Bruce is of course correct, as we have noted privately. The interesting thing about this "disinformation" and " non-specific" is that one can only wonder whether the reporter's paper/media outlet (and the relevant news sources that picked it up, including the influential Financial Review here in Australia) maye well have been protecting their advertising dollars and associations by not mentioning a specific auction site, but rather the whole online auction business.... which gives the story a whole different slant.
Of course damage done, and who can wonder at why so many think of the press as being unreliable. In another life, I interviewed dozens of film makers, many of them more than once. A few even specificed they talked to me after their initial experience because my own personal credo was not to misquote them, or take their quotes out of context to fit another " question". Not hard really, but one was always mindful of the studio publicist often sitting in the room, somewhat nervously. because I never asked the " usual questions". The press/media is endless fascinating. Phil E. On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 17:53:26 -0700, David Kusumoto wrote > ** What Bruce says about reporters is TRUE. I was a reporter before I became > an editor, and learned quickly that we had to SELL a pre-formed THESIS to our > bosses before we could get a green light to chase anything. Only the > "sexiest angles" that our bosses felt would interest readers, viewers or > listeners won. Two of the biggest reasons I got out of the news business was > the competitive chase for ratings -- as manifested -- beginning in the 1970s > -- by 1) the growing influence of slanted and biased "info-tainment" buried > in "news stories" and 2) the "glamorization" of news personalities. People > who have seen the Will Ferrell parody, "Anchorman" know what I'm talking > about (ironically, set here in San Diego). > > -------- > > ** Today, the idea allowing an "unattractive" news person on TV in any major > city is UNTHINKABLE. However, what has NOT changed [WINDOWS-1252?] is the > way stories are selected and packaged by editors. Today I work on the other > side of the fence. I deal with reporters as part of my job. Most writers > have a pre-formed idea of where they want to go. If you accuse them of > having an "agenda," they get pissed and you've just sunk yourself in your > effort to establish a semblance of "goodwill." > > ** In about 50% of my cases, I am successful steering the news train in a > slightly different direction instead of being dragged behind it. The most > successful PR shills are ex-news people (like myself) -- who are able to find > SEXIER angles which can trump a reporter's pre-formed thesis. It enables a > reporter to "switch horses" without being humiliated. My other tactic is to > poke so many editorial holes into a thesis -- in a friendly way so I don't > sound defensive [WINDOWS-1252?] casting enough doubt to undermine a > reporter's confidence. Reporters have no time. They're always under the > gun. If you do some leg work for them, they'll shift gears more readily. > This is what my clients expect me to do, even though I make no guarantees. A > reporter's biggest fear is going back to their editors with nothing > [WINDOWS-1252?] and being blacklisted as an empty suit or dress. > > -------- > > ** I haven't written anything that's been published in years. But I'll give > you a vivid example that involves Bruce. Nearly ten years ago, when I was a > contributor to MCW, I decided to explore his operations, attitudes and > reputation. I ended up writing an article that was clearly labeled "opinion" > and combined it with an auction results story that ran nearly 6,000 words and > filled many pages with text and photographs. My attitude going in wasn't > fixed; remember, back then, I'd already put in 13 years as a shill at a major > corporation, well after my days as a writer and editor in the 70s and 80s. > But I confess, I did have some pre-conceived ideas about what I'd write and > tackle when it came to movie posters. Once word got out, the number of > people who came out of the WOODWORK to praise or to bury Bruce was > UNBELIEVABLE. He was WAY more polarizing 10 years ago than he is today. > > ** People would call or write, declaring, "Dave, how can you not know that > Bruce is a so-and-so and has done this or that?" I had others saying the > opposite and others who, when it came to brass tacks, would concede their > "proof" was a formulation of hunches or "as told to third- and fourth-party > testimonials" which would never pass any litmus test for publication. They > had axes to grind but would not come clean about them for public > consumption. Well, as people who've read my postings at MoPo since the 1990s > know, when I have an axe to grind against a person, I declare it first. I > make no effort to be a "journalist." I spout opinions in the same childish > way Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly do every day at each other. > > ** Meanwhile, people at Christie's and others in New York and Los Angeles and > elsewhere agreed to be interviewed more readily than others. Even better, > they faxed documents buttressing their claims. This makes an immediate > positive impression to even "self-righteous and crusading" editors. If they > didn't prove Bruce was truthful [WINDOWS-1252?] they at least illustrated a > fearlessness that demanded respect. When I warned the "guys with the long > knives," that damn it, "my neck is on the line if I write this or that > without attribution" -- in the end, they would not "face the music" in equal > measure. I implored them to be equally fearless with their so-called > "proof." But most folded like a house of cards. My point -- very FEW will go > on the record when it matters most when dealing with controversy. You can > slant a story all you want (just read the NY Times vs. the Washington Post, > the latter in my view, a superior paper) -- but the foundation of all > articles, however! spun or misleading by omission -- is still based on facts. > > -------- > > ** In sum, on the story I wrote about Bruce [WINDOWS-1252?] I came away > thinking, s***, it turned out to be like any other story I've written in the > past. I'm dealing with a lot of people who carry a lot of grudges -- grudges > that will become meaningless when they're at death's door. I've been > threatened by lawyers many times since the 1970s. Knock on formica, they've > never followed through. It's not worth it because truth is the best defense > against an accusation of libel (published) or slander (spoken). And in the > case of libel -- a plaintiff in the U.S. must prove he or she is NOT a public > figure open to parody -- AND that any falsehood about them was delivered with > "malice." The laws are different in other countries but the simplest way to > put it (and demonstrates why democracies are magnificent) -- is you can make > fun of public figures like the President or anyone in office -- while in > other countries, ridiculing leaders in theocracies or communist countries or! even in "democratic" countries like Russia or Mexico [WINDOWS-1252?] you can get killed or your hands will be sawed off or "taken out" in some way. When I was in China in 1997, it was incredible the number of people who would talk to me in "whispers" when I asked them about their government. I've said it before, but I believe indigenous people born in democracies take for granted what they have. They really do. > > ** As a coda -- the greatest irony about that epic article I wrote about > Bruce in 1998 -- was nobody -- including Bruce himself -- liked the way it > was "shaping" in their minds BEFORE publication. When it was finally > published, many felt it was a "hatchet job" or a "kiss-ass" piece. With such > divergent reactions, I knew I'd done OK. I'm no longer a journalist and I > have no interest writing any articles about the auction world. Most people > who matter to me today -- already know how I feel about them. I no longer > have to be "neutral." It's liberating. For example, even if I don't comment > about a poster seller in public -- even if I might hate his or her > personality or politics -- I regard the mere action of transacting business > or communicating with that seller in private [WINDOWS-1252?] by phone or by > e-mail -- as my personal endorsement of their character or the way they do > business. You already know who you are, even if you don't like my > friends. But many lurker! s tell me the reason they remain lurkers at MoPo is because they fear getting pounded by "all the old people" who've been on these boards for years. I confess, I never want to be regarded as that mean person who's close minded and unfair. Call me long-winded, fine, and I won't change my mind about a lot of s***, but I never want to be the reason some lurkers remain lurkers. As Roger Kim wrote humorously/brilliantly in a recent public post about procuring Universal horror paper, "I congratulate myself." In this case, I do so for trying my best to be consistently fair. > > -kuz. > ------------------------ > > Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 07:38:36 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Hershenson story goes viral > To: [email protected] > > > This story was funny. As most people who have ever been interviewed know (and > I have done 100+ such interviews over the years) many reporters (David > excluded, of course!) often have a thesis for their article firmly in place > before they start interviewing, and then they look for quotes to fit that > thesis, and discard anything that doesn't fit! > > This particular reporter wanted a story about online auctions dying, and I > tried to say that it is only eBay auctions that are dying, and not for any > reason other than eBay shooting itself in the foot, and she didn't want that > story, and I learned a long time ago there is no point fighting with the > reporter! > > It HAS spread all over the internet, and I have had hundreds of calls and > e-mails from potential new buyers and sellers, so maybe some good will come > out of it. > > Funny sidenote. The print edition of Business Week comes out this week, and > they wanted a picture of me to run with the story. They told me they had > staff photographers who would take my picture, and I told them I live in a > tiny town, and would get them a picture (from a pro photographer if they > wanted) but instead they had two of their photographers drive from St. Louis > to West Plains (4 hours each way!) and they spent four hours setting up their > equipment and taking a zillion images of me, all for some tiny image of me > that may or may not appear in print (and since I have a face that was made > for radio, I have a feeling I won't make the final cut!). > > Someday, there will be a good story about online collectibles auctions (and > maybe showing the good and bad and the ugly about them) and maybe David K > will write it, but that will have to wait for another day! > > Bruce > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:04 PM, David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The 1,200-word analysis by Catherine Holahan featuring quotes by Bruce -- > that originated in Business Week magazine in New York yesterday -- has gone > super viral today. > > Beyond the Yahoo News reference previously cited by Channing, the story has > been picked up by many papers and websites, including USA Today and CNet, > with some using headlines or leads -- declaring eBay auctions, according to a > Business Week analysis -- are "doomed." The original Holahan story is at the > link below as a user-friendly PDF. > > http://tinyurl.com/46mucq > > ...But a Google News search of "Hershenson" cites nearly 50 "related" stories > on the web today.... > > -d. > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at > www.filmfan.com___________________________________________________________________How > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing ListSend a message addressed to: [EMAIL > PROTECTED] the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe author of this > message is solely responsible for its content. -- Nelson Bay Online (http://www.nelsonbay.com) Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
