Hypocrisy, Hype, Foolishness -- The Media Did It All
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, Time Managing Editor Rick Stengel and Portfolio investigative reporter Kurt Eichenwald wouldn't seem to have much in common. But they do.
Each person, in his unique way, recently did something lamentable. They embarrassed themselves -- and hurt the media's image.
You'd think that the public would be punch-drunk following all of the media's genuine and apparent missteps over the years, such as unwittingly helping to push the United States into war in Iraq, failing to monitor stories ranging from President Bush's foreign policy to baseball players' steroid binges and apologizing for misstating Bush's National Guard service. I haven't even mentioned Jayson Blair yet.
People complain that they can't believe much of what they read or hear anymore, and that the media are politically biased. (Take your pick as to whether we allegedly favor the Democrats or the Republicans.)
All the criticisms seem pretty valid to me.
Sorry to say, I have a funny feeling the three cases I've picked out will make the craft of journalism seem that much worse.
O'Reilly
Once again, Bill O'Reilly opens his big yap and now is being sued.
Yes, O'Reilly pulls down the big bucks by being provocative. He wants to arouse people's ire. He doesn't mind getting criticized, and gives as good as he gets. That's why he has become one of the most famous broadcasters in the nation -- and one of the most successful.
But Prince Frederic von Anhalt is suing Fox and O'Reilly after the bombastic talk-show host called him, of all things, a fraud for saying he might be the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.
Two others have contended that they're the father: Smith's ex-boyfriend Larry Birkhead and her most recent companion, Howard K. Stern, whose name appears on the baby's birth certificate.
Is this a frivolous lawsuit? Maybe. Is von Anhalt trying to capitalize on his tabloid moment and O'Reilly's fame? You could say that.
Still, O'Reilly shouldn't call someone -- anyone -- a fraud. He's opening the door for aggravation, at the very least. Couldn't he have used less inflammatory remarks to make his point?
Von Anhalt, married to Zsa Zsa Gabor, filed a defamation suit seeking at least $10 million in damages Wednesday in Los Angeles County superior court. The lawsuit followed comments O'Reilly allegedly made during his show, "The O'Reilly Factor," on Feb. 22.
O'Reilly probably won't change anything about his broadcasting style; look for him to continue to provoke people. But this lawsuit, whatever you think of it, doesn't help his image or the media's.
Stengel
Last week, Stengel added a computer-generated tear to enhance a photo of President Reagan, an image Time used to introduce its ballyhooed redesign.
Couldn't the accompanying story on the state of the Republican Party stand on its own? The cover text -- "How The Right Went Wrong" -- looks like it's pretty powerful stuff. It didn't need the hype.
What's next, an uncracked Liberty Bell that's been Photoshopped to show the strength of democracy? Or a new face to adorn Mount Rushmore, or a little blush added to the Mona Lisa?
I recognize that these are trying times for magazines, and that everyone is scrambling to use covers to make compelling statements. Time produced a spectacular cover a few months ago, when it depicted an elephant's backside as a way to portray the Republicans.
That image worked perfectly; it was witty and blunt at once. It didn't reek of a gimmick.
Making matters worse, Stengel published this cover as the first issue in Time's redesign. (Talking about slipping on a banana peel as you come on to the stage.) More bad timing.
Admirably, Stengel has shown fearlessness in his first year at the helm of Time. He isn't afraid to shake up America's most famous magazine. All editors should be as adventrous. But, you know ... there are limits.
Eichenwald
Speaking of bad timing: Eichenwald joined Portfolio last year, following a distinguished career as a top investigative reporter with the New York Times . In particular, he got high marks for his coverage of Enron.
It was big news when he came to Portfolio, a Conde Nast property. The publication got lots of press every time it signed up a big-name writer or editor. Eichenwald was viewed as a terrific catch for the new magazine, which will roll out its first issue next month.
You'd think that Portfolio would be thrilled about its debut and wanted nothing more than to crow about it. Now, the picture may be clouded by Eichenwald's situation.
Apparently Eichenwald hadn't told his editors about a payment he had made to the key source in an explosive story. To his credit, Eichenwald quickly admitted that he should've told the Times (his employer at the time), but insisted that his mistake was not unethical.
That publicity threatened to be disruptive. Eichenwald made more news when he wrote a long letter to the widely read Romenesko Web page to explain himself, when in my opinion he should've kept quiet. If he had, the story would have faded.
But he prolonged the saga. Then he thundered about filing a $10 million lawsuit against Debbie Nathan, another investigative reporter.
I don't know about you, but I'd sure want to keep a low profile after it became public that I didn't tell my editor about loaning two grand to an 18-year-old kid -- someone who was the primary subject of a piece about child pornography. But that's me.
Eichenwald says Portfolio fully supports him, and a Conde Nast spokeswoman backed him publicly in my column. Still, if I had a stake in Portfolio's success, I'd have grimaced as Eichenwald kept the story alive.
O'Reilly. Stengel. Eichenwald.
What the heck were these guys thinking?
MEDIA WEB QUESTION OF THE DAY: Do you think any less of the media now than before?
MONDAY REPORT CARD: The media kept the pressure on Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. The Bush administration, which always seemed to have a handle on its press relations, suddenly seemed flummoxed.
READERS RESPOND to my column about Newsweek's never-ending battle to top its rival, Time: "I cannot think of one reason why anyone should care about either Time or Newsweek. First, they are both really crummy magazines that are not even worth reading. And second, they are as stale as an old loaf of bread based on their publishing schedules. Everything in there has already been hashed on TV, and from the few issues I've bothered to read (only when I am stuck somewhere with absolutely nothing else to do), it isn't like you need to read them for any kind of in-depth analysis. PBS, Fox News and CNN can provide you 95% of what you get from both of them for free and much more that they do not include. Just like the major newspapers that should also become extinct, they will probably survive for a long time from simple inertia. If someone wants to read an objective and well-written weekly, go for the Economist." Ernesto Mendivil
(Media Web appears on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.)
By Jon Friedman