Grumpy Editor

Spitzer decision gets same-day nod from Clinton

Lost with the Wednesday announcement in Washington, D.C. from New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer that he was dumping his controversial plan to grant driver’s licenses to illegal aliens in his state, was New York Sen. Hillary Clinton’s statement (after Spitzer’s decision) that she, too, now is against granting the licenses, observes Grumpy Editor.

"I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal," said Clinton. "As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system."

The day before Spitzer and Clinton wound up on the same page in shelving the driver's license idea, a poll showed 70 percent of New Yorkers opposed the plan.

After days of waffling on the subject, ever since an Oct. 30 presidential debate in Philadelphia with fellow Democrats in which she dodged an answer, her now firm view --- which came on the eve of another presidential debate --- should have been included in a lengthy Los Angeles Times story by Erika Hayasaki on Spitzer’s action.

That piece also appeared in other newspapers yesterday.

The issue surfaced in the October debate when Clinton fumbled a question on Spitzer’s licenses-for-illegals plan that he announced the prior month.

Both Republicans and Democrats used her swaying remarks to point out she was trying to stand on both sides of the hot issue.

The illegal immigration issue continued in last night's CNN televised debate from Las Vegas.

Opening question to Clinton asked about stumbling on "an important question involving illegal immigration" in the last debate and "your opponents are saying that's really part of a larger pattern with you, that you often avoid taking firm positions on controversial issues and one of your opponents on this stage calls this the politics of parsing.  How do you respond to this?"

A 57-second rambling response did not touch illegal immigration.  "Same old doubletalk," growled radio talk show host Michael Savage during the live airing of that portion.  "She didn't answer the question."

Paris Hilton’s boozing elephants crusade denied

Paris Hilton is back in the news and the question (again) is:  Did she or didn’t she?

It all started Tuesday when Associated Press carried a story under a Gauhati, India dateline that “Paris Hilton has reportedly turned her attention to the plight of binge-drinking elephants in India.”

A key word in that lead is reportedly, notes Grumpy Editor.  It wasn’t clear about origination of the report that went on quoting Hilton as declaring, “The elephants get drunk all the time.  It is becoming really dangerous.  We need to stop making alcohol available to them."

No mention if the elephants were the pink type.

The story on Hilton’s efforts in pointing out the booze problem drew praise from conservationists.

Nevertheless, AP a few hours later came out with a correction quoting Hilton’s publicist, Lori Berk, saying that Paris never made comments about helping drunken elephants in India.

It should be pointed out that all this fuss --- and blushed faces of print and broadcast editors around the world --- could have been avoided if the publicist was accessible before the story went out.  AP writer Wasbir Hussain did insert in the original text that “Hilton’s publicist couldn’t immediately be reached Tuesday to verify her comments.”

That indicated the raised-eyebrow writer sensed a verification was in order.

Among U.S. newspapers that ran the Paris/plight of the pachyderms piece were the Seattle Times, Dallas Morning News, Tampa Tribune, Orange County (Calif.) Register and Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 

Tsk!  Tsk!

ABC-TV jumps gun on sending reporter to airport

It’s an annual ritual: a TV reporter standing inside (perhaps outside) an airport terminal warning about the expected influx of pre-Thanksgiving holiday travelers.  Sometimes the background shows few luggage-carting people in sight --- as on Monday night, a full nine days before heavy travel, when ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson aired, observed Grumpy Editor.

It’s comparable to dispatching a TV crew to the edge of a rippling sea under fluffy, harmless cumulus clouds to report on a major storm looming 1,000 miles below the horizon. 

But that’s TV fare.  Action, if possible.

There’s been no change in the routine that started years ago when TV mobile units were developed.  Assignment editors could well have their staffers disseminate the same information from cozy studios.

And that report would simply state that this year the Air Transport Association expects Thanksgiving air traffic to rise 4 percent from last year with aircraft operating nearly 90 percent full.

This could be followed by the obvious suggestions of getting to the airport early and allowing ample time for long check-in and security lines.

To be different in 2007, a fact-finding TV reporter could seek responses from airlines, government agencies and airports themselves on what steps are being taken, on the ground and in the air, to make future air travel smoother and less of a hassle during holiday periods.

But that means getting on the phone to officials and doing some research. 

Actors’ political leanings influence box office results

Movie actors’ political opinions, picked up by eager media (often with the same leanings), are having an effect on ticket sales of motion pictures in which the big vocal names star, maintains Grumpy Editor.

Coupled with a story revolving around the war on terror, latest to be smacked by low box office results is “Lions for Lambs,” directed by Robert Redford --- not shy in airing his political thoughts --- who also stars in the film with Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep.

Costing $35 million to produce, the chatty drama interlocks a trio of soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, a senator (Cruise), a reporter (Streep) and a college professor (Redford).

Its Veterans Day weekend ticket sales of $6.7 million put it fourth behind No. 1 “Bee Movie” followed by “American Gangster” and “Fred Claus.”

Distributor MGM-United Artists said “Lions for Lambs” is aimed at an “older, thinking-person’s audience.”  Apparently those mature folks, on a weekend that called for honoring military veterans, including fighting men and women who gave their lives during wars, decided to snub Redford’s efforts and were turned off on hearing that the script reflected repetitious nightly TV news reports and Washington actions linked to the war.

The film “examines politics and politicians and the media and the effect those entities have had on today's youth,” says Dennis Rice, president of worldwide marketing at United Artists.  The effort is “unfairly labeled as a war movie” and is “more about public policy issues,” he adds.

That’s not quite the film fare that excites the targeted older audiences who remember well earlier wars in which political views of actors, writers and directors, many with stellar combat records, were seldom revealed.

Reader’s Digest tunes up for new look, new editor

Will a new look with Reader’s Digest, coupled with a new editor, be enough to maintain current readers plus lure new ones, wonders Grumpy Editor.

Already with most of the content tilted toward women readers, the magazine may move stronger in that direction with the naming Friday of Peggy Northrop as editor-in-chief.  She replaces Jacqueline Leo, editor since 2001, who is leaving to pursue other interests.

The magazine also debuts a redesign in January.

Northrop joins Reader’s Digest after being editor-in-chief at More magazine since 2004.  More’s appeal is with women 40 plus.  Prior to More, Northrop was editor-in-chief of Organic Style and held senior editorial positions at Vogue, Glamour, Redbook, Real Simple and Health.  She began her career in newspapers, including the San Francisco Examiner.

Older readers will recall earlier years of Reader’s Digest, when it lived up to its name with condensations of key articles from a variety of publications.  With about 30 articles in digest form, the idea was to read an article a day during a month.  On occasion, the Digest would run an article before it appeared in its credited publication.

Lately, the Digest has become service oriented.

Getting away from its original appeal, readership has been in a steady decline.  Starting in January, the magazine will reduce its guaranteed paid circulation in the U.S. to 8 million from 10 million “in a bid for cost efficiencies and better audience composition,” according to Advertising Age.

However, it maintains its position as the largest circulation of any magazine in the world with 51 editions in 22 languages, reaching nearly 80 million readers in more than 60 countries, relates Mary Berner, president and CEO of The Reader’s Digest Association.

Top-of-hour radio news often skimps on details

A problem with radio network news headlines on the hour is that quite often essential elements are omitted in a brief report, confusing listeners who might be interested --- or concerned --- in the development, finds Grumpy Editor.

Such was the case yesterday morning when a Fox News broadcaster announced that “a cruise ship” ran aground.  (That description also was used by other media, including the Washington Post and CNN.)

It brought visions of several thousand passengers plus crew in eminent danger and problems of getting them into safe hands in uncertain seas.

Left out of the news item:

1 --- Ship’s name.

2 --- Number of passengers on board (or if a count was unavailable, passenger capacity of the vessel).

3 --- Injuries.

Turns out it was no huge ocean-going multi-deck liner.

It was the Spirit of Nantucket with 66 people on board.  The vessel, 207 feet long, can accommodate 102 passengers.  The operator, Cruise West, specializes in small ship voyages.

There were no injuries.  The captain decided to ease it into a mud shoal because it was taking on water on the Intra-Coastal Waterway.

The Coast Guard evacuated passengers by helicopter and boat near Virginia Beach, Va.

‘Exclusives’ lurk in letters to the editor column

Ever on the lookout for exclusives, editors often will find a lead for a front-page story right in their own newspapers --- in the “Letters to the Editor” column, notes Grumpy Editor.

But do they pay attention?

Two such “letters” on the same day in a growing daily newspaper in a booming area pointed to a potential story for an investigative reporter.  Both letter writers complained of soaring electric bills.

One mentioned a lofty monthly power bill of $678.  To cut the outlay, the newspaper reader decided to shut off air conditioning and cool off with a fan.  But the next bill, reflecting no cool air piped in, came in at a still high $527.  “These people have no mercy,” cried the writer, 72, who mentioned his wife is 67, with both on Social Security.

On the same page, another angry “letters” writer, living in a 1,700-square-foot home, complained that despite hanging clothes to dry and setting the thermostat between 80 and 82 degrees, a $400 power bill arrived, a $90 increase.  The writer hinted at how the state Public Utilities Commission is an ally of the power company.

Based on what these two readers cited, it certainly warrants a look at what is going on --- perhaps mismanagement, greed, rubber stamping --- with ever-rising electric rates that win approval from the PUC.

Miami Herald pays to attend Hillary Clinton event

Considering the competition among presidential candidates to grab print space or air time connected with their campaigns, should a reporter pay an “admission fee” of $50 to attend a newsworthy fundraiser/rally that attracted about 2,000 people?

For the Miami Herald, the answer is “yes.”

Grumpy Editor says it’s a definite no-no --- unlike a staff reviewer paying his/her way (reimbursed, of course) in going incognito for an accurate report on a restaurant or a stage show --- and on hearing no press admission allowed at the political event, the reporter should have pocketed his notebook and quickly walked away.

Herald staffer Evan S. Benn was sent to cover a Hillary Clinton fundraiser and rally by former president Bill Clinton.  Benn identified himself as a reporter and tried to get into the event.  Told the gathering was closed to the media, he was turned away.

According to Herald ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos, Benn, under instruction from his editors, then made the $50 (minimum) contribution to attend.

Benn reported on the event with a lead that mentioned “Bill Clinton told a Miami audience Sunday night why he thinks his wife is the best candidate for president.”  Then he noted the former president “talked without notes”…for “about 45 minutes.”

The Herald considers the $50 as a contribution to the Hillary Clinton campaign and Dave Wilson, managing editor for news, added a paragraph to that effect in Benn’s story.

The Herald’s ombudsman contacted Robert M. Steele, journalism professor and ethics expert at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg for his views.  “I’m very uncomfortable with the thought of news organizations buying their way into campaign events,” said Steele.  “Disclosing it doesn’t make it go away.  It’s still a campaign contribution.”

Some irate readers asked if the Herald will be making equal contributions to other presidential candidates’ campaigns to avoid the appearance of bias.

Stung by mortgages, Citi pushes home equity loans

With all the turmoil at Citigroup Inc., much of it linked to mortgage-related write-downs, the nation’s largest bank is pitching home equity loans via e-mails, observes Grumpy Editor.

Its CEO, Charles Prince, resigned Sunday as Citigroup said it will write off $8 billion to $11 billion to reflect declining value of subprime mortgage-related securities since Sept. 30.  This is in addition to $2.2 billion in trading losses and mortgage-related write-downs announced three weeks ago.

Now four months into a credit crunch resulting in tighter lending standards at most financial institutions, one would think any promotion related to home loans at this time would be subdued --- or temporarily shelved.

But the current Citi home equity pitch via e-mail headlines “Lower your monthly payments” and “Use equity to invest in your home.”   The message suggests funds from a home equity loan can be used to consolidate debt and for home improvements.

The e-mail mentions a 6.99 percent variable APR (while Citi’s Web site indicates current variable rate lines, a bit lower, starting at 6.74 percent).

Also mentioned in the e-mail:  “Enjoy a low fixed rate loan.”  (Deep in the 17 lines of small print at its Web site, Citi notes a fixed rate’s APR may be as low as 7.24 percent and as high as 12.24 percent.)

As The Wall Street Journal noted in a front page article yesterday, a decade after prior CEO Sanford Weil “built the insurance-to-banking-to stockbroking behemoth through a run of acquisitions, his creation remains an often dysfunctional collection of businesses whose employees sometimes ignore or even compete against each other.”

Study finds political reporters neglect issues

Another reason why many print and broadcast political reporters don’t rate high with readers/viewers is that they are too cozy with the politicians they cover and focus too much on political and tactical aspects of their campaigns rather than digging in for more information on candidates’ policies, views and records, notes Grumpy Editor.

Too much print space and air time are devoted to reporting on fundraising (daily scorecards on who is attracting the most money grabs reporters’ attention) and a constant parade of polls rather than where presidential hopefuls stand on issues.

This is brought out in a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

The study finds 63 percent of campaign stories center on political and tactical views.  This compares with 17 percent on candidates’ personal backgrounds and 15 percent on their ideas and policy proposals.  A tiny 1 percent examine candidates’ records or past public performances.

The study’s findings seem to be in sharp variance with what voters say they want from campaign reporting.  Just 12 percent of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election while 86 percent spotlighted matters that mainly impacted only the parties and the candidates.

Among other findings in the study:  Democrats received more positive coverage than Republicans --- 35 percent of stories vs. 26 percent.

All this with one year to go before the national election.