responses when critisized.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey cubfan,
Your belief that only members of your news media "club" have opinions that matter continues to helps us little people decide to permanently "butt out" by turning your irrelevant "product" off.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:28:00 PM  
Anonymous elbot said...

A murder-suicide is news because it actually involves a crime; that would be the murder part...

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>Darn. I thought Tom Leykis was blessedly off the Portland airwaves; hadn't realized he'd slimed his way back in

yes, and his show makes a ton of $$$$$$$-nice attempt at silencing a voice of sanity, now go crawl back in your hole

and then there is the local mega-talent victoria taft and the money machine her program has become.....

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:32:00 PM  
Blogger douchebag sal said...

>A murder-suicide is news

suicide is not legal so that would make it a crime as well.

get your facts straight smart-ass

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>A murder-suicide is news because it actually involves a crime


a suicide is illegal making it a crime, so by your idiotic defenition it too is news

how do idiots like you get hired?

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:48:00 PM  
Anonymous elbot said...

Seems like I need to offer a bit more explanation here for douchebag. Mainstream news outlets typically don’t cover suicides or suicide attempts because they don’t want to highlight them and possibly encourage others to take their own lives. You may agree, you may not… But generally, it’s not approached from a typical crime standpoint.

Plus, never quite understood the whole suicide being illegal thing anyway. Who do you prosecute? The dead guy?

All right… I just responded to a post from a guy named “douchebag”.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

See, this is why print people don't want to be lumped in with TV people as doing the same job or even working in the same field.

Oy vey.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 4:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yiddish on pdxmediawatch

that must be a first

but maybe not, i did refer once to someone on this a a schmuck

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 4:12:00 PM  
Blogger douchebag sal said...

>All right… I just responded to a post from a guy named “douchebag”.

douchebag sal is my name, not douchebag

thank you

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 4:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow! How off topic can we get????

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 4:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

douchebag sal is my name, not douchebag

If the douchebag fits....

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 5:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cubfan said...
The only thing wrong with this blog is all the non-media people who butt in. Go away, trolls, pee in somebody else's pool.

Wow! Didn't you read the masthead?! In case you missed it:

A place to talk about Portland's media, with the hope that some managers will read it and understand how their product is perceived.

As a member of the non-media public, that seemed like a clear invitation to participate in promoting an Understanding of your product's Perception. (That it is often perceived as dreadful dreck is not my fault.)

Silly me. I keep forgetting that y'all don't regard the public as your customers any more, but instead only your advertisers. That seems to indicate that there is no public interest in broadcasting any more, except maybe once every eight years: "We license radio and TV stations for a period of up to eight years. Before we can renew a station's license, we must first determine whether it has served the public interest."

I and the rest of the unwashed heathen scum public reading this will have to keep a few things in mind, I guess. Who's up next?

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 5:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm all for as much Yiddish on this blog as we can get. Good times.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 6:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm...in response to all those bagging on Cubfan...this is a site mainly for media insiders to discuss their business. The rest of you should have some constructive criticism that will actually be of value, right? Something better than because a person supports the Cubs they are life losers?

Just like politics, media has its corruption and it has its idealists and everything in between. Since you critics are all pure as the driven snow this may be hard for you to grasp, but it seems to me that some of you have too much time on your hands and not enough critical thinking skills.

As to the initial question posed by our blogger: Of course its news. Should the public have some kind of recourse if they don't like what they see? Yes, turn off your TV.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 7:12:00 PM  
Blogger PDXMediaWatcher said...

Wow, this got out of hand. Thanks to the last post.

Let's cut out the name calling and try to be civil, okay. No one likes to receive it so don't dish it out. Please.

I thought we were on a higher plane until this one.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 7:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So...PDXMediawatcher...is this a place for the non-media public to weigh in with their comments and opinions? or for insiders to update, debate, dish, and generally talk amongst ourselves? 'Cuz that makes all the difference between whether this site is an interesting Internet watering hole for us in the biz, or yet another shooting gallery for predictable criticisms that we've all heard expressed much better. Let us know.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 8:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 8:37: I think the answer to your questions will also serve as a sufficient answer to these: How do we let viewers, listeners and readers know we truly do value their input? Or do we?

As the author of two of the above comments (11:21 and 5:41) that have apparently been deemed uncivil, I do apologize if I have given undue offense. I don't think that I have asserted anything that is not well supported by posts seen elsewhere here, and I see it as my civic duty to ask y'all some uncomfortable questions. (I'm such a silly idealist that I think public service matters, ya see.)

I really thought that this was intended to be a forum which sought feedback from the public as well as insider gossip. If that's not the case, if this is indeed just an industry watering hole that is intended only as an insider echo chamber, I'll be only too happy to leave and never come back.

So what's it gonna be? Do you want to hear the public voice, or not?

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 8:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really, pxmediawatcher, this got out of hand because of MY post? (anon@7:12) Wow, people are accusing someone of being a loser because of a sports affiliation and are always calling YOU names like, arrogant, self-absorbed, etc...and I'M the problem? Ok....

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 9:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quoted from Above:

" Anonymous said...

God.... guess we better shutter the cameras because heaven forbid we might capture an image of someone who is emotionally fragile.
Seriously, lets not kid ourselves, it was good tv, it happened in public, we got the video... and KGW got there late for the nice cliff shot. "

In a single post, this commentor vividly portrays what is wrong with TV news. It's about getting good video, not serving the public. This is why youre not considered journalists.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 9:18:00 PM  
Anonymous education professional said...

I hope those of us who are not journalists will not be "uninvited" to participate in the discussion strands that take place on this blog.

Although I don't agree with alot of the discourse, I learn alot reading responses to the questions our host poses.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 9:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Silly Idealist of 8:56 said...

Ahh, 9:16, I think the host was actually thanking you. New sentence tends to indicate a new thought, ya know. You must not work in print media, eh? :-)

I think he's mad at me and the other folks here who have joined the thoughts "public service" and "appalling lack thereof."

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 9:43:00 PM  
Blogger Ken said...

Forgive me if this gets a bit esoteric, incohesive or just downright annoying.

Our host asked some specific questions that were aimed at the area's media professionals — policies for public feedback, and whether such feedback matters. As such, the answers to those questions should have come (mainly) from said media professionals. Once those pros said their piece, their responses were fair game for reaction from the non-media types.

However, until the host specifies otherwise, his (or her) site defines its existence as "a place to talk about Portland's media" so that media decision makers can better "understand how their product is perceived." As comments at this site have shown, perception of media is all over the board, but one can't define the perception of media solely by the perceptions of the people employed in that media.

The professionals are the story tellers, those who point the boat in the direction they think its passengers want to go; the public, as the passengers on that boat, can endorse the direction by choosing to stay on the boat, or they can jump ship to a boat that goes in a direction they prefer.

To the host, I would ask for continued opportunities to express when we want to stay on the boat, but don't like the direction (or when we want off the boat). To the media professionals who tune in here, I would ask you to attempt some respect for the public that cares enough to join in the discussion — if you tell us to butt out of the site because you feel we're intruding on your private media party, you only tell us you're too wrapped up in "the way it's always been done" and have no willingness to examine whether those "tried-and-true" methods have any relevance to our 21st century lives. To the non-media folks who pipe up here, I would ask for comments that are respectful of people who work their tails off for crappy pay in an industry that is (I think) trying to find its way in that 21st century world.

Just my two cents. OK, maybe a little more.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I gotta tell you, this site has become BO-RING. It was interesting when it began, but all the regular bashers just keep saying the same things over and over again. Fine, have an opinion, but man you guys are spoiling the fun. Frankly, I don't believe the majority of viewers feel the way some of you regular posters feel about us, the news media. We see and talk to our viewers regularly. They're not spewing venom, and no, they're not morons. They simply understand what we have to offer them as local stations. News about their community, news about their world, and yes, news about the local little league team whose stuff got stolen. This is our community too. As those cheesy KOIN promos say "We live here too," and believe it or not we do care about this place. There are many of us who aren't looking to jump on to bigger markets. Not because we CAN'T, but because we love it here.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 12:19:00 AM  
Blogger MAX Redline said...

Ken,

>To the media professionals who tune in here, I would ask you to attempt some respect for the public that cares enough to join in the discussion — if you tell us to butt out of the site because you feel we're intruding on your private media party, you only tell us you're too wrapped up in "the way it's always been done"<

Oddly, that's what I thought this place was supposed to be about. You have expressed my view succinctly.

Then there's this media moron:

>Anonymous said...
I gotta tell you, this site has become BO-RING. It was interesting when it began, but all the regular bashers just keep saying the same things over and over again.<

Amusingly enough, too embarrassed to use a name, or too unimaginative to make one up.

Y'know, I don't mind stories about a local little league team whose stuff got stolen. That's the kind of stuff that actually helps build community.

But when was the last time you saw a story that reveals the odds of your car getting trashed while parked in the Columbia Gorge or Forest Park?

It happens all the time, and it's important to most folks.

Oh. Right. It isn't news. Gotcha.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 1:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well actually it's a perennial favorite that hasn't been done this year yet. Today looks a little busy, but we'll run out and do it again soon.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:27:00 AM  
Anonymous On air said...

>>So what's it gonna be? Do you want to hear the public voice, or not?

IMHO, we hear the public voice all the time. I'm on the air and get dozens of e-mails, maybe more, every day. I answer the thoughtful ones, especially the ones that take me to task. I've learned things and modified my approach based on that audience feedback when it's well-reasoned and sensible.

What I haven't had, until this blog appeared, was the opportunity to trade war stories and news with others in my field, especially competitors and people in other media. The industry news, a little gossip, occasional bitching and letting off steam, but also a sense of camaraderie have made logging in worthwhile. But then along come people from other lines of work (or not) who've used this site either as an instrument of abuse (the trolls that Cubfan referred to) or as a forum to advocate personal interests and views of media coverage. For me, personally, because I receive and welcome public input at work, I really don't need it here. No offense to the thoughtful non-media posters, but I've already heard it here at the station, possibly from you. At this site, which is admittedly not my site, I'd much rather hear what's up with people in my line of work. I'm afraid the trolls have already caused a number of them to get bored and drop off.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:05:00 AM  
Blogger douchebag sal said...

> if this is indeed just an industry watering hole that is intended only as an insider echo chamber

that is precisely what this is

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

News is what somebody somewhere doesn't want you to know. All the rest is advertising.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lOOKS LIKE YOUR HOST IS AFRAID TO TELL ALL NON-MEDIA TYPES TO TAKE A HIKE, DESPITE THE PLEAS FOR NAVEL GAZING.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 11:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 10:32 am: that quote came from Dan Rather, who heard it from someone else before that.
I like it, and I think it's true, for the most part.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 12:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a viewer, I find this claim disingenuous:

>They simply understand what we have to offer them as local stations. News about >their community, news about their world, and yes, news about the local little >league team whose stuff got stolen. This is our community too.

Ok. If true, then why is the coverage of non-compelling video stories so sparse? The state legislature is in its closing days ... no coverage. The school funding issue will resonate for years ... no coverage. Is Randy Leonard simply feathering his own bed ... no coverage.

A deranged woman losing her marbles or a neato explosion ... tons of coverage.

You have a responsibility as journalists to do more than just maximize your ratings. That's why journalism is a *profession*. That's why we have press freedom in the Bill of Rights.

The posts here are just disappointing.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 12:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Silly Idealist said...

"At this site, which is admittedly not my site, I'd much rather hear what's up with people in my line of work."

Well, that's fair enough, On Air. But I hope you don't mind if I answer you by paraphrasing one of your colleagues: "Should you have some kind of recourse if you don't like what you see? Yes, turn off your computer." Does that sound unsympathetic? Does it utterly fail to address your real and valid concerns?

Damn straight. Now you know how we feel.

If you insiders want a social club where you can shoot the breeze undisturbed by the public, for heaven's sake put one together. It's not that hard; try Yahoo Groups. But this website is a public forum accessible anonymously without prior authorization. The masthead appears to invite the public to participate. I'm inclined to think that our host made an informed choice about the format of this site; that the choice of an open format reflected a desire for openness. (The blog-with-anonymous-comments format is almost as open as a website format can get; it is an utterly incorrect choice of technology to foster a private discussion.)

And so I'll be damned if I'm going to self-censor my opinions just so you people will hear no dissent when you tell each other that stripmining a victim's emotions for shareholder profit is a valid excercise of your station's public interest duty, or a good use of your precious time on Earth. If asked by the host, I will leave. Until then... deal.

I'm rather disappointed in our host for ducking the tough question, "Who is this blog for?" Insider, you're going to disappoint some people no matter what: some insiders if you ask the public to stay, the public if you ask non-media types to leave, or everyone if you remain silent on the issue. I'm sorry that you have been painted into this corner by your colleagues, but what's done is done. The only way to kill this argument is for you to make your desire known.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 1:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Helloooooo... we're waiting for an answer oh mighty blog host

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 1:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FOX12 NEWS - a bunch of hacks and yellow journalists.

I worked there, I know.

- If it happens between 7-10pm they call it breaking news.

- They utilize newscasts to promote FOX primetime (usually just lead-in shows in order to gain more viewers).

- The producers are only bound by the law, not ethics, in order to get stories.

So many things in broadcast news are being done the right way in other markets, but here in Stumptown, OR and Whitey, WA across the river, the news organizations are treating audiences to boring and uninsightful coverage.
Brooke Wilberger??? I hope they find her, but a fat black woman would NEVER have had that much coverage. It's BS.
AND I think everyone could have waited until 5pm for the Wilberger press announcement. IT DID NOT NEED TO BE COVERED LIVE.
Finally, broadcast news is all about ratings and money anyway. If you don't believe it 100% then ask yourself why most stations hire young news producers. They're get paid the least and do EXACTLY what they're told without innovation and without enterprising any good stories.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 2:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't understand silly idealist. PDXMediaInsider could easily block you IP address, preventing you from posting. You only exist if he or she wants you to when it comes to the world wide blah.
Imagine if silly idealist is a news photographer on public property. Silly idealist is shooting into your window because a terrible murder just happened at your house. Your mother is dead. You can't do anything about it legally because sill idealist can shoot almost anywhere so long as he/she stays on public property. You just have to draw the blinds.
So blocking your IP address for "trolling" may be best.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 2:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>You don't understand silly idealist. PDXMediaInsider could easily block you IP address, preventing you from posting. You only exist if he or she wants you to when it comes to the world wide blah.

no, you don't understand pretentious putz
this is the property of Google, it is paid for by Google, and it is administered by Google. How stupid can you be to think that this belongs to anyone?

If you want to make such pronouncements, then please go start your own blog site and pay for it as opposed to being a mere cyber-squatter

you asshole

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this brooke willberger frenzy is just disgusting and an absolute disgrace. it is insult to professional journalism

the only regret the news director monkeys have is that this isn't happening during sweeps month.......

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:49:00 PM  
Blogger douchebag sal said...

> They're get paid the least and do EXACTLY what they're told without innovation and without enterprising any good stories.

and it really shows

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>FOX12 NEWS - a bunch of hacks and yellow journalists

you are being much to kind

>They utilize newscasts to promote FOX primetime

actually this is why fox paid for the NFL and is a major reason for the sucess of the network but the network boys are pros, KPTV newsroom lackeys are not.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Silly Idealist said...

Oh, he could all right. (Presuming his blog hosting service gives him that level of control, anyway.) It'd be a bit of a bother for him if I try to overcome the block; it's not hard for me to get access to different IP addresses from which I could easily post. However, blocking my IP would be so much harder than it need be, because I'll play nice.

If our host simply posts a comment stating that I (or a category of readers to which I belong) am not welcome here, I will neither read this site nor comment on it any more. Simple as that, no tricks.

At any rate, the issue is not about my alleged trolling. (Do I really seem like a troll? That's not my intent. Would you be so kind as to tell me why you think so? Keep in mind that I have not posted any comments on this thread other than the ones I have specifically taken credit for.) The issue is whether or not the public at large is welcome here, or if this is just a place for insiders to dish. Banning me specifically will not answer that very important question, which has been forced upon our host by his professional colleagues. I'm sure other members of the public would fill my silence in short order.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:54:00 PM  
Blogger douchebag sal said...

>And so I'll be damned if I'm going to self-censor my opinions just so you people will hear no dissent

you don't have to, the nitwit will do it for you just as he has done it to me

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a dissapointing thread this has become.

So now I've become a troll? Because I'm not a member of the esteemed Portland media? I used to be... does that count?

Our host has never identified this as a site for only you "insiders" and has welcomed.... oh screw it. Fuck this blog. Goodbye.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 4:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Silly Idealist said...

Well, it's been a while since I asked out host if this place is really just for insiders, as some claim. During that time, our host has posted at least two stories and one other comment, so it seems we can provisionally assume he's had suffcient opportunity to read and respond. As yet, I see no comment by our host indicating that the public at large is not welcome here. Nor have I seen any similar message pertaining to me specifically. If you're reading this, I haven't yet been IP banned.

So, insiders, it looks like you'll be putting up with the unruly public here for a while yet. If anyone should claim the non-media public is not welcome here, this discussion will serve as sufficient evidence that they are mistaken... until our host says otherwise, anyway.

I trust this debacle also helps answer the last question in the post which opened this discussion?

Thursday, August 04, 2005 3:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

IMHO, to the previous poster, you're fine and welcome. It's the hecklers. This is going to be a much more candid board if we don't have snipers trying to pick off posters at random. We don't have to put up with that--we just don't visit.

Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Silly Idealist said...

Anon 9:37-

Thanks for your support. However, would you be so kind as to show me the hecklers? I'll agree that the first post here was an axe-grinding troll, but what else was there, up to the point cubfan posted, that was sufficient cause for Cubfan to tell the public to get stuffed? I don't see it.

There are a number of axe-grinders here. Douchbag Sal clearly has a thing against Pamplin (follow his namelink) and many folks, including many insiders, rag on Fox 12. Y'all may want them to go away, but such folks will always populate a public, anonymous forum. Welcome to the internet, try not to step in the muck.

The question of who this board is for successfully deflected substantial and important criticism, and diverted the public here from pressing the real issues. I see it as a tactical defeat and a strategic win for the public readership here. This discussion got shut down, but next time someone tries to deflect legitimate criticism via exclusion of the public, we the people will be able to simply point to this discussion, cut off that diversion at the knees, and get back on topic.

(Our host could have acted to keep this particular thread on-topic by telling cubfan he was wrong, but he declined to do so. Dunno why he did that, but there may be good reasons. Ask him.)

Now, anyone want to get back to the issues? I'm dyin' to know why someone thought it was a good idea to air this woman's name. The question elbot raised on August 2 @ 3:12 about how this made it on the air is also deserving of an answer. Most importantly, is there any standard remaining in choosing "TV News" beyond "Good TV"?

Friday, August 05, 2005 8:46:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home