January, 2009. WJBK, Fox 2's morning show was running fluff re: Obama's forthcoming inauguration. It's a morning show, it's not news. And Deena Centofanti is in the segment, and that helps me give things quite a lot of slack usually. But then we get this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoReNb4Yhec&fmt=18
The trouble isn't the funnyness. That was awesome. I actually saw this live, and it was jaw on the floor funny. The trouble lies in Dr. Terri Orbach, The Love Doctor. While she was being touted as a relationship expert, not a sex doctor as such, the idea that you could be promoting someone as a relationship expert who is so distanced from sexual knowledge that she doesn't know what fisting is constitutes a slap in the face to the idea that relationships involve sex. That Detroit television was promoting such a person as a relationship expert was what sucked.
On the plus side, Deena obviously knew the score, and made sure to clarify by bumping fists later in the segment (which was also funny, but doesn't seem to be in the YouTube clips).
Showing posts with label WJBK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WJBK. Show all posts
Friday, August 26, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
WJBK: Disgraced (Journalist?) Edition
The trouble with Fanchon Stinger was not that she was a corrupt journalist. It's that Detroit television (and print) treats a news reader as a journalist.
http://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30274
http://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30274
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
WJBK: Because You Can't Completely Manufacture Quotes On Video Edition
So Fox 2 has foisted a print reporter (he has claimed he's not a journalist, because journalists don't keep it real) on to Detroit's airwaves. On paper, this sounds like a good idea; tv news is not very newsy, the reporter has won a Pulitzer, and has worked for the NYT and the Detroit News.
But paper and practice aren't the same thing. The reporter is Charlie LeDuff, who comes across as a noir caricature of a hard hitting reporter, from his spectral junkie look to his dime novel narrative style to a completely non-news feature story beat where he appears to be trying to create the appearance of sincerity and to be "of the people" which comes across as smarmy at best and always strikes me as simply a function of the role he's trying to play (and I mean that in the sense that it's melodramatic acting).
His big local story? Homeless guy frozen in ice. But there is controversy about how the situation was presented by him.
That Pulitizer? It was given to a series of articles on race in the NYT that LeDuff contributed to. Which doesn't mean it's a false claim, but it's not quite so rosy as it sounds.
And after that Pulitzer? Questions were raised about issues of plagiarism and fabricated quotes in Charlie LeDuff's stories, similar to the NYT's Jayson Blair fiasco. Then even more issues were publicly pointed outafter the NYT era issues were raised from a January 1995 article he wrote for the East Bay Monthly called The Last American Hobo, wherein passages were lifted from Ted Conover's 1984 book Rolling Nowhere.
None of which would matter too much if his work was solid on channel 2. But there he is, appearing like an annoying parody of something I'm not sure ever existed in a real form. It's like a "problem solver" with a different mask. I'm not sure it's any less annoying.
But paper and practice aren't the same thing. The reporter is Charlie LeDuff, who comes across as a noir caricature of a hard hitting reporter, from his spectral junkie look to his dime novel narrative style to a completely non-news feature story beat where he appears to be trying to create the appearance of sincerity and to be "of the people" which comes across as smarmy at best and always strikes me as simply a function of the role he's trying to play (and I mean that in the sense that it's melodramatic acting).
His big local story? Homeless guy frozen in ice. But there is controversy about how the situation was presented by him.
That Pulitizer? It was given to a series of articles on race in the NYT that LeDuff contributed to. Which doesn't mean it's a false claim, but it's not quite so rosy as it sounds.
And after that Pulitzer? Questions were raised about issues of plagiarism and fabricated quotes in Charlie LeDuff's stories, similar to the NYT's Jayson Blair fiasco. Then even more issues were publicly pointed outafter the NYT era issues were raised from a January 1995 article he wrote for the East Bay Monthly called The Last American Hobo, wherein passages were lifted from Ted Conover's 1984 book Rolling Nowhere.
None of which would matter too much if his work was solid on channel 2. But there he is, appearing like an annoying parody of something I'm not sure ever existed in a real form. It's like a "problem solver" with a different mask. I'm not sure it's any less annoying.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
WJBK: Let It Bleed Edition
Channel 2 tonight continues their slant on the story. They had the mother of the accuser on absolving channel 2 (and herself) of any wrongdoing. Good job there, channel 2, good job. On the plus side, we can now say it was Taryn Asher who was responsible for the story. Legal analyst Charlie Langton is conservative about how to proceed, making him the most sensible person paid by WJBK, and Brian Dickerson is raking them over the coals for doing a crappy job of protecting their source, and actually is bringing up the unsubstantiated forcible rape issue. Huel Perkins seems like he's about to cry while whispering "we didn't do anything wrong."
Oh, and they were dangling more "someone else we won't identify is coming forward to accuse the accused for the same thing", without explaining what they mean by "same thing", and without any sort of substantiation. It seems to be at best a rumor. Channel 2 hasn't learned a damned thing. Detroit tv still sucks.
Oh, and they were dangling more "someone else we won't identify is coming forward to accuse the accused for the same thing", without explaining what they mean by "same thing", and without any sort of substantiation. It seems to be at best a rumor. Channel 2 hasn't learned a damned thing. Detroit tv still sucks.
WJBK: Make it Bleed So It Can Lead Edition
Short version: statutory rape case between a senior and a freshman in high school seems to be brought to the cops by a venom spewing mother; cops proceed with the case. Mother seems to take the story to Fox 2 and appears on TV with her daughter (daughter's face blurred out) to make accusations of forcible rape, which had not been what had been previously claimed to the police. The piece named and showed the 18 year old who was now being accused on TV of forcible rape (which the police decline to pursue due to sketchiness of the changed story and because the text message evidence that had supported the existence of a statutory rape case also clearly supported the idea that the sex involved was consensual). After being accused of forcible rape, the accused responded that the accuser was a liar. Other classmates of the accused and accuser reportedly "bullied" the accuser after Fox 2 put her on the air to make accusations of a malum in se crime instead of the malum prohibitem crime that was in the prosecutorial pipe. Accuser commits suicide.
What the supposed bullying consisted of is unclear; it's the hot media topic at the moment, and pretty much anything is being classed as bullying. Although I haven't seen anyone yet class being falsely accused of forcible rape as bullying; I kinda think that should count more than most of the things classed in the media as bullying. And if you are raked over the coals for making what on the evidence is a false accusation of forcible rape, should that raking be considered bullying? If so, then shouldn't being accused if forcible rape in the media, even if true, be considered bullying?
Fox 2 this morning was harping on the "bullying" and Kam Carmen was harping on about "it was still statutory, he should go to prison!" in her irritating prissy little way. No mention of the bullying only occurring after the Fox 2 story and its imbalanced outing of an accused and not the accuser, which, even ignoring the patent unfairness of outing the one and not the other, forced the accused to out his accuser and would have allowed their peers to know what was going on anyway from the story. No hint of the idea that being consumed by guilt over making a false accusation of an extremely serious crime could have led to the suicide. No hint that the mother of the accuser appeared to be the instigator behind the pursuit of charges (and that if that's the case, she would be the likely person to look for to a false escalation in what was accused), and that maybe she should be held responsible in the court of public opinion for her daughter's suicide.
So why does Detroit tv suck in this instance?
1) Fox 2 appears to protect the identities of anyone making an accusation of rape, but not the identity the accused, even when the evidence points to the accusation being false.
2) Fox 2 is willing to publicize allegations which do not appear based on fact.
3) Fox 2 publicizes a story which can reasonably be foreseen to lead to identification of the accuser they are purporting to "protect" by making semi-anonymous allegations.
4) Fox 2 is reporting widespread outrage over the apparent falsity of allegations not as a legitimate reaction to such a disgusting thing, but as the hot media topic of bullying.
Brian Dickerson puts the whole thing together at
http://www.freep.com/article/20101111/COL04/11110609/1001/news
The ironic thing is his story anonymizes the Fox 2 reporters responsible for the story. They should not be able to hide from this.
What the supposed bullying consisted of is unclear; it's the hot media topic at the moment, and pretty much anything is being classed as bullying. Although I haven't seen anyone yet class being falsely accused of forcible rape as bullying; I kinda think that should count more than most of the things classed in the media as bullying. And if you are raked over the coals for making what on the evidence is a false accusation of forcible rape, should that raking be considered bullying? If so, then shouldn't being accused if forcible rape in the media, even if true, be considered bullying?
Fox 2 this morning was harping on the "bullying" and Kam Carmen was harping on about "it was still statutory, he should go to prison!" in her irritating prissy little way. No mention of the bullying only occurring after the Fox 2 story and its imbalanced outing of an accused and not the accuser, which, even ignoring the patent unfairness of outing the one and not the other, forced the accused to out his accuser and would have allowed their peers to know what was going on anyway from the story. No hint of the idea that being consumed by guilt over making a false accusation of an extremely serious crime could have led to the suicide. No hint that the mother of the accuser appeared to be the instigator behind the pursuit of charges (and that if that's the case, she would be the likely person to look for to a false escalation in what was accused), and that maybe she should be held responsible in the court of public opinion for her daughter's suicide.
So why does Detroit tv suck in this instance?
1) Fox 2 appears to protect the identities of anyone making an accusation of rape, but not the identity the accused, even when the evidence points to the accusation being false.
2) Fox 2 is willing to publicize allegations which do not appear based on fact.
3) Fox 2 publicizes a story which can reasonably be foreseen to lead to identification of the accuser they are purporting to "protect" by making semi-anonymous allegations.
4) Fox 2 is reporting widespread outrage over the apparent falsity of allegations not as a legitimate reaction to such a disgusting thing, but as the hot media topic of bullying.
Brian Dickerson puts the whole thing together at
http://www.freep.com/article/20101111/COL04/11110609/1001/news
The ironic thing is his story anonymizes the Fox 2 reporters responsible for the story. They should not be able to hide from this.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)