Monday, October 22, 2007

My Bad

Jim Taricani

Last week, I wrote a blog on the Providence Journal’s coverage of Governor Don Carcieri’s plans to reduce state expenses. I was critical of the Journal’s coverage, saying that they were biased and taking the side of the union.
Upon reflection and an interview I and political reporter Bill Rappleye conducted with the governor on Friday, I have a change of opinion.
The governor still offered little detail on the proposed layoffs involving 414 state workers. He has also said little about his overall plan to make cuts in state spending to balance the budget.
What I didn’t consider when I wrote the blog, was the mysterious “ unsolicited “ memo the governor received, which was leaked to the media. The memo suggests ways for the governor to improve his lousy approval ratings.
Looking at the totality of the governor’s press conference following the release of the memo, and the subsequent media blitz the governor put on to sell his plan with little detail, the Journal’s coverage is right on.
While the governor professes not to care about approval ratings, it’s been my experience-and I’ve worked for a governor as communications director-that politicians have a very, very hard time dealing with rejection.
As I’ve said in another blog, this governor often gives the impression that his way is the right way, and any criticism of anything he proposes is political or just plain wrong.
The journal implied that his cost cutting press conference was in part called in order to improve his sagging popularity with the populous.
I think they got it right.
If this governor had called a news conference and released all the details of his cost cutting plan, including the names of the employees who are to be laid off, along with details of the other parts of his plan, the story done by the Journal would have been much different.
In fact, why the governor called a news conference, and then told reporters that he wouldn’t be releasing the names of those to be laid off until November 15th, raises the obvious question:
Why not wait until the 15th?
And those remarks the governor made about intepreters? It displayed a complete insensitivity on so many levels. While the governor certainly has the right to express his opinion, he should read a letter I got from a deaf person.
It basically said that sign interpreters would also be effected by cutting funding for interpreters, along with intepreters who work in hospital emergency rooms and any number of other places.
As my drill insturctor in basic training once told me: Before you open your mouth, engage your brain.

OUT OF CONTEXT T.V. NEWS

Jim Taricani

In Sunday’s Providence Journal, reporter Scott MacKay wrote a story about a forum at Brown University on media coverage of the war in Iraq. Some of the participants, military types, complained that much of the coverage is negative, because, according to the story, the incidents written about were not placed in a proper context.
And there’s the rub. Especially in television news. Rarely do we spend the time to place stories in a proper context. With one-minute-thirty seconds to tell a story on the tube, we’re lucky to get in the basic facts.
I think a good example is the recent string of stories all the television stations, along with many newspapers in the state, did on the Barrington teen who died, apparently run over by a power boat.
While the print reporters can and did talk about teen drinking in just about any community in the country, on television, if you watched all the reports, you could easily get the impression that Barrington is home to every teen that illegally took a drink.
Just last week, many television stations covered a conference being held in Providence by a group that wants more accountability from the Catholic church on priests who are abusers.
One of the spokeswomen for that group made some wild and unsupported accusations about all the priests in the Providence Diocese. Much of what she said was aired, without researching the truth of the accusations.( most stations qualififed her remarks, but stiil )
In television news, we strive for “ fair, accurate and balanced,“ reporting. I think context should be added to that list.
Television news directors should give their reporters more time on the air to add the proper context to a story.
Both the viewer, and the television station, will be the better for it.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

PROJO COVERAGE OF STATE LAYOFFS

Jim Taricani

Have you been reading the ProJo’s coverage of Governor Carcieri’s plans to layoff 414 state workers? If you have, you surely would think that the newspaper of record has decided that reducing the state’s workforce in the face of huge budget deficits is a cardinal sin. Companies and governments downsize all the time. This tiny state has a small tax base, little new industry and a social service network that contribute heavily to the budget problem.
Besides all that, the benefit package of unionized state employees is simply ridiculous. It is so out of whack with the private sector a blind man could see how unbalanced, and unfair to the taxpayer those benefit packages are.
But back to the ProJo. As WPRO’s Dan Yorke pointed out the other day, the headline: “ Governor to layoff 414” in itself tells you all you need to know about the slanted coverage by the state’s major newspaper.
The governor, to his credit, announced a sweeping plan to reduce state spending. The layoffs are just one part of that plan. A more balanced and fair headline would have read something like” Governor announces plan to reduce state spending.“
But when you have die-hard union journalists writing about a plan that effects their union brothers and sisters…watch out!
It’s not that the reporters are inacurate in their reporting. It’s the angle they take to the story, which is poor state worker, they might be out of a job.
It’s one thing for the ProJo editorial board to be solidly against this governor, that’s the board’s opinion and that’s fine. But when the headline writers put an emphasis on the position of the editorial board in the headlines over a news story, that’s a problem.
Just my two cents, which is worth about a penny.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

House Passes Reporters’ Shield Law

Jim Taricani

On Tuesday of this week, the House of Representatives passed the Free Flow of Information Act, commonly known as the reporters’ shield law. This long overdue action by the House will help reporters keep their promises to confidential sources without facing civil and criminal contempt charges, and even jail.
Having spent 4 months in home confinement for not cooperating with Federal Judge Ernest Torres’ order for me to disclose a confidential source, the news that the shield law legislation has real hope of becoming law is gratifying to say the least.
Our Founding Fathers wanted the press in this country to be free from government control, and that means judges, too. Over the past several years, federal judges have used their interpretations of the landmark 1973 Branzburg V. Hayes decision to punish journalists who refuse to disclose confidential sources. While these judges profess that they are just following the law, I and many others in my profession feel that these judges, like Torres in Rhode Island, are simply using the power of the bench to keep the press at bay. It’s no secret that some of these judges, like Torres, have no use for a free press. Their idea of a free press is based on what they think a free press should be, ignoring what the Founding Fathers wanted.
Recently discovered notes of Justice Steward Powell, who supported the Branzburg opinion but found some room for dissent, showed that he actually favored a privilege for reporters similar to the privileges against forced testimony afforded to priests, lawyers, spouses and doctors.
When reporters, who have few tools as it is to dig out important information for the public, are limited in using confidential sources becasue they fear going to jail, some very important stories will never see the light of day.
Reporter Shield laws are on the books in 34 states. And for all the years those laws have been on the books, there is not one documented case of the government not being able to prosecute a case because they couldn’t get a reporter to give up a confidential source.
When our Founding Fathers fashioned the free press clause in the First Amendment, they were correcting what they felt was wrong with the government’s, or in this case the crown’s position on a free press in England. That position, expressed by the then leading legal mind, Sir William Blackstone, said that a free press is essential to a free state, but the press should be controlled.
Thankfully, our Founding Fathers saw the danger in that, and changed it.
But too many federal judges are following the “ Blackstone “ doctrine and are controlling the press by their interpretation of the constitution.
The Free Flow of Information Act passed by the House has exceptions, but it will force judges to conduct a balancing test before sending a reporter to jail.
Hopefully the Senate will also pass the bill.
If President Bush doesn’t go along and decides to veto the legislation, Congress should override him.
Thomas Jefferson once said: “ Our liberty depends on freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited, without being lost.“
Too bad Jefferson’s thinking has been lost on so many federal judges who have little or no appreciation of a free press in America.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

DYING NEWSPAPERS

Jim Taricani

The recent announcement from the Belo corporation that it is splitting the company in two does not bode well for newspapers. Despite the company’s statement that the split will allow Belo to enhance both its newspaper and television divisions, it’s no secret in the media world that newspapers are dying a not-too-slow death.
It’s unfortunate that the print form of journalism is no longer fashionable. Whether its the liberal leaning New York Times or the conservative leaning Wall Street Journal, print journalism does a better job at conveying stories that involve complex details.
The print journalist almost always does original work, as opposed to radio and television reporters who often times simply regurgitate a newspaper story onto the 6 o’clock news.
The decline in circulation of newspapers means less revenue to support an experienced staff, and it also means less investigative reporting.
While there has been some very good and meaningful investigative reporting done on both televison and radio, there is nothing like a well researched investigative piece in a newspaper.
In fact, nearly all the major investigative pieces that resulted in political or social change came from newspaper stories in this country.
The public’s lack of interest in reading anything beyond the sports page or supermarket tabloids is disturbing.
For decades now, kids have grown up sitting in front of a mind-numbing television set. I figure brain rot sets in at around 5 years, and continues until the early teen years, when the mind rot is then caused by Ipods, I-phones, too much booze and the never ending quest for instant gratification.
While most major newspapers have their work on the internet, the effect of that work is far less than the printed page. Internet users seem to be more casual in their approach to reading anything on line.
There’s no doubt that as technology advances, the journalism world will have to adapt and find new ways to communicate important information to the citizenry.
But it’s a shame that the traditional newspaper is going the way of analog television.
Our political leaders and our social contract with each other will continue to deteriorate as long as so many Americans pay more attention to American Idol than they do the American Congress.
The rapidly disappearing newspaper only puts one more nail in the coffin of critical thinking in the United States.

Friday, October 12, 2007

LOOKING FOR AN IMAGE

Jim Taricani

Governor Don “ I’m looking for an image “ Carcieri just can’t understand why every single man, woman and child in Rhode Island doesn’t love him. With his approval ratings in the tank, our Governor just received what he called “ unsolicited “ public relations advice from some of his supporters-probably a bunch of gray-haired rich white guys- who just can’t fathom why their country club hero isn’t constantly being hailed as savior of the state. (Download Confidential Memo)
So what’s the media to do?
How do we handle this new image making plan by the Carcieri cartel, that seems to think the Governor’s approval ratings will improve if he can just avoid those pesky reporters that this governor so obviously disdains.
When reporters interview Carcieri, and challenge him on anything he says, his indignation is palpable. One gets the impression that this governor actually believes that anything he says, any word he utters or any thought he verbalizes, should be taken as gospel.
Carcieri loves the radio talk shows, because most of the hosts, with the exception maybe of Dan Yorke, let lovable Don spout off without criticism.
This governor also loves to meet people without the press around. It’s easier for this likable guy to persuade just about anybody that what he’s doing, or what he’s trying to do to improve state government, is the only way to go.
The media should not, and I’m sure we will not, pay any attention to the governor’s unchallenged visits he plans to make around the state.
We should just keep doing our jobs.
This governor doesn’t seem to understand that the role of the free press is to be a watchdog over government-including this governor.
We are not supposed to be lap dogs.
It’s so painfully obvious that Governor Carcieri can’t be self-critical. He just can’t believe that some of his policies might be the cause for his poor approval rating.
It’s so typical of the egotistical politician.
Things going badly? Blame the media.
It won’t work, Governor.
You should spend a lot less time working on your image, and a lot more time trying to find ways to work with the General Assembly, the business community and organized labor.
If you do, maybe your approval ratings will go up, and you won’t have to make Steve Kass a scapegoat.

Monday, October 08, 2007

Guilty before trial

Jim Taricani

Last time I checked, in this country, a person who is charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty. It’s the bedrock of our criminal justice system. So just imagine how State Senator Steven Alves must have felt when the Providence Journal published a story containing allegations, let’s repeat that, allegations, that he used his office to punish a public official who didn’t throw some work his way in his capacity as an investment advisor.
There was not one shred of proof of any criminal wrongdoing in that article, which was based on hearsay statements of a republican political operative.
Yet, Operation Clean Government, a self-appointed government watchdog group, and two radio talk show hosts, John DePetro on WPRO and Helen Glover on WHJJ, had Alves all but convicted of some non-existent crime.
Operation Clean Government called on Alves to resign his position as chairman of the Senate Corporations Committee. Why? Had the senator been convicted of anything? Had he even been charged with anything?
Don’t get me wrong, I believe that there is a lot of corrpution up on Smith Hill. The U-S Attorney’s office, along with the FBI is investigating the state legislature. The probe is code named “ Operation Dollar Bill. “
There should be some indictments soon.
But there seems to be this odd, and shameful practice among public commentators and self annointed watchdog groups to presume someone is guilty when an allegation is made.
No one in this country is legally bound to prove his or her innocense.
Operation Clean Government has done some very good, meaningful work on ethics violations by public officials. They did that work by filing complaints with the ethcis commission, and letting that commission conduct and investigation.
But to call on Senator Alves, or any other public official to resign important positions just becasue a newspaper, or for that matter a television or radio station, publishes or airs a story containing unproven allegations, is truly a travesty.
All you have to do is take a look at the stories and the commentary about those Duke students who were accused of rape.
Many in the public found them guilty based on unsubstantiated statements made by a now disgraced district attorney.
Those kids were innocent.
So where to they go to get their reputations back?

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Thanks for nothing, Mr. Belichick

Jim Taricani

Congratulations, Coach Belichick. Your obsessiveness to win at all costs, like most coaches and jocks in professional, college and high school sports, not only sullied the once pristine reputation of your fine team, it did something far worse. Your illegal spying on the opposing team’s defensive signals has taught all those kids who looked up to you and the Patriots a very important lesson: Cheating is okay. For those of us in adulthood-land, well, we can handle your cheating without breaking a sweat. We’re used to it. We’ve become hardened and used to our role models and figures of authority cheating us. Corrupt politicians, greedy CEO’s and mafia-backed union leaders along with a host of professional athletes on steroids make cynics out of all of us who have become numbed to cheating scandals on and off the playing field.
But the kids? They still have a chance. They are still young enough to believe that their role models are honest people. They can still feel proud when their favorite quarterback or major league pitcher shows up on the cover of Sports Illustrated for accomplishing feats that a youngster can only dream about.
But you, coach Belichick, have disappointed all those kids. You have led them astray and you should be ashamed of yourself. You’ve taught them to cheat, no doubt about it. And your refusal to answer questions about why you did such a stupid, selfish thing the other day at your press conference made you look like a defiant juvenile delinquent better suited for a home for wayward boys than a coach of a professional football team.
Your cheating to win made you no better than a rapper singing about raping women or beating up cops. You blew your chance to be a positive influence on the kids who admire you. You’ve joined the ranks of the steroid-over agressive-win-at-all-costs club of professional sports people who are cheats themselves.  Way to go, Bill. I hope you sleep easy at night, knowing that all those bright-eyed kids who face so many negative influences every day in their young lives are now facing one more, all because of you and your ego.
That fine you got was hardly enough punishment.
You should be made to visit every middle and high school in New England, and apologize to those kids you’ve let down in such a big, big way.
You may have three Lombardi trophies on your resume, but you’re really a loser, coach.
You can hide behind your depressing, monotone utterances refusing to answer questions all you want. But you have to look at yourself in the mirror every day and know that your cheating quest to be the best has taken its ugly toll on young people everywhere.
You’re offsides, coach, in a most disturbing way.

Friday, August 24, 2007

eye on the media

Jim Taricani

So I’m sitting in the bleachers at the International Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport the other day, watching Jim Courier, the former number one ranked player in the world, demolish his opponent on an overcast but pleasant day in the City by the Sea. Courier is there to compete in the Gibson Guitar Champions Tour.
In the row just above me, about a dozen or so kids are also watching. From what I overhear, they are participants of a summer tennis camp. Their average ages are I’d say about 13. As Courier blasts an ace past his opponent I hear one kid talking to another.
“Wow, look at that, “ the first kid says. “ Courier has Puma as a sponser for his shirt, and Nike for his sneakers.“
“Yeah, how cool is that,“ his friend replies.
So much for what these kids are learning at tennis camp.
Of course, they are learning far more in the media about sports stars, the role models of so many of our youth. The media just loves to highlight the material over the substance of sports stars, to the detriment of our children.
Feature stories about NBA players have a lot more to do with the amount of “ bling “ the player has, than the hard work they put in to play at the level they are playing.
Call me old, which I am, but I grew up in Connecticut a Yankees fan, and I never knew how much money Mickey Mantel was making. Today’s youth, at least a good proportion of them, are idolizing the big money and celebrity of their sports heroes as much as their talent.
That’s too bad.
Take Michael Vick, for example. Just think of how many African American kids looked up to him as a role model, and now he’s off to prison for heading up a pitbull fighting ring.
I don’t begrudge the athletes their due, but we in the media could do a better job of pointing out the fact that hard work, and ethical conduct are a lot more important than getting a multi-million dollar sponsor deal.
I hope that the kids who were sitting behind me begin to focus on the talent of the tennis pros they admire, and not on the insignias on their shirts and sneakers.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

BUDDY ON THE RADIO

Jim Taricani

Buddy Cianci’s return to the airwaves became official this morning. WPRO announced that he will join the lineup of talk-show hosts on September 20th. Buddy called into the morning show and expressed his gratitude to the WPRO management and told listeners that he intends to host a positive, provacative, and entertaining show. Let’s hope so. I wish him luck. He’s paid his debt to society, and he has every right to make a living at whatever he wants to do.
Like many white collar criminals, Buddy can contribute positively to society. He is witty, politically astute and very, very smart. If he uses the airwaves for personal revenge on those he feels have wronged him, it will get old fast. Talk show listeners are intellectually involved with politics and current events and want their talk show hosts to both entertain and inform.
Buddy can do both, if he sticks to his promises of being a positive and provacative force on WPRO.
He may have a problem getting some of the state’s pols on the air with him. Governor Don Carcieri has indicated that he “ most likely “  wouldn’t go on. Other general office holders haven’t stated their positions.
It’s up to Buddy to pave a new road for himself. He can make it a very smooth highway or one filled with potholes. I hope it’s the former.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Imus is Back! Watch out PC Police

Jim Taricani

Don Imus has settled, out of court, his contract dispute with CBS. Imus had threatened to sue the network for $120 million after he was fired four months ago. The firing, prompted by those outstanding Political Correctness Police officers, Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, should never had occured. Imus and his sidekick Bernard McGurk made an unfortunate, and inappropriate comment about a women’s college basketball team in New Jersey, callilng them “ Nappy headed hoes.“
As stupid as that remark was, it should not have caused Imus’ ouster.
It’s been pointed out numerous times since the I-Man got axed, that black rappers, movie makers and blacks in general use far worse language-and receive Grammy Awards for it!
The hypocracy of the Rev. Sharpton and other black groups in calling for Imus’ firing was of enormous proportions.
In fact, after Imus met with the women from the basketball team, they publicly said they accpeted his apology, and all said they didn’t want to see him fired.
In fact, there is so much hypocracy in the decisions made by those who run the media giants it’s laughable.
Take a look at any soap opera on afternoon television, and you’d think you were watching soft porn, which it is.
Many prime time television shows, watched by millions of families across the country, are sex-based, and yes, some even make fun of a variety of ethnic groups.
If Imus offened the general audience, and blacks in particular, and I’m sure some were offended, well, he apologized, sincerely, he appeared on Sharpton’s radio show and took a lashing, and he promised to be more sensitive in the future.
Taking his job from him was ridiculous.
It certainly didn’t do anything to solve the rampant racisim in our society.
Political correct speech will not solve racism, homophobia, or any other of society’s illnesses.
You can have all the political correct speech you want, but until you change someone’s deep rooted BELIEFS, the corrected speech will solve nothing.
In fact, if Imus actually thinks those women on the basketball team are “ Nappy headed hoes, “ then he still believes that. It would be sad if he did, but correcting his speech by firing him won’t change that thought.
If we spent more time making sincere efforts to try to understand each other’s cultures and sexual preferences, we wouldn’t have to have the Poltiical
Correctness Police patroling our country.
And if you look real hard, you won’t find a mandate for the Political Correctness Police in the First Amendment of our Constitution. In fact, there is no law that forces anyone to speak in accordance with someone else’s self-imposed speech restrictions.
Thank goodness for that.
Imus is negotiating with WABC radio in New York, and I bet he’ll be back on the air soon.
Good for him.
Maybe he should invite Rev. Sharpton to be his first guest, and ask him about those rap songs that degrade women, especially the black women who the Reverend is so concerned about.

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

Fair And Balanced Wall Street Journal

Jim Taricani

Today is a sad day for journalism. The media tycoon Rupert Murdoch finally convinced the Bancroft family-well, almost all of them-to sell one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world to “ Mr. Fair and Balanced.“ The Wall Street Journal now comes under Murdoch’s ever-expanding umbrella that includes the Fox Network, MySpace and about a hundred other newspapers-most of them tabloid trash. Murdoch has promised not to mess with the editorial content of this icon of a newspaper, but of course a promise by Murdock is about as reliable as President Bush’s assertiion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
The long, well researched investigative pieces in the WSJ have won Pulitzers and changed society for the better. Will that be replaced by a long, well researched piece on Paris Hilton’s puppy dog?
Will the much touted by untruthful claim by Fox News that it is “ Fair and Balanced “ now become the battle cry in the WSJ newsroom?
Let’s hope not. Murdoch, despite all of his protestations to the contrary, views journalism as a tool to make as much money as he can for himself.
It’s not that money is not a motivting factor in any commercial newsroom, but Murdoch’s dumbing down of his news properties has only contributed to this non-reading, non-critical thinking society in which we live.
The last thing American journalism needs is more tabloid news, more celebrity non-news and more plain junk that is produced for the sole purpose of titilating the readers and viewers.
I hope the career people at the WSJ have the good common sense to tell the billionaire from Down Under to stay low, very low and out of sight of the real journalism that goes on at the WSJ.
But if history tells us anything about Murdoch, it won’t be long before we see Britany, Paris and Lindsay on page one, and coverage of Iraq buried somewhere near the last page of this great newspaper.

Monday, July 30, 2007

Deadly Stupid T.V. News

Jim Taricani

A few days ago, 4 people were killed when the news helicopters they were flying in crashed in mid air, while covering a police chase in Phoenix. The helicopters were flying for stations KNXV and KTVK as police pursued a work truck. While it is a tragedy for the four who died and their families, there is absolutely no need for television news stations to chase police chases, from the air, or on the ground. It’s stupid, uniformative, and dangerous. What does the public get out of such coverage? A rush? The anticipation that the cops are going to shoot the suspect on live t.v.? The news coverage of police chases is nothing but sensationalism. How many people really need to know about a chase before it’s over? If you’re driving on the highway, you’re not watching television, or at least you shouldn’t be, so there is no value in broadcasting the chase live, for the sake of informing the driving public that some derranged individual is playing with people’s lives on the roadways.
Also, many of the creeps that make the police chase them are looking for the publicity, and of course modern day television news is more than glad to give it to them.
Here at my own station, one of our photographers was following a police chase in his news van, when he suddenly found himself too near to a spray of bullets from State Police who were trying to stop the fleeing suspect. He was unharmed….this time.
Live television can and does often serve the public well. During the Katrina hurricane, one of the stations in New Orleans managed to stay on the air and provide life-saving information to their viewers.
But news helicopters chasing police chases has no redeeming value.
Four people are now dead becasue they were competing to get the best shots of a man wanted by the police who was driving at high speeds through Phoenix.
Ask their wives and children if they think it was worth it.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

You Tube CNN Debate a Good Thing

Jim Taricani

Monday night’s CNN-You Tube debate between the democratic presidential candidates was worth wathcing. Instead of the elite media types asking the questions, You Tube provided a venue for people to post their video-taped questions to the candidates. Over 3-thousand were submitted and several dozen chosen for the nationally televised debate.
While a few of the questions were just plain stupid-like asking the candidates to turn to the candidate on their left and say something nice, and not so nice about them-most of the queeries were on point and informative.
I think it was a great idea to allow average citizens the opportunity to question the candidates. Sometimes journalists ask too many “ insider “ questions or in some cases the reporter is out to make a name for his/herself by asking a “ gotcha “ question.
Reporters have access to politicians in high places, including the president. CEO’s and other influential people also have constatnt access to the pols by simply calling them, knowing that their call will go through.
So it’s refreshing to let the potential voters have a shot at the people who would be their next president. I hope the major networks do more of this. The You Tube format shouldn’t completely eliminate the reporter format however. Reporters, although they belong to the same elitist club as the powerful in this country do, often times have more background and experience with the topics that are the focus of the questions.
I have to say that Sen. Joe Biden had the line of the night, after a You Tube questioner, hugging his automatic assault rifle, asked if “ my babies will be safe “-a question about gun control.
When it was Biden’s turn to answer, he looked at the You Tube screen in perfecrt deadpan and said” If that’s your baby, you need help.“
And for what it’s worth, I thought Sen. Clinton did the best, with Governor Richardson coming in a close second.

Friday, July 20, 2007

Coverage Of Derderian

Jim Taricani

I have to agree with WPRO’s Dan Yorke about Jeff Derderian’s decision to go public about his fund to help with educational costs for the children of the State Fire victims.
He should have done it quietly. Whether you feel sorry for Derderian and his brother, or think they’re just scum, the fact remains they pled guilty to charges that are directly related to the deaths of 100 people.
I suspect that on some level, that Jeff, a former television reporter, is having a hard time not being liked. If he thinks this fund is going to endear him to Rhode Islanders, he is living in la la land.
Jeff has also decided to go on the John DePetro show today, Friday July 20th. What is he thinking? What good is it going to do for anyone for this guy to sit behind a microphone with an old college buddy, ( DePetro )? I imagine some of the families of the victims are going to be incensed to say the least.
I was also surprised at the level of coverage by the mainstream media on Thursday when Jeff and Jody King, whose brother was killed in the fire, held a news conference to announce the formation of their educational fund.
The fund in itself is probably a good idea, but I’ve already heard one family, on the radio, say they will not be taking advantage of what they call blood money.
The Station Fire was and remains one of the saddest tragedy’s in Rhode Island’s history.
When Jeff or his brother decide to go public, for whatever reason, they are only fueling the media circus that does nothing but detract from the seriousness
of that horrible night, not to mention only adding to the hurt the families of the victims feel every day of their lives.
The Derderians, both of them, should go quietly away, and the media should not be running to them every time they want to make a public comment.