A few days ago, I wrote a letter to Kristi Andersen, the reporter that did the story about ASIMOV'S magazine being sold as a school fundraiser even though it was "full of stories about sex, drugs, and molestation." In the letter I (rather sarcastically) thanked Andersen for giving me the chance to show my media literacy classes a perfect example of biased reporting. I wrote the letter as a teacher at Walled Lake Central High School (which is in the same state as Andersen's channel) and I included the school's address and my voice mail number.
Friday, I received a voice mail message from Patty McGadden (sp?), the news director at Channel 8. Would I call her back?
Rather startled, I did. It turned out that McGadden took great exception to my letter and how I was planning to use the story. She said that Asimov's
rebuttal had lies in it, in particular the point that claimed Channel 8 called the magazine "pornographic." "We never used that word in the report," McGadden said.
She also had the impression that I hadn't seen the video, so I told her that I had, and that I'd also bought the magazine and read Asimov's response to the story.
"Kristi Andersen said the magazine was--I quote--'full of sex, drugs, and molestation,'" I said, "but when I read the magazine, I only found two stories that dealt with these topics. Why did Andersen misrepresent the amount of sexual content in the magazine?"
McGadden said that she didn't have the magazine in front of her, so she couldn't really comment.
I also asked about the discrepency in the two reports about the relationship between QSP and Asimov's and how they severed ties.
"There does seem to be some fuzziness about that," McGadden said. "Kristi would know more."
McGadden also went on to say that they've received a lot of e-mail and letters from people all around the country complaining about this story (many from
people who didn't see the video, she said), and that it's clear Asimov's has a "publicity machine" it's using against Channel 8.
I blinked at this. Asimov's with a publicity machine? After a moment, I realized what she meant. I think she figured they were getting so many letters from all over because Asimov's had gotten word out and was pushing people to do this. As far as I know, Asimov's doesn't have a big publicity machine (I could be wrong) and their only response has been on their web page. Channel 8 got so many letters because of the fans and the writers who posted stuff about the story on-line, I'm guessing.
I didn't contradict McGadden, however. I was talking to her as an English teacher, not as an SF writer. I did ask more questions. We really got into it over the phone, with me asking pointed questions about how the story was presented and McGadden rebutting, though I think McGadden was angrier than I was.
"It's clear you have your point of view and that you're not open to our side," she said.
We almost hung up on each other, and then I decided I wanted to hear more, so I backed off a little bit. A bit later, McGadden asked if I wanted to talk to Kristi Andersen. Surprised (again), I said, "That would be very interesting," I said. "I do intend to talk about this to my class. They'll be fascinated."
"Just don't upset her," McGadden said. This last sounded odd to me--aren't news reporters used to dealing with irate or argumentative people?--but I promised I wouldn't.
Andersen came on the line, and this time =I= played reporter. I asked her questions and let her talk. I asked why she used the term "adult content," when most people see the term as equalling "pornography."
Asimov's, she replied, uses the term "adult" themselves. (I'm condensing, but that was the gist.)
I told her that I presented the video to my students with no introduction, then had them read Asimov's rebuttal amd let them thumb through the magazine in question. "The universal consensus among my students," I said, "was that the report incorrectly portrayed Asimov's as a sex magazine. What's your response to that?"
Andersen said she felt QSP (the fundraising company) came off as looking worse for not putting an "over 18" label on the listing in their catalog. "QSP did this for other magazines like ELLE and GQ," she said. "QSP didn't put that label on Asimov's, though they should have."
I also asked about how QSP and Asimov's severed ties with each other.
"There's some uncertainty about that," Andersen said.
"Then why," I asked, pointedly but politely, "did you report it as a fact that QSP dropped Asimovs over the issue of adult content?"
The main point, Andersen said, was that the two companies severed ties with one another, and we [the station] wanted to run the story to alert the local parents. The deadline arrived before they could clear the matter up.
"We've gotten many phone calls and letters from parents and school superintendents thanking us for running this story," she said.
Our conversation, I might add, was very polite and calm and civilized, and we hung up on fairly good terms.
My opinion? I think that Andersen truly believes the story was good reporting and as unbiased as she could make it. I do rather disagree with her, for what it's worth.
This isn't the first time I've seen arrogance in the journalistic profession, and a willingness to bend the truth to make a "selling story".
Of course, the usual rule in a moral panic is that the less people know about the "offending item", the more eager they are to condemn it. "I haven't read it, but they say it's bad on TV, so I'm not letting my little Billy read that smut mag Scientific American."
The Good Doctor must be spinning in his grave...
:(
Posted by: A.R. Yngve | March 01, 2004 at 03:15 PM