Cover of the Rolling Stone, Emmy Shift and Quality Journalism

 "The View From the Phlipside" is a media commentary program airing on WRFA-LP, Jamestown NY.  It can be heard Tuesday through Friday just after 8 AM and 5 PM.  The following are scripts which may not exactly match the aired version of the program.  Mostly because the host may suddenly choose to add or subtract words at a moments notice.  WRFA-LP is not responsible for any such silliness or the opinions expressed.  You can listen to a live stream of WRFA or find a podcast of this program at wrfalp.com.  Copyright 2013 by Jay Phillippi.  All Rights Reserved.  You like what you see?  Drop me a line and we can talk.

Program scripts from week of July 23 2013


My name is Jay Phillippi and I've spent my life in and around the media.  TV, radio, the movies and more.  I love them, and I hate them and I always have an opinion.  Call this the View from the Phlipside. 

Quality Journalism                                                                                               

There are some stories that pop up quickly and then die out just as quickly.  Given the production schedule for these commentaries sometimes I see something that looks interesting but it becomes a non-issue before I can get a commentary up and running.

The recent story associated with the crash of the Asiana Airlines plane in San Francisco looked to be one of those.  Following the crash a Bay area TV station announced that it had the names of the four pilots of the plane in the accident.  What they then read off were four racially insensitive names that any 10 year old would have recognized as a joke.  Turns out the “source” for the names was a summer intern at a federal bureau that was part of the post crash investigation.  It was a great launching point to talk again about the importance of quality journalism.  But when the federal agency apologized and I assume dropped the intern and the television station apologized the story was running out of time.  Even the actual pilots  threatened to sue but then changed their minds.  Pretty much story over.  Yes, the TV news station should fire a few people as well for unprofessional levels of stupid but hey.  I was prepared to take a pass on the story.

Until Monday.

Mrs. Phlipside and I were having dinner at a local downtown landmark restaurant when I overheard a conversation at the next table that made me want to weep and rage.  And it gave new life to the story.  The folks were discussing those stupid names and were insistent that “Those are the REAL names.  I heard about it on the news”.  The conversation went down hill from there.

THIS is why doing journalism right is so important.  This is why

verifying sources is important.  This is why it is more important to spend the extra minutes THINKING about what you report than being the first on the air or in print.  Did no one in that newsroom read those names out loud?  Do none of them have an 8 year old boy in their lives?  As I review the story for this commentary I saw that the TV station didn’t even accept responsibility.  They blamed the federal agency for mis-informing them.

Turns out even the shortest story in the news might be more important than we think.

Emmy Shift                                                                                                              

Don’t know if you noticed it but the earth moved a little on it’s orbit just a little bit last week.  There’s a new TV awards contender in town and you may not ever see it on your TV.  At least not so far.

For the Broadway stage there are the Tony’s, for movies the Oscars, for music the Grammys and for television the Emmy.  Administered by three separate organizations (The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, the NATIONAL Academy of Television Arts and Sciences and the INTERNATIONAL Academy of Television Arts and Sciences) the Grammys probably are the most diverse awards, um, program in the world.  There’s the Primetime and Daytime versions plus versions for news, sports, business and finance, engineering and technology plus regional and international versions.  It’s all pretty complicated.

The other art forms (theater, movies and music) have relatively compact fields of competition.  At least they are less affected by the vehicle carrying the programming.  In 1988 suddenly the Emmy’s were faced with the reality that cable TV programming needed to be recognized.  Today cable TV dominates the awards.  In 2006 the Emmys opened their arms to programming aimed at “computers, mobile phones, iPods, PDAs, and similar devices.”   But it was the Daytime Emmys so no one was particularly concerned.  Two years later it was programming that aired on the Internet that was given a place at the table.

Wait, aren’t these TV awards?

Well now the great change has really taken place.  It’s one thing to say your shows can be considered.  It’s something else to actually snag a nomination.

Enter the game changer.  Netflix, which began life as a movie rental company, picked up 9 nominations for it’s smash show “House of Cards” including nods in Best Program and Best Lead Male and Female.  They grabbed a few others for two other programs as well.

So what do we mean when we talk about television from this moment forward?  What does this say about how we watch whatever it is we’re going to call TV from now on?  As much as anything else these award nominations are an indication of the paradigm shift in TV.

And that would be an entirely new house of cards for the industry.

Cover of the Rolling Stone                                                                                                          

The latest storm on the media horizon has to do with the cover of the Rolling Stone.  Not the 1973 Top 10 novelty hit song by Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show but the actual cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

The current issue shows the photo of alleged Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.  The picture, which at least one report I’ve seen says is what the kids call a “selfie” or a self shot, shows a fairly normal looking young man with long curly brown hair.  That shot has set plenty of people off including the folks at Wal-Mart, CVS, Rite-Aid and 7-Eleven who have announced they won’t sell this issue.  Given that I don’t want corporate suits deciding what I can and can’t buy I think that’s a pretty stupid response.  But as we say different topic for a different day.

So what’s all the furor about?  Obviously the psychic wounds of the bombing are still quite sensitive for some and I respect that.  At the same time I don’t get why the outrage has reached the level it has.  Let’s look at the history.

This isn’t the first alleged mass murderer that Rolling Stone has featured on the cover.  Charles Manson has that dubious honor.  It’s not even that no other publication has ever done this before.  An August 1966 issue of Time magazine featured Charles Whitman.  For those who don’t remember that name Whitman was known as the Texas Tower sniper.  He climbed the tower in the center of the University of Texas and killed or wounded 49 people that day.  The picture on the cover was of smiling, All American young man with a puppy dog at his side.

The headline on the Rolling Stone cover reads “The Bomber - How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed By His Family, Fell Into Radical Islam and Became A Monster”.  That’s why this is the right photo to go with the story.  Because it’s about how a seemingly normal, successful and yes, rather good looking young man, can descend so deep into the darkness.  It is the disparity of the appearance and the act that make us so uncomfortable.  It is exactly the kind of in-your-face approach that Rolling Stone has specialized in for decades.

I’m not saying you have to like the cover.  I’m certainly not saying you should buy the issue although I may.  I am saying that from a story-telling/journalism point of view I believe that there’s a very legitimate argument for that photo to be on the cover of the Rolling Stone.

Call that the View From the Phlipside

Oscars? Who Cares?, Future of Journalism, and Lines Not to Cross

 "The View From the Phlipside" is a media commentary program airing on WRFA-LP, Jamestown NY.  It can be heard Tuesday through Friday just after 8 AM and 5 PM.  The following are scripts which may not exactly match the aired version of the program.  Mostly because the host may suddenly choose to add or subtract words at a moments notice.  WRFA-LP is not responsible for any such silliness or the opinions expressed.  You can listen to a live stream of WRFA or find a podcast of this program at wrfalp.com.  Copyright 2013 by Jay Phillippi.  All Rights Reserved.  You like what you see?  Drop me a line and we can talk.

Program scripts from week of February 24, 2013



My name is Jay Phillippi and I've spent my life in and around the media.  TV, radio, the movies and more.  I love them, and I hate them and I always have an opinion.  Call this the View from the Phlipside. 

Lines Not to Cross                                                                                                         

I had not planned on doing anything with the Oscars this week other than note that I think they’re overrated for picking “the best” each year.  Then when I woke up on Monday I heard about the fiasco with the satirical web site The Onion and Best Actress nominee Quvenzhane Wallis.  And it just wouldn’t let me alone.

If you have somehow managed to not hear about it the folks at the parody website were doing some live tweeting during the broadcast.  For reasons that remain obscure to me they chose at one point to use a derogatory word for a woman which I can’t even hint at here for the 9 year old actress.  The Internet yelled and screamed and the tweet was taken down in an hour.  The following day the CEO of the online satire site published an apology.

Now I’m generally a fan of The Onion.  While I’m sorry that they made such a bonehead mistake they handled it the way it should have been handled.  Take down the tweet and apologize.  What really puzzles me has been some of the reaction to those decisions.  Because some people are outraged that the CEO didn’t stand behind the original post.

Let me get this straight.  A nasty, derogatory, misogynist term is used (which is bad enough on its own) against a NINE year old and some of these mouth breathing morons don’t have a problem with that.  They bring up all kinds of adult examples and say “Why aren’t you outraged by these?”.  Well the reality is that I don’t much like those examples either but that misses the point.  This is a NINE YEAR OLD CHILD.

Seems some folks thought she came off a little full of herself.  Let’s see - she’s nine, in an original Armani outfit and she’s been nominated for a Best Actress in a Leading Role Oscar at age nine.  If there was ever a moment in someone’s life to be a little full of yourself that is probably it.  But even with that there is no justification for the word that was used.  Not for an adult and especially not for a child.

The greatest failing of the Internet is that it makes narcissists of us all.  We fall into the trap of believing that anything we say is profound or clever or witty.  Far more often they are snarky, shallow, ill informed and cruel.

Even satire should have lines over which you dare not pass.

Future of Journalism                                                                                                       

Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away I got started in the media world in the world of journalism.  Back in the day when you got started in radio at Edinboro you started by doing the news.  I did news when I got my first job in commercial radio as well.  There was no way I was going to spend my life as a journalist (I’m just not designed for that life) but my roots are firmly grounded in journalism.  Because of that I have always been a little more focused on that side of the media.  Which is why I’m growing ever more disturbed by what I see in that arena.

There’s a couple things.  First of all in sports journalism many of the professional sports leagues are trying to control their media exposure to a greater and greater degree.  If you’ve ever read your ticket you’ll notice that by purchasing the ticket you give up ownership of the photos, videos and audio recordings you may make at the event.  Well journalists are finding that the sports organizations like the NBA, NFL, NCAA and NASCAR are trying to do the same thing.  Journalists are now finding those leagues want them to sign over the copyrights to all their work as well.  Additionally they are asking journalists not to post more than 3 pictures, not to tweet or broadcast during the event.  Somewhere along the line the distinction between publicity and journalism seems to have gotten a little vague.

That’s not the only place.  Indiana University last summer announced it was thinking about merging its independent Journalism school with the Communications and Media department.  Now there are lots of places that do it that.  What stood out for me in this discussion was the comment by the University President Michael McRobbie who said, and I quote,
“There’s no point in saving a school that trains people to manage fleets of horses if the motorcar has taken over horse-drawn transportation.”  That’s one of the more profound instances of missing the point.

Journalism is more than the medium that conveys it.  It has survived the shift from print only to radio then to television.  Journalism will also survive the shift to new media as well.  Just as long as those entrusted to teach it continue to understand it and those they teach continue to fight for it.

Oscars?  Who Cares?

I write and record these programs usually the weekend before they air.  This sometimes leaves me short when it comes to comment on events like Sunday night’s Oscar awards. I will occasionally cheat and record a program on Monday morning to include the event.  I probably would have done that for this year’s Oscars except for two things.

First I’ve only seen one of the movies nominated.  So it’s hard to have an intelligent opinion.

Second, and most importantly, I heard an interesting question last week.  Why should we care about the Oscars?  That was a question that stopped me dead.

Why should we care?

The process of winning an Oscar amounts to winning enough of the votes of the 6,000 eligible members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.  That doesn’t always lead to objective, scientific results.  Like 1976 when “Rocky” beat out “Taxi Driver”, “All The President’s Men” and “Network”.  I love “Rocky” but seriously?

And we can’t say that commercial success helps you.  Looking at the Box Office Domestic numbers “Lincoln” was the most successful movie of the nominees finishing 19th, “Argo” was 25th, “Life of Pi” at 32 and “Django Unchained” was 39th.  The other 6 nominees finished outside the TOP 50!  Now some folks will point out that a lot of these movies debuted late in the year so gross box office isn’t a fair standard.  OK fine.  But these are supposedly the best movies of 2012 shouldn’t we be judging them by their performance in that year?  Apparently not.
So what we’re left with is a popularity vote only by insiders who are deluged (as much as the rules allow) by campaigns from the studios.  And their track record is just odd enough to make you wonder.

If you want to watch the Oscars as a celebration of the movie industry go for it.  It’s great for doing just that.  But just remember that Richard Burton, Peter O’Toole, Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock never won one in their primary category.

Draw what conclusions you may

Call that the View From the Phlipside

View From the Phlipside - WikiLeaks

My name is Jay Phillippi and I've spent my life in and around the media.  TV, Radio, the Movies and more.  I love them and I hate them and I always have an opinion.  Call this the View From the Phlipside.

In the midst of one of the biggest news stories of the moment is another story sitting quietly waiting to be noticed.  I thought I’d shine a little light on it for a moment or two right now.  The web site WikiLeaks has been very much in the news over the last month after they published some 251,287 diplomatic cables sent by U.S. diplomats all over the world.  WikiLeaks is dedicated to creating more transparency in governments all over the world.  They pursue this goal by obtaining and then releasing documents that the various governments would prefer to keep private.

I’m not an unalloyed fan of WikiLeaks.  Basically all they do is dump material into the information stream without any analysis or context.  While they claim to be part of the journalistic tradition I think they fall short.  On the other hand they’ve done a much better job of being responsible about some of the information than their critics would have you believe.  They have redacted names (that means they blocked them out before releasing them), they even asked the U.S. government for assistance in doing just that which the government declined.  Reactions have been weighed heavily on the side of the hysterical.  A Canadian diplomat apparently suggested the head of WikiLeaks should be assassinated, U.S. politicians claim that the organization has “blood” on their hands (a claim that the U.S. Department of Defense seems to contradict curiously) and there’s been much made of the Espionage Act of 1917.

The problem is that what WikiLeaks has done is NOT espionage under the intention of the Act.  The original clearly exempted journalists from the definition.  And well they might.  A strong, even adversarial press is a vital part of the American way of life.  We MUST have groups out there digging where the power brokers don’t want us and playing the role of muckraker.  It is the single most effective balk on the misuse of power in a democracy.  Consequently I am much more disturbed by our government putting the strong arm on American corporations to cut ties with WikiLeaks.  There is a much greater threat to our liberties in those actions than in what has been released so far.  And we better figure out how to deal with this new adjunct to the world of journalism since a new competing service called OpenLeaks is prepared to debut soon.

What the muckraker pulls up and pushes into our noses is often unpleasant but the role is one that has an honored and vital role in our national life.  We shut then down at our own peril.

Call that the View From the Phlipside.

"The View From the Phlipside" airs on WRFA-LP Jamestown NY.  You can listen to WRFA online HERE
Copyright - Jay Phillippi 2010

View From the Phlipside - Journalism Rant

My name is Jay Phillippi and I've spent my life in and around the media.  TV, Radio, the Movies and more.  I love them and I hate them and I always have an opinion.  Call this the View From the Phlipside.

What follows is a rant.  An expression of personal outrage at a complete failure of the media in the last week.  Add my voice to those wondering just what happened with the coverage of the Shirley Sherrod speech.  Sherrod was the USDA official who was accused of racist comments during a speech before a chapter of the NAACP.  She temporarily lost her job because of the furor.

What outrages me in all of this was not the unthinking knee jerk reactions of the White House or the NAACP.  This is not a political commentary program.  My outrage is directed at the news outlets that failed to perform the most basic level of journalism in their coverage.  Journalism 101 teaches that you must always verify the story.  That single source stories are to be viewed with a certain scepticism.  That you always check the facts before you present them.  The coverage on this story was singularly lacking in this particular fundamental practice.

The first warning bells should have gone off with the name of Andrew Brietbart.  Brietbart is an advocate, not a journalist.  There’s nothing wrong with being an advocate but they operate under a different set of assumptions and rules than journalists.  As an advocate there is no call for him to verify whether the quotation was in or out of context.  It should have been the first thing a journalist should have done.  

Sadly journalism has descended to a place where it is more important to be fast rather than right.  There is much ballyhooing of the new age of “citizen journalism”.  Unless journalistic standards are respected and taught we must be honest and say that this is not a new age of journalism.  It is a return to days of “yellow” journalism and gossip mongering.  I truly fear for our republic if that is the best information available for our political discourse.

There is no excuse for what was presented as journalism in this case.  A woman’s life and career were very nearly destroyed.  All because no one at the White House, the NAACP or the vast majority of the media could be bothered to make a simple check on the veracity of their source.

Call that whatever you like, just don’t call it journalism.

Call that the View From the Phlipside.

"The View From the Phlipside" airs on WRFA-LP Jamestown NY.  You can listen to WRFA online HERE
Copyright - Jay Phillippi 2010