Secrets of the City

I don’t even know where to begin on this one. If we’re to believe this really was an internal screw-up: wow.

But if there were an interview with a killer like Donald Blum, on the noteworthy 10-year anniversary of his crime, I can’t believe a station would pull it.

This quote from a viewer is troubling: “There’s plenty of happy, positive things happening in the northland, and we don’t need to know about this stuff.”

That may be true, but that sounds like a different program, and not the news. I wonder if we’ll see more about this kind of thing: viewers freaking out prior to stories airing, and organizing protests. I always prefer when people freak out AFTER my stories air.

As to your second point, it does say “By John Brewer| jbrewer@pioneerpress.com” at the top of the article. So you don’t have to call, Cristina.

I don’t even know where to begin on this one. If we’re to believe this really was an internal screw-up: wow.

But I don’t think they’ll let anyone hang out to dry. This is what happens when a station’s staff is cut to the point of being a skeleton crew. Blame it on the economy; blame it on consolidation; blame it bean counters who have to idea what it takes to operate a creative business; blame it on whatever.

But even something like a promo doesn’t hit the airwaves without having to pass by the desks of at least a couple of people with power to approve or rejecty its production and schedule placement … unless KBJR is so short-staffed now one person is wearing three or four hats at the same time, including production and traffic?

It distresses me, too, Jason, to read a comment like that. Maybe they should instead buy a subscription to Grit?

Yes, I know, Jason, that’s why I find it so odd. Why include the number at the bottom, like part of the story, essentially framing the story in John Brewer contact points? Seems odd.

It also seems to me that there might have been a time when a reporter might have dug a little deeper and asked a few station employees what really happened. Yes, we’ve had budget/staff cuts, but noodleman is right: an ad like this would definitely pass through several hands/ears/eyes at minimum.

I am fully aware that the audience guides the news in many respects, but this type of guidance/bullying terrifies me. How many people have I heard say, “I don’t watch the news because it’s too depressing”? Looks like we may be heading toward pure fluff.

Why include the number at the bottom, like part of the story, essentially framing the story in John Brewer contact points? Seems odd.

I think that’s just the manner in which some of the articles get formatted online by the PiPress. A phone # is also found at the end of this article about the school board elections.

Or maybe it’s just another sign that the mighty ax has been swung too freely and too broadly when it comes to copy editing?

It probably wouldn’t look or read so odd it the contact info was not marked-up in the same font as the copy text.

True, noodleman – definitely a font issue.

This quote from a viewer is troubling: “There’s plenty of happy, positive things happening in the northland, and we don’t need to know about this stuff…..

I blame both the news organizations for not having the guts to stand up to morons like the person that wrote this comment. We live in a world of marginally educated sheep and wonder why things are the way they are. Without T.V. and antidepressant’s I truly believe this country would come unglued. Never under estimate the stupidity of the American People.

Well, then you should be happy we have TV and antidepressants.

TV and antidepressants? Isn’t that liking doing blow with valium?

I umm wouldn’t…. er..I don’t know….ahh bollocks.

Ya’ll are missing the mark on this one. If there is solid information — new evidence, a court ruling, ect — then it is news. A convicted rapist getting television air time to beg his innocence is sensationalism.

People were right to call it out. Moose Lake / Duluth . . . small communities that still have a lot of justified anger and sorrow over that killing. It’s a permanent mark. They should not have to listen to this guy do his poor-me deal on the 10th anniversary of their daughter/sister being brutally raped and murdered.

People have the choice to not watch it. No one can force them to listen to it. And I don’t fault them for trying to pressure the station into not airing it.

News organizations should always have discussions about whether or not an interview like this is newsworthy. I would argue that on the 10th anniversary of a murder, it is newsworthy to hear from the guy convicted of doing it. Of course, it would also be newsworthy to call out his BS.

I guess this is the modern day equivalent of the car dealer calling the sales manager and getting a story that he didn’t like killed. Now any of us can make noise and get a TV station to kill a story prior to its airing. It troubles me.

It certainly sounds like you fault them from trying.

And, no, it is not the equivalent of that. A) there isn’t ad revenue directly associated with it and B) again, there is nothing “newsworthy” about giving this guy airtime. If you would argue that it is, do so. What will the viewer learn? and C) the equivalent would be him calling the station to say he didn’t want news about his behavior aired.

This is about people calling out what they knew would be sensationalistic bullshit from the beginning and the station realizing so. If it were actual news of new DNA or a witness, people would be upset — but it would also be news, and would never be pulled by the station.

I guess it’s hard for me to determine whether or not it’s newsworthy without knowing what the guy is saying. How do we know people aren’t going to learn anything?

To me, hearing from a convicted killer is almost always newsworthy (assuming the killer doesn’t have a frequent platform to speak out).

Why does he want to speak? Any interview is a chance for inconsistencies in his story to come out, or a chance for him to confess, or to shed new light on what he did. If people don’t want to see it, don’t watch.

I don’t fault the viewers for trying to squash the story. People have a right to say what they want to hear about. If they only want to hear about warm fuzzy stuff, that’s their choice.

I fault the station. Again, unless this was a genuine mistake, and the story was never intended to air.

(sigh) I’m really astonished that you think and “exclusive interview” of “Blom professing his innocence” could be newsworthy. What. Possibly. Could. Viewers. Learn. That he swears he’s innocent?

It must be a sign of the times, and yes the irony is noted, that’d I’d have to explain to a newsman what news is. If there possibly were newsworthy “inconsistences” that needed to come out, then his attorney is certainly the more reliable, useful source.

Sorry to be so blunt, but it’s obvious you don’t get it. This is real life here, not just words on a website forum. Just try to even begin to imagine what it would be like if your child was brutally raped and killed, and then while dealing with the unfathomable anguish that never completely goes away, your kids face comes on the TV with the convicted man spouting off about how he just didn’t do it. “Nope, wasn’t me” he says. With no new evidence. Just him with an open mike with your child’s face overlayed on the screen. “Warm fuzzy stuff” sounds pretty good right now doesn’t it?

i agree with spaceman. there is no news here. whatever he has to say adds no value. it’s complete sensationalism and the network should be ashamed.