Off the Record
Slow going
Labor negotiations can be a slow-moving process. Sometimes one side, or the other, makes a calculated decision, and a slowdown caused by one side today may be caused by the other at the next meeting. Sometimes, external forces, like the weather, or a war bring delays.

The discussions between the Guild and Pulitzer did achieve one goal at a recent bargaining session, and its very triviality underscores the tedious process that is in place-if only sporadically.
The last few meetings have dealt with the compensation and other working conditions of advertising sales representatives. The company claims it should have the sole right to change commission rates and bonuses. The Guild disagrees.

Wrapped in the same package was a company policy of not providing batteries for the sales reps' beepers. However, Richard Lowe of King and Ballow, the Nashville law firm that represents the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, allowed as how the company has become willing to provide ad sales representatives with one battery a month and said language to confirm that decision would be provided at the next meeting. Negotiators also plan to begin discussing proposed salary upgrades submitted by the Guild at that meeting.

As MoDOT says, "Expect delays."
-Joe Pollack

Democracy: A wonderful thing
After millions of people around the world and in the United States marched against President George W. Bush's belligerent policies, Bush declared democracy to be a wonderful thing but said he wasn't much interested in the marchers' opinions as he made foreign policy.

Missouri State House Speaker Catherine Hanaway, R-Warson Woods, seems to be taking the same Bush tack and lack of tact-democracy is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't matter too much what the electorate thinks when you are a prescient political leader.

Hanaway supports getting rid of the Feb. 3rd presidential primary in 2004 and argues that it will save the state $3.7 million. She said there's little point in having the state primary because it's a foregone conclusion that Bush would win the GOP nod and favorite son Dick Gephardt would win the Democratic primary.

How does Hanaway know how state voters will cast their ballots a year from now? If Bush's Iraqi policy implodes and his economy continues to go south, Republican challengers could be lining up for a go at Dubya. And since Gephardt has tied himself to the Bush Iraqi policy, he could also suffer in the state primary if the Bush militarism proves disastrous.

While Republicans say they want to axe the election to save the state budget, their all-too-transparent motive is to knock Missouri out of the lineup of early primary states to deprive Gephardt of a boost in his bid for the presidential nomination.

Scrapping the primary would return the state to the archaic caucus system. No one yelled louder about the flaws in the caucus system than traditional Republicans in the state when the Pat Buchanan forces hijacked the 1996 caucuses from the Bob Dole forces.

Of course, that didn't stop the state party from blocking the Buchanan delegates from a place at the GOP convention that followed-so much for democracy by caucus. As 2004 approaches, state Republicans feel confident that Bush II will go unchallenged in state caucuses.

But as one-termer "Bush the First" discovered: What a difference a year can make!

Buchanan already seems to be campaigning with predictions that Dubya's Iraqi policy will be a disaster. He says the real supporters of the Bush's Middle East policies are Osama bin Laden, Ariel Sharon and Richard Pearl.

If the Iraqi policy is a disaster, will the "Go, Pat, Go" forces in Missouri once again mobilize and take away the caucuses from the Republicans who know better? Will the Republican establishment once again find a way to void caucus results and not seat the Buchanan delegates chosen in the caucuses?

The bottom line is that the state has opted for a primary election system and it should stick with that system, regardless of transitory state budget woes or the prescient Mrs. Hanaway's crystal ball.
-Don Corrigan

Here come da judge
The News and Editorial Ethics Standards of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch state, "Journalists should not run for public office or publicly demonstrate support or opposition to a particular political viewpoint except in the area of Newspaper Guild-related activities." They also say, "Journalists should avoid becoming involved in demonstrations about controversial public issues or publicly taking sides or joining advocacy groups related to those issues. Public demonstrations would include, but not be limited to, rallies, marches, signing petitions that advocate a controversial position, erecting yard signs, using bumper stickers or wearing pins, T-shirts or similar items."

The decision obviously was made, and the code written, so that reporters would seem to be objective.

In the same arena, we all have assumed that judges are extremely objective people, ruling solely on the facts and legalities of cases.

Less than a month ago, however, Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court in Utica, NY, ruled that judges in New York State have the same constitutional right as ordinary citizens to participate in political activities.

He did not discuss reporters' rights.

Hurd made the ruling and struck down a number of provisions in the state's code of judicial conduct, in the case of Thomas J. Spargo, a Republican regular in New York politics and a member of the State Supreme Court, a position to which he was elected in 2001. Before that, he was an elected town court judge in East Berne, NY, worked for the Bush campaign during the Florida vote recount and was filmed taking part in raucous demonstrations at the Miami-Dade election office.

The State (New York) Commission on Judicial Conduct cited him for that, for making the keynote speech at an upstate New York meeting of the Conservative Party and for giving voters coffee, doughnuts and drinks during his successful campaign for office.

Judge Hurd declared that the state's code for judges was unconstitutional, unfairly infringing on Spargo's rights under the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court last year struck down parts of a similar code of ethics in Minnesota, ruling that judges were free to express their views on legal or political issues.

Steven Lubet, a professor of law at Northwestern University, told The New York Times, "This case is a blockbuster. This challenges the very premise of the separation of the judiciary from political activity."

New York is considering an appeal.
-Joe Pollack

Radio doze
They say you don't realize what you have until it's gone. As a news wonk, I'll testify to the veracity of that thought.

When the space shuttle blew up recently, I wasn't near a television. So, I turned to my radio. After listening a bit and spinning the dial to see what choices I had for information, I realized that St. Louis is lacking an authoritative radio voice. Those of us who have long memories can recall the ability to turn on KMOX and hear Rex Davis and Bob Hardy, who could hold their own with anyone at the networks. They knew St. Louis news, area news and national/international news. With a little prompting from wire copy, they could take to the airwaves on 1120 and keep the station's thousands of listeners completely informed as major news events evolved.

There was a sense that we listeners were getting our news from local, knowledgeable, intelligent broadcasters.

That sort of superb journalism is no longer available in St. Louis radio, and it's a shame.
-Frank Absher

Rep. Hyde: A media lulu?
When legislators from the bi-state area make important foreign policy pronouncements, one would expect the St. Louis news media to take note-especially if the pronouncement warns of a new "axis of evil" on our doorstep.

Nevertheless, when U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde of central Illinois warned President George W. Bush this past fall about another scary evil axis in our own hemisphere, few news media outlets picked up on his dire warning.

In the tradition of Nixon-Reagan regime-change foreign policy, Hyde advised Bush that the administration should do its utmost to oust Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. Rep. Hyde theorized that such a move might give other Latin American countries a lesson and force President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil to rein in his country's policies that run counter to American interests.

"There is a real prospect," Hyde declared, "that (Fidel) Castro, Chavez, and Lula da Silva could constitute an axis of evil in the Americas which might soon have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles."

Hyde may have been alarmed by reports that Brazil's "Lula" questioned whether his country should continue to adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a candidate in Brazil's presidential elections.

According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Lula told a group of high-ranking Brazilian military officials, "Why is it that someone asks me to put down my weapons and only keep a slingshot while he keeps a cannon pointed at me? Brazil will only be respected in the world when it turns into an economic, technological and military power."

Lula has since backed away from any suggestion that Brazil acquire nuclear weapons. However, if the Bush administration does adopt the Hyde perspective on evil in the Americas, Brazil might be well-advised to follow the North Korean example.

As North Korea has shown, if you are labeled an evil power and your weapons of mass destruction are nuclear, then you are only a diplomatic problem for the United States. However, if your weapons of mass destruction are non-nuclear, then you present a crisis and you may end up in the gun sights of Uncle Sam as is the case with Iraq.
-Don Corrigan

Ads up
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch continues to add to its staff, with four people, including a new visual arts critic, joining the newspaper the last week in February. The new staffers are added despite mention of "a hiring freeze" to many who have applied for work.

David Bonetti comes to the Midwest as visual arts critic after a tour of duty at the Boston Phoenix, a top alternative paper, and more than a decade in San Francisco, at the Examiner (1989-2000) and the Chronicle (2000-2002). That gives the newspaper staff a current art critic and two former critics, Bob Duffy, now architecture critic, and Jeff Daniel, who probably will settle into the features department, where he now writes two columns a week.

Bonetti also taught at the University of California-Berkeley and the San Francisco Art Institute and contributed to several arts magazines, which may or may not fit into the new Pulitzer codes for freelance writers.

Also joining the features department is Jamila Robinson as a member of the design group. She previously designed pages and sections for the Gannett News Service, the Detroit Free Press and the Washington Post. Darryl Swint, another designer, returns to the Post after a previous tour of duty and as a graphic artist at the Detroit News. The fourth newcomer, Mary Robb, comes to the business copy desk from the St. Louis Business Journal.
-Joe Pollack

Letters
No stereotyping?
SJR: I read Ken Jones' article in the February 2003 issue titled "Packaging tort reform for the media," and I agree that tort reform-like most issues-can be and is packaged for the media. Mr. Jones made his case well. I deal with public information officers and PR people regularly, and they are indeed hired to package information for public consumption.

However, Mr. Jones is not entirely fair to the many physicians who cannot afford-and would not buy-a Mercedes. Most physicians I know do not resemble this stereotype and are agonizing over the financial dilemma-insurance for malpractice or continuing in practice-that Mr. Jones may have trivialized by summing it up as a choice between a luxury automobile and poor-or absent-patient care.

The legal profession could-and should-examine itself as frequently as it examines other professions. Many attorneys play fast and loose with the law, as several stories in the Kansas City Star-within the last two months-illustrate.

An editorial by a noted KC attorney criticized the recent class action settlement in an H.R. Block dispute that called for class members to get coupons while plaintiffs' lawyers received $49 million in cash. Another story told of serious attorney malfeasance in the litigation surrounding the death of wrestler Owen Hart.

A third story told of a woman who won damages from her former attorney after he had guaranteed she would serve no prison time if she pled guilty to a criminal charge. A court convicted her, she served time, and after she won an appeal, she sued her attorney for malpractice and won again-over $1.8 million.

Just as many attorneys, however, try to do justice in their mission to uphold the law. In my own family, my wife's father was an attorney, her uncle is a judge and a second uncle is one of Missouri's most successful litigators. My mother was a long-time paralegal and court reporter who had the utmost respect for legal due process and her fellow professionals.

Our country has a proud heritage of actual and fictional legal giants-Clarence Darrow, Perry Mason and Atticus Finch, for instance-that many lawyers rightly and successfully aspire to emulate.

Real and fictional physicians share a similar tradition-from Marcus Welby to Johns Hopkins pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson. These people stand for a nobility that sadly eludes many practitioners in both professions.

Stereotyping doctors because of bad-or questionable-apples is as unfair as stereotyping attorneys on the same basis.
- Mike Martin

Talking union
SJR: I am pleased to have read in the St. Louis Journalism Review last month that Riverfront Times reporter Geri L. Dreiling received the prestigious Terry Hughes Award from the St. Louis Newspaper Guild.

Dreiling is a fine reporter and deserves the recognition.

Nevertheless, I found it more than a little ironic that the Guild chose to bestow the honor on her at this time. The Newspaper Guild, an AFL-CIO affiliated union, represents editorial staff members at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and two Suburban Journal newspapers, which are owned by the Pulitzer Publishing Co. Reporters at all three newspapers are now engaged in unresolved contract disputes with that corporation.

In the same issue in which the SJR announced Dreiling's celebrated union laurel, it reported that staffers at the Post have been working without a contract since last June. At the two Suburban Journals, conditions are worse. Reporters at those papers voted to organize under the Newspaper Guild more than six months ago, but Pulitzer has refused to negotiate an agreement covering wages, benefits and job security.

These same work-related issues also apply at the Riverfront Times, a non-union newspaper owned by New Times Inc. of Phoenix, Ariz. Under New Times' management, Dreiling could be fired at any time without justification, reason or prior notice. In essence, employees at the Riverfront Times are denied the slightest modicum of workers' rights.

They go to work every day not knowing whether they will be summarily terminated. Under New Times' draconian rule, reporters have no arbitration or grievance process to protect themselves. Often when this alternative newspaper chain decides to fire a reporter it uses its self-imposed quota system as justification. Under New Times' guidelines, reporters are required to write 10 feature-length articles a year and an equal number of shorter articles. The former, usually cover stories, range from 4,000 to 8,000 words in length. The shorter pieces are approximately 1,500 to 3,000 words.

By daily newspaper standards, even the briefer stories would be considered opuses. This method of measuring a reporter's output is akin to the amount of cotton a sharecropper picks. Many reporters at New Times' weekly newspapers do not reach their annual, piece-meal quotas. At the chain's smaller newspapers, it is impossible for all the staff members to achieve this goal because the news holes are too small to accommodate the mandated volume of text.

When reporters for New Times-owned papers do not meet the required quota, they are routinely denied raises. This is the Catch-22; a Damocles sword held over the heads of all the company's editorial staff members. Words are reduced to a quantifiable commodity. New Times makes no distinction between a soft feature and an investigative story, which demands more time and reporting skills to complete.

The catch is New Times' corporate managers selectively enforce the quota system. If a decision is made to fire an employee because he or she questions editorial policies or working conditions at the newspaper, the quota system is then used as justification. This is what happened to me at the Riverfront Times in 2001.

Unless New Times has changed its guidelines, Dreiling has not met half the quota required of her according to the Riverfront Times archives. Aside from being a journalist, Dreiling is also an attorney. Should this reporter-now lauded by organized labor-decide to investigate the legitimacy of the discriminatory practices of her employer, she will likely find herself unemployed.
- C.D. Stelzer

Early Edition: We get questions
By Ed Bishop
A recent telephone conversation between a television reporter and me went something like this:

"What'd you think of the (Bill) McClellan interview with Tom Erbland?" the reporter asked.

"What do you mean?" I asked. "I thought it was a great story."

"I mean, do you see any ethical problems?"

The reporter was looking for a story, an angle on the Nan Wyatt-murder story, and he was feeling me out.

"Look," I said, "the judge told the guy not to talk to the press. His public defender told the guy not to talk to the press. And he decided he was going to talk to McClellan anyway. What's a reporter supposed to do-not talk to people who might be hurt by talking to the press? If reporters did that, half the newspaper would be empty. I would've done the interview. Wouldn't you have?"

There was a pause. "Yeah," the reporter said.

A couple of days later, a print reporter asked me if I didn't think McClellan had used his friendship with Nan Wyatt to get the interview with Erbland. He was fishing for a story too.

"Sure," I said.

"But isn't that using personal relationships to get news?"

"Yeah," I said. "That's what good reporters do. They build networks, sometimes based on personal relationships, in order to know what's going on around them. Good reporters know as many people as possible."

When I talk to my students about ethics, I always tell them that the single most difficult ethical problem they'll face as journalists is almost never discussed in textbooks. That problem is reporting bad things about people you know and like. It actually happens a lot. Most public figures are decent men and women, but occasionally they screw up, and a reporter's job is to tell everybody about the screw-up. The desire to pull your punches can be a real ethical quandary when you like and even admire a person you're about to help send to jail.

Then there were the questions about the Riverfront Times.

What were the editors of the RFT thinking? folks asked. First, they run a completely fabricated story ("SheBron's Truth," Feb. 19). Then, they say their readers are dumb for not getting the spoof. What did I think was going on?

That's more difficult. The current editors at the RFT won't talk to me or reporters from SJR. They say we're not a reputable publication. But through the grapevine I've heard that they wanted the story to be a send-up of the metro area for its fixation on sports. They believe, I'm told, that stuffy old St. Louis needed a journalistic "enema" and that conventional journalism wouldn't do the trick.

For the sake of argument, let's say they're right. Let's say only a journalistic bombshell would knock the area out of its sports stupor and that bombshell had to be a giant practical joke. Where does that leave the RFT?

I'm afraid it leaves the weekly at a nihilistic dead end. What the RFT is saying is that there are some important stories in St. Louis that can't be told as well with conventional journalism as with a hoax on journalism, that the tools of journalism are inadequate when it comes to a deep understanding of the metro area. That comes close to canceling out any conventional journalism the newspaper might do-the truth of future stories will be doubted. Which, in turn, lessens the impact of any future hoax. Which, in turn ... well, you get the picture. A journalistic death spiral.

Journalism is dead. That's what they're basically saying.

The RFT might be right. When you look at the Fox News Channel or think about the corporate ownership of the news media, they certainly have a point.

But the folks here at SJR aren't buying it. We still believe in the tools of journalism-even if the folks at the RFT think we use them imperfectly.

In fact, it might be a good sign that so many working journalists are thinking about ethics and asking SJR questions about ethics. I just wish the questions were directed at the real problem-what role does the mainstream news media play in Americans being so poorly informed?

Channels:
Impressive gains for Channel 4
By Tripp Frohlichstein

It was a real shock to hear of the murder of Nan Wyatt the evening of Feb. 18. KTVI (Channel 2), for one, reported her death before the police officially released the information, quoting sources. That should not happen, but that's another column.

KMOV (Channel 4) and KSDK (Channel 5) both put decent stories together at 10 p.m., although Channel 5 had more on-camera interviews related to the story.

The only thing marring coverage was an overly maudlin Larry Conners who talked of how, even in times like these, reporters had to do their jobs and cover this story like any other. Conners was wrong about that. The media covered it differently and more extensively. Had it been a person who was not a personality, it would have been a much shorter story. We could have done without his commentary. It was especially hard to take after watching Channel 5's Deanne Lane finish her story fighting back tears. No commentary was needed.

Conners also told us at least four times later that Channel 4 would continue "to monitor" the murder story during the newscast, even though police made it clear no new information would be forthcoming until the next morning-and the station presented no new information during the newscast either. Although I am sure Conners was sincere as he said it, it came across as almost a crass way to keep viewers tuned in. The station even repeated the story after an early commercial break. A tragedy for sure but a bit much-and certainly not like it covers "other" stories as Conners had told us.

Near the end of the newscast, Channel 4 promised an update after the final commercial. Vickie Newton began, "Updating our top story ... " It was not an update. It was a repeat. Channel 2 did the same thing with its "update" from Len Turner. To Channel 5's credit, when it covered the story again at the end of its newscast, calling it a "recap."

From a journalistic point of view, Channel 5 was superior in its coverage and the way the station actually reported the story.

ooo

The "Julius effect" continues at Channel 4. I wrote that Channel 4 had a ratings jump in November as people tuned in to see Julius Hunter's final month. Hunter now works at St. Louis University. I also wrote that people tuning in saw something new at Channel 4-two strong women anchors. Right after November, the station's ratings dropped off again but then began to rise. February's Nielsen ratings, the strongest in years, say to me maybe people were tired of Julius Hunter and they like the new fresh talent. When Larry Conners retires or is retired, the sky is the limit.

How strong were ratings? Channel 5 was unceremoniously dumped from its long-time position as the number one station at 10 p.m. Monday through Friday (OK, statistically it's a virtual tie, but you gotta give Channel 4 credit). In fact, Channel 4's ratings were the highest for late news in any metered market-cities where Nielsen gets results instantly. It was the station's highest ratings in a decade. And, if memory serves, it may be the first 10 p.m. win since the mid-1980s. However, if you look at the Monday through Sunday late news ratings, Channel 5 is still on top by nearly a rating point.

So, if you are Channel 5, how do you spin it?

The station's news release touted, "KSDK, NewsChannel 5, continues to be the news leader in the St. Louis market, showing impressive growth both book-to-book and year-to-year in key time periods for the February 2003 ratings period.

"'We are pleased with the growth our station showed this book and are happy with a team victory,' said Lynn Beall, president and general manager of KSDK-TV. 'It was a very strong book for us, specifically in the morning and earlier evening newscasts. The landscape in prime time though is changing. CBS programming has shown improvement, while NBC has demonstrated decline. This has affected us, particularly in the Monday through Friday late news race. Our competition's growth directly reflects these changes.'"

Meanwhile, the Channel 4 spin machine told us, "KMOV continues to increase its audience in all newscasts. KMOV's 5 p.m. news is up 2.5 points (28%) from last February, with its highest rating in five years. 'News 4 at 6 p.m.' is up about 2 rating points (20%) from last year, with its highest rating in three years. This is the third straight increase in a row at 5 p.m. and the fourth straight increase at 6 p.m. for Channel 4.

"'Our move into first place and the continued growth of all our newscasts confirm that St. Louisans recognize our commitment to provide a quality product and obviously love the changes that we have made,' said KMOV-TV President and General Manager Allan Cohen. 'I am thrilled with the performance of our news staff.'"

And then there's Channel 2, which does not compete at 10 p.m. How did it tell its story? "We're proud to see the viewers' repeated response to Fox 2 News." Said Channel 2 General Manager Spencer Koch, "Our impressive growth in all dayparts tells us that the viewers are recognizing Fox 2 as the local news leader in St. Louis."

Channel 5's spin is hardest to understand as my reading of the numbers shows viewership drops at 5 a.m., along with 5, 6 and 10 p.m. It may put a nice face on not-so-great facts in its release, but if Channel 5 management isn't concerned about the trend, it should be.

Channel 4 is doing stronger journalism, has improved anchors and story selection and execution that seem to be besting many at Channel 5. Now, before I sound as if I am pronouncing its death sentence, Channel 5 still has many strengths. It has hired new reporters and its anchors are still strong. Still, if my theory about Julius Hunter is correct, is it possible that some of Channel 5's long-time anchors are growing stale in viewers' minds?

ooo

Although not competing directly against channels 4 and 5, if you look purely at the share of people watching late news, Channel 2 is actually number one. This trend has been in Channel 2's favor since 1998. It may be related to lifestyle changes as people can get their news and go to bed earlier. Channel 5 was doing great ... until last year.

Share of viewers watching late news:

ooo

Channel 2 continues to look smart. Hiring Charles Jaco is one of the station's latest smart moves. Jaco is one of the more "pure" journalists in town, as opposed to being "just another pretty face." He will provide audiences interested in more solid news-read that less fluff-with what they are looking for. I'm glad he stayed in St. Louis-there was a chance he would move to Seattle to work in radio there. As viewers, we are lucky. But, I do wish he hadn't decided to go on the radio-97.1 FM in the morning-as I love listening to Don Imus from New York. Jaco takes over that time slot. One person said after his first broadcast that heavy political discussions and mornings just don't mix. That person just might be right.

Jaco's debut on Channel 2 was affected by the death of Nan Wyatt. Ironically, Jaco, having worked with her for some time at KMOX radio, was able, on his first night, to sit on the set and provide insight into Wyatt's life. He later provided a wonderful story about why the United States is going after Iraq. It was the kind of in-depth reporting rarely seen on our local newscasts. He interviewed several experts and presented several different points of view. Usually, even the "in-depth" and investigative reports rely on only one or two sources. It was fine journalism. It's great to see that Channel 2 recognized that viewers want more than just the surface kind of news coverage we usually get.

ooo

A personal note here. I was particularly thrilled to see Tom Langmyer promoted from his program duties to the number one guy at KMOX radio. When I was on the air there as a TV critic through 1996, Langmyer was always ready and willing to do anything to help out. He is a strong programmer who did anything he could to improve the "product" for listeners. So, when he was helping me, he was really trying to improve the listening experience.

I even respect Langmyer for the way he ended the relationship. He was honest and forthright, yet kind, as he discussed budget problems on the KMOX side and my increasingly frequent travels, making it more difficult to provide regular reports. He allowed me to stay on the air a few more weeks to put a final wrap on the "Tripp on TV" segments.

But that is just one of many reasons I admire Langmyer. There have been all kinds of rumors swirling about how unhappy people at KMOX were. Whether true or not, under Tom Langmyer, it will be an even better place to work. More importantly, it will be an even better station to listen to.

Sports Media
Times are tough even in sports
By Joe Pollack

Reading the sports pages these days is as depressing as reading the rest of the newspaper. A high school basketball player driving a $55,000 Hummer, supposedly bought by his mother who had no difficulty borrowing the money and, apparently, none making the payments even though she lives in public housing; Olympic officials living high on the hog, spending $14,000 for air fare on a trip to Switzerland-first class on the Concorde, no doubt-and billing the U.S. Olympic Committee, which smiles happily and pays the bill.

A college basketball player, obviously a throwback to the '60s, refuses to face the flag as a silent protest against American foreign policy. Most of her teammates support her right to protest, even if they don't agree with her on foreign policy, or understand her motives, or know whether the U.S. even has a foreign policy. And, if it does, is it the same as the one it had last week?

Another one bounces from high school to prep school, to college, then back to junior college, then on to college, obviously passing "Go" and collecting some money along the way. Maybe he got a junior college diploma, maybe even a high school diploma, but he next enrolls at a major state university. Neither the junior college nor the university will discuss his grades, his classes, his disciplinary record. But, his coach is also an attorney and came from one of the really big college sports programs, so it must all be legitimate. And, when the athlete has problems with women, and then with the law, they turn out to be misdemeanors, not felonies, and maybe it wasn't even his fault, and he came from a broken home. And, when he is suspended, and his team loses, well, the suspension comes to a sudden end, and he plays, and his team wins.

And, then one of his fellow students, a football player, shoots himself, then lies to the police about it, blaming a black intruder. Thankfully, it isn't football season, so the university-the alma mater to many of us-doesn't have to make a decision about whether or not he can play. If it decided he could not and the university lost a game, it would have to change its mind, following the precedent set in the basketball community. The potential reaction of his black teammates is discussed in a Bryan Burwell column in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, but there is no comment from the football coach or any football players.

Just because these particular incidents took place at good ol' alma mater down the road on I-70, they happen to be the ones I know best. But, reading the sports pages-what used to be called the "fun and games" department of the newspaper-it's obvious that incidents like this one occur all over the country, at large schools and small ones. I'm sure Mizzou doesn't get all the bad kids, but then, two or three per athletic department is enough to cast a shadow over an entire program.

The Riverfront Times took a little notice of all this nonsense with an article about a junior high girl who was thinking of quitting school and going right to the Women's NBA as a player. The piece was a hoax, a spoof, raising memories of Sidd Finch, a baseball player of uncommon skill who was invented by a Sports Illustrated contributing writer some years ago. (I think it was George Plimpton, also author of "Paper Lion," but I'm not certain.) The only problem is that it was so long, and so dull, it chased me away on about the second or third page.

"Do you think it's a spoof?" I asked myself.

"So what?" I replied. "Who cares?"

I hate to see myself developing that sort of reaction to sports, but I think I have figured out why, if not wherefore. Time was when the sports news was a release from the painful information we got from the remainder of the newspaper, but as sports' morality-or the lack thereof-begins to encroach on the crime news, or drown it out, and criminal misconduct, lying, cheating and stealing fill almost the entire paper, and when even the sports pages give us no relief, why bother ...

Maybe we ought to just pay attention to the drums of the coming war. I'm sure there's a point spread already established on the game, and there has to be an over and under on the body count.

Media/Law
Questions about McClellan interview
By Ken Jones

Even the most "obviously" guilty defendants proclaim their innocence throughout the course of a criminal case. That's why we have defense lawyers. That's why we have trials. That's why the state has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The system is not quite sure how to react, however, when the accused admits the crime in open court before talking to a lawyer. Do we take him at his word and lock him up-and even execute him if it's a first-degree murder case? Or, do we make him submit to the criminal process and require a trial or plea bargain?

That's the dilemma Tom Erbland presented to St. Louis County Judge Thea Sherry last month when he was arraigned on charges that he killed his wife, KMOX personality Nan Wyatt. Sherry quickly cut Erbland off as he attempted to confess. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sherry told Erbland: "You have the right to remain silent. I want you to take advantage of that right. Sir, you have got to have a lawyer."

The biggest problem for the courts and prosecutors in this situation is that the conviction of a "defenseless" defendant could be reversed on appeal if the waiver of constitutional protections is not made knowingly.

Sherry was not the only person in a quandary about Erbland's case. So was Post columnist Bill McClellan, who was able to arrange an interview with Erbland immediately after the arraignment and wrote a gripping account of what amounted to a full confession by Erbland.

In a follow-up column two days, later, McClellan said that he "felt a flash of guilt" as he waited in the visitor's cubicle for the interview to begin. "Nan was my friend," he said. "Then I realized that this was exactly what she would have done."

McClellan told SJR that he has received both "positive and negative" comments about his interview.

"The positive people said it was a really interesting story," said McClellan.

"The negatives fell into two groups. One group thought I was taking advantage of a mentally fragile man. But I'm not a psychologist-it's not my position to try to decide his mental condition," said McClellan.

"The other group thought I was jeopardizing his case. But I'm not a defense attorney. It's not my job to advise him of his legal rights."

"Anyway," McClellan said, "he already confessed to police and he told the judge he didn't need a lawyer because he murdered his wife. I couldn't really jeopardize his case any further."

After McClellan's story, some criminal lawyers questioned whether the media should be given access to defendants prior to the retention of a lawyer. The concern obviously is that, by spilling their guts, defendants will put the last nail in their coffins before a lawyer can protect their rights. But critics forget that the right to remain silent is not a muzzle; defendants are free to speak to whomever they want.

Besides McClellan's personal feelings about talking to Erbland, other issues might be raised about the interview.

o Becoming a material witness. By obtaining a confession from Erbland, McClellan has probably made himself a material witness in the case. If the matter goes to trial, he can expect a subpoena to testify about what Erbland said. Not only would this be an annoyance for a reporter, but his or her employer might be concerned about a prosecuting attorney's potential intrusion into the paper's decision to run the story.
o Change of venue. McClellan's account of his conversation with Erbland was read by hundreds of thousands of people in the St. Louis area. How will this affect the jury pool if a trial ensues? Will it provide fodder for a change of venue motion, which will hamper prosecution of the case? Trial judges are loathe to grant a change because of pretrial publicity, but since the Missouri Supreme Court recently reversed Kenneth Baumruk's conviction on venue grounds, judges are probably more likely to consider these motions.
o Self-help by Erbland. Some have speculated that Erbland actually helped himself by confessing to McClellan. The argument would run: "My client is obviously insane because no one in his right mind would confess to first-degree murder." Or, some might argue that the story "humanized" Erbland-who expressed remorse for killing his wife-much like Dan Rather's recent interview of Saddam Hussein made Hussein seem more sympathetic.

But the bottom line is that McClellan wrote what was probably the most gripping story to hit the St. Louis media for years-editors at the Post recognized this by moving the story from McClellan's normal spot in the Metro St. Louis section to above-the-fold on the front page. "I didn't know they were going to do that," McClellan told SJR.

Give McClellan credit for having the nerve to seek the interview in the first place because most reporters would have assumed that talking to a defendant was off-limits.

St. Louisans were hungering for information on the case, and McClellan gave it to them in an engrossing, direct story. It was journalism at its best.

Media/Politics
Media accept slanted surveys
By Terry Jones

In a democracy, it is nice if you can claim public opinion backs your views. That's why interest groups increasingly sponsor polls attempting to demonstrate that not only the angels, but also the majority of citizens support their positions.

It's a three-step strategy. First, hire a pollster-the more reputable the better-who is willing to structure the questionnaire so that you have the highest chance that the respondents will give the "correct" answers. Second, write up the results so that they put your perspective in the best possible light. Third, distribute these interpreted-or shall we say spun-findings to elected officials and the media, hoping they will give them added legitimacy by repeating them on legislative floors, in print and in broadcasts.

Here's a recent example which played out very well for its sponsors-a group of Christian-rights organizations including the Christian Coalition, the Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family and the Traditional Values Coalition. Gathered together in the pleasant-sounding "Coalition for Adolescent Sexual Health," they commissioned Zogby International to survey a sample of U.S. parents of children ages 5 to 18. Since Zogby conducts polls for numerous electronic and print outlets, including the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, it has considerably more luster than, say, the Gun For Hire Survey and Siding Company.

The Coalition's goal was to show that America's parents strongly prefer sex education which stresses "abstinence only" and vigorously oppose "comprehensive sex education," an approach which supports abstinence but also adds information about contraception and various sex practices.

Surprise of surprises, Zogby found what the Coalition wanted. In a Feb. 13 Zogby news release headlined "Parents Disapprove of Current Sex Education Teachings, Zogby Poll Reveals" the lead notes that "parents overwhelmingly disapprove of the subject matter, termed 'comprehensive sex education,' that is currently used in schools." The same day the Coalition's own release was titled "New Zogby Poll Shows Parents Prefer Abstinence 'Til Marriage" and, in its first paragraph, stressed that "the poll reveals strong parental approval for character-based, abstinence-until-marriage programs and shows that parents soundly reject the goals and content of so-called 'comprehensive' sex education."

Also on Feb. 13, the Coalition sent a two-page summary of the results, as interpreted by them, to each member of Congress. The memo emphasized that "an overwhelming proportion of parents disapprove of the messages contained in comprehensive or 'abstinence-first' sex education."

Then to make the 13th a real red letter day for the Coalition, The New York Times ran a story on the poll headlined "Explicit Sex Education is Opposed in Survey." The text was a bit more balanced, listing the Coalition's key members and mentioning in its second paragraph that "the survey found that while most parents approved of their children being taught about using condoms and contraceptives to avoid pregnancy and disease, they did not want them being taught about masturbation, sexual fantasies and homosexuality and did not want middle schools teaching children how to unroll condoms."

This process used three techniques to achieve its goal, each of which can and should be detected and reported by the media. The first is wording questions in ways that lead the respondents. For example, one of the findings buttressing the more sweeping statement that parents oppose comprehensive sex education was based on the responses to the following question:

"Please state your level of approval-strongly approve, somewhat approve, neither approve nor disapprove, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove-for a child in middle school or high school, ages 12 to 15, to be taught the following in school: Use condoms as a method of foreplay-use different colors and types and textures-think up a sexual fantasy using condoms-tell your partner how using a condom can make a man last longer-hide a condom on your body and ask your partner to find it-plan a special day when you can experiment."

You probably are not shocked to learn that 88 percent of the nation's parents disapprove of this lesson plan.

The second is to bury results which do not support the overall pattern. For example, the fact that less than a majority, 44 percent, disapprove of teaching children ages 9 to 12 that "when a man and a woman want to have vaginal intercourse without having a child, they can use contraception to prevent pregnancy" did not make it into the press releases.

Third, and more subtly, structure the question order to tilt the respondent's mind in the desired direction. This survey's tactic was to ask each item first about the youngest age group, ages 5 to 8, where the bar about sexual information would be higher. A more neutral approach would have been to rotate the age order, so that equal shares of the respondents were asked first about each of the cohorts.

Surveys have joined dueling experts in the issue debate in the policy arena. When a poll is sponsored by an interest group, even if it is done by a well-known firm, the media should look beyond the report's summary to specific question wording and order before reporting what it really means.

ooo

The Post remains statistically challenged. When describing the methodology of statewide Missouri and Illinois polls commissioned by the paper and conducted by Zogby International, a Feb. 3 article noted that "the margin of error for each poll is 4.1 percent" and then went on to state that "as a result, the gap between two percentages needs to be more than 8.2 percentage points to be statistically significant."

That's wrong. With a 4.1 percent margin of error, the gap can be less than six percent and still be statistically significant-i.e., less than a 5 percent probability of being caused by sampling error. What the Post continues to misunderstand is that sampling error is not distributed evenly around the survey proportion-say 51 percent opposing a war in Iraq-but instead is a bell-shaped-i.e., normal-distribution. That means 51 is the most likely number, 50 and 49-plus-or-minus one-is the next most likely, then 52 and 48-plus-or-minus two, and so forth sloping downward.

So, when the same article states that the Illinois poll results-51 percent oppose and "nearly" 45 percent favor-"fall within the margin of error and that is statistically possible that slightly more Illinoisans support the war than oppose it," it is quite misleading. With that gap-six-plus percentage points, the statistical possibility is well under 5 percent, the conventional standard for rejecting the interpretation that sampling error would account for the difference.

Radio History
More than a teenage idol
By Frank Absher

E.B. was No. 1 with St. Louis teenagers even before rock 'n' roll hit the local airwaves.

He began his 10-year-plus stint on local radio in 1951. It was a time when network radio programming was breathing its last gasps and disc jockeys had taken the place of the cancelled programs. Popular music of the day was performed by the likes of Eddie Fisher, Patti Page, Frankie Laine, Jo Stafford, Rosemary Clooney, Mario Lanza, and Les Paul and Mary Ford.

And all the kids knew E.B., Ed Bonner. They heard him on KXOK from 1951 to 1958 and WIL from 1958 to 1962, but his work involved a lot more than his airshifts. It seemed as though he spent every spare minute with his listeners, doing up to four personal appearances per week.

After graduating from high school in California, Bonner became a fireman. His first radio job came in Idaho Falls, Idaho, but wanderlust soon took hold and he went to a baseball tryout, ending up as a shortstop on a Chicago Cubs' farm team. Pro baseball didn't pan out, but another radio gig cemented his future. Bonner became a disc jockey in Lynchburg, Va. The broadcast career was interrupted again by a 27-month Navy obligation, after which he found himself in St. Louis. He was 28.

His daily shows were broadcast from the KXOK studios in the Star-Times Building downtown at 12th and Delmar, and there was always an open invitation to teen listeners to come down and watch him work. His first show on the station was "St. Louis Ballroom." Later he was heard from 3-7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to noon on Saturdays. One of his fans, Wayne Brasler, is now a professor at the University of Chicago. "In the early '50s," Brasler remembers, "Ed got a teenaged sidekick on his Saturday morning shows, Maureen Arthur of University City, who went on to being part of Ernie Kovacs' cast and then on to TV and film acting in Hollywood."

The early 1950s were also a time of unrest in the nation. Men were being drafted and sent off to war in Korea, rumors of Communists among us led to nationally broadcast witch-hunt hearings in Washington, and the nation's African Americans were beginning a movement toward equality and against discrimination.

In Prom Magazine, reporter Mary Lou Matthews quoted an unnamed civic official who said, "Ed Bonner has probably done more to make St. Louis teenagers prejudice-free, responsible citizens than any other person in show business." His personal appearance roster included the Catholic Youth Organization, Cancer Fund, National Conference of Christians and Jews, Red Cross and the campaign for the Y.M.H.A.

E.B.'s influence was felt by the record industry, too. Al Chotin was a record distributor who was quoted by St. Louis Post-Dispatch gossip columnist Jerry Berger remembering Bonner. Chotin said Bonner, whose nickname was "Monkey," was the top disc jockey in St. Louis, and when it came to promoting records, "If you didn't offer Ed the artist first, forget it. He wanted total exclusivity."

Bonner held down a slot on KXOK until 1958, when he moved his allegiance to WIL, which had studios in the "lower level" of the Coronado Hotel on Lindell across from the St. Louis University campus. Neither E.B. nor KXOK management would comment on the change in employment. He was given the noon to 4 p.m. shift. His short-lived replacement on KXOK was Buddy MacGregor. It seems E.B.'s listeners moved up the dial to 1430 with him. The 1959 Hooper radio survey showed him topping every other disc jockey in town, including WIL's Dick Clayton and Jack Carney.

AM/FM
Good work during bad times
By Lynn Venhaus

Radio has always been a lifeline for many people. So, after the familiar, reliable voice of Nan Wyatt was tragically silenced on Feb. 18, it was necessary for the 1120 AM frequency to become a town hall-a gathering place for refuge, solace and mourning.

Reeling from the shock and sadness of the whole sordid mess, KMOX staffers showed extraordinary grace under pressure. It was eerily familiar-just eight months after Jack Buck's death, KMOX again suspended regular programming and opened the phone lines for callers to reminisce about another member of its family. Only this time, a broadcaster had been gunned down in her prime.

The staff members responded as you would expect-total pros on the air, yet struggling with their personal loss behind the scenes. They drew listeners together as a community-everyone grieving for a young son who lost his devoted mother and celebrating the special qualities of a woman dedicated to being the best newshound she could be.

In her 10 years at KMOX, Wyatt was a consummate professional-solid reporter, gifted interviewer, very smart, but also nice and friendly with listeners and at numerous appearances and charity events. She was a news junkie people could relate to, and she worked incredibly hard.

Over and over, colleagues, political figures and listeners expressed the same sentiments. Tom Langmyer, recently promoted to vice president and general manager succeeding Karen Carroll, summed it up in his eulogy: "She was well-prepared, well-informed, balanced and fair. She asked the right questions and she asked tough questions-but she did so politely. That takes intelligence."

Known for being a voracious reader, Wyatt carried a stack of reading material wherever she went, never sitting idle. She'd be reading the split second before the red light would come on and not miss a beat. Langmyer said he was amazed she could pay attention so well. "She was reading, listening and preparing what she was going to do and say, and doing it all at the same time."

That awful, raw winter night the killing took place, the management and personalities knew what their roles had to be, and several rushed to the station.

Langmyer was called upon to identify the body, a task he confided that he would not wish on anyone-ever. Numb, he returned downtown to make the announcement, and then didn't sleep for two days.

"Nan was truly a special person and a good friend," Langmyer said.

The Saturday night before her death, he was moving into his new office as VP and GM when Wyatt came up the elevator. Earlier, she had been busy with seven-year-old Drake's birthday party, so she wanted to wrap up the recording and production of her "Week in Review" program. "We laughed about our 'heavy social calendars,' both of us at the station on a Saturday night. Since I am setting up meetings with all of our staff, I asked her if she'd like to grab some pizza and we could chat about her thoughts and how she was doing. Nan said that would be great. I was in another part of the building when she came back after producing the show. She left a note on my desk that she'd take a rain-check. We never got the opportunity. I can only wonder now," he said.

Born Nandray Ann Walicki, the 44-year-old broadcaster grew up in Fort Wayne, Ind., and started her radio career at St. Louis' KXOK (630 AM). She then moved to Wilmington, Del., to work at the all-talk WILM and came back to St. Louis to work as a reporter for KMOX in 1990.

Langmyer recalled her doing the overnight news in 1992 when they decided to turn the overnight music program into a talk show. They kept playing some music, but then after a couple of months, she had turned it into a full-blown talk show. "She honed her talk skills and did an excellent job," he said.

After the death of Bob Hardy in spring 1993, she moved into a daytime news position, hosting "Newsmakers" from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Wyatt also filled in for mentor Anne Keefe and others, quickly gaining the respect of the audience, he said.

Then, in August 1994, she headed for a biggie, WBBM in Chicago, where she was an afternoon drive news anchor. Wyatt met her future husband, Thomas Erbland Jr., while jogging in the Windy City and had a baby boy Feb. 14, 1996. A few months later, Wyatt returned to KMOX to helm the morning show after Wendy Wiese and Bill Wilkerson defected to WIBV in the spring. She was paired with Doug McElvein, who remembers that it wasn't exactly kismet.

"When Nan and I first started working together, it took a while for us to get in sync with one another," McElvein said. "Once we got that taken care of, we ended up having the best of times with all the folks who passed through Studio B and Total Information AM."

The devastated McElvein said he learned much from his colleague. "She taught me to be a better listener. She taught me to ask better questions," he said. "Nan will be missed terribly."

Called upon to anchor the first leg of programming after the news of Wyatt's death spread, John Carney did an excellent job with Jon Grayson helping out, too, in the wee hours. It might have seemed like déjà vu. Carney had also interviewed Joe Buck first on the night his father died.

Carney, who's been with the station five years now, has always felt his role at KMOX is that of comedian, not newsbreaker, but he readily accepted the baton that night, for the second time within a year.

Carney's respect for Wyatt and his empathy with grieving listeners was evident. He let them talk about what Nan meant to them and walk down memory lane.

"There is one thing that struck me the most that no one has reported on. The public outcry of grief was so similar to Jack's death. Pretty amazing, considering that Jack was on the air 40 years longer than Nan was," Carney said.

Buck brought radio listeners in 44 states Cardinal baseball on hot summer nights for almost a half-century. Part of the top-rating morning drive program, Wyatt had given St. Louisans information as they started their days, dropped the kids off at school and headed to work. She had earned their trust and was welcomed into their lives as a neighbor.

But, there was another connection. Like Princess Diana at her untimely death, Wyatt's private situation-deciding to end a deteriorating marriage, trying to juggle motherhood with a meaningful career, and being a good mom to a little boy-resonated with women throughout the region. The sense of loss was palpable throughout the metropolitan area and was the talk of the town for days.

And nowhere was it as deeply felt as One Memorial Drive, where KMOX staffers met with grief counselors. It has been a tough, tough year at the market's dominant station.

"I can only hope and pray that we will work our way through this. We are the KMOX family and we will persevere," Langmyer said.

ooo

In his new position, former operations manager Tom Langmyer has wasted no time making his mark as KMOX's new VP and GM. He immediately moved Charlie Brennan back to "The Morning Meeting" from 9-11 a.m., where he is most comfortable and where listeners respond best to him, instead of the p.m. drive. Instead of being on his own mornings, McGraw Millhaven is paired again with Carol Daniel for the evening rush from 3-6 p.m. Daniel had been strictly doing news but is now back in the driver's seat.

Langmyer has added experienced TV broadcasters Rick Edlund and Ruth Ezell to the KMOX staff. Edlund is currently anchoring at various times, and Ezell is reporting and handling weekend anchor duties. Good moves.

As for what's going to happen with the loss of Wyatt, Langmyer said the station will be looking for an experienced broadcast journalist. "Nan Wyatt is irreplaceable, but we will look for someone who will have some of the qualities Nan possessed. Megan Lynch has been doing an incredible job in the interim, handling hosting duties with Doug McElvein," he said.

Beth Davis, the former GM for both of Infinity's women-oriented pop KYKY (98.1 FM) and KEZK (102.5 FM), is the new market manager for Infinity, overseeing all three-KMOX and the music stations.

ooo

The affable Ron Morgan, one of St. Louis' veteran disc jockeys and best-known voices, died Feb. 3 from a heart ailment. He was 60. The next day, former colleague Frank O. Pinion turned his KTRS (550 AM) afternoon show into a lively wake. Morgan's son Todd, also in broadcasting, sat in the studio, while a parade of who's who among the town's radio community called in, fondly recalling their experiences with the guy known for his smooth delivery and goofy giggle.

Kevin McCarthy, Dick Ulett, Paul Arca and others reminisced while Pinion's crackerjack staff played airchecks of Morgan's career.

Morgan arrived in St. Louis in 1973 to work mornings at KSD (550 AM). After seven years, he took a gig in Dallas for a few months but soon returned to the sister FM station to launch a new format. He was host of "Morgan in the Morning" at the hot KS94 (KSD-FM 93.7), teamed for a time with the female Crunch, and was also operations VP.

He jumped to KMOX in the mid-80s (and interviewed yours truly when I worked at the St. Louis Globe-Democrat), then returned to music, the Top 40 KHTR (103.3 FM). He left St. Louis for stints in Indianapolis, Dallas, Houston and Peoria, Ill. In 1997, he worked weekends at KTRS.

Known for nurturing young talent and fostering a team atmosphere, Morgan shared, but did not hog, the spotlight, according to St. Louis radio historian Frank Absher.

A memorial gathering is set for from 2-8 p.m. March 8 at the Ortmann-Stipanovich Funeral Home, 12444 Olive Blvd. in Creve Coeur.

ooo

Six new members were named to the St. Louis Radio Hall of Fame, joining the initial 37 selected last year. Those recognized for their contributions to St. Louis radio and their achievements in the field of broadcasting include:

o Mort Crowley-Longtime veteran of KXOK's airwaves, also serving as the station's program director;
o Russ David-Music director of KSD radio and host of the "Playhouse Party" live music and variety show on KSD and WEW;
o Ron Elz-First "Johnny Rabbit" on KXOK and programmer of KSHE's format switch from classical music and current announcer on WRTH;
o Joe Garagiola-Cardinals' announcer with Jack Buck and Harry Caray, who are also Hall of Fame members; o Grant Horton-Program host and DJ on many stations in the market; and o Chuck Norman-Founder and sole owner of WGNU and former disc jockey on WTMV and WIL.

After being nominated by the board of directors, eligible members are then voted upon by 100 people in the local media community. The Hall of Fame is overseen by a volunteer board of directors whose goal is to recognize and preserve the contributions of outstanding members of the St. Louis radio community.

You can access the entire roster of the St. Louis Hall of Fame on the Internet at www.stlradio.com by clicking on the Hall of Fame icon.

ooo

Under new Program Director Marty Linck, The River (WVRV 101.1 FM) has made some personnel changes. Afternoon drive man David J. has moved back to his Chicago roots where he is programming another Bonneville station. Kane is the new p.m. host and Jill Devine, formerly of KSLZ (107.7 FM), is the new music director.

Ads/PR
Americans dislike First Amendment, until ...
By Rick Stoff

Nearly half of 1,000 U.S. citizens interviewed last fall-49 percent-said they believe the First Amendment "goes too far in the rights it guarantees," according to The First Amendment Center in Nashville, Tenn. Still, about 98 percent of those surveyed said they believe the right to "speak freely about whatever you want" is important, and the same percentage said "the right to practice the religion of your choice" is essential or important. "The right to be informed by a free press" was deemed important by 94 percent of those who were called during the survey.

But once the surveyors got into grittier details, support for free speech and press diminished.

About 33 percent of those surveyed said Americans have too much press freedom. Only 13 percent said we had too little freedom, and 51 percent said we had about the right amount. When the onus was placed more squarely on the press itself, support declined further-42 percent of people said the press has too much freedom.

Newspapers should not be allowed "to publish freely without government approval of a story," said 27 percent of those surveyed. Newspapers should not be allowed "to freely criticize the U.S. military about its strategy and performance," said 42 percent of the people.

About 41 percent of the survey sample said colleges and universities should be able to impose "restrictions on the academic freedom of professors to criticize government military policy during times of war."

"Some speech is clearly under attack," said Matt LeMieux, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri.

Some people support restrictions on press and speech freedoms because they believe the restrictions will apply to others and not to them. "Most people take their rights for granted until it is time to exercise them," he said. "We hear it all the time-90 percent of the people who call our office looking for assistance have never really thought about these issues until they had some kind of run-in with the government."

Concerns about terrorism since 9/11 have limited public support for some aspects of the First Amendment, according to the First Amendment Center, which conducted similar surveys in 1997, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

But recent antiwar protests have attracted a broad demographic of U.S. citizens, increasing appreciation for First Amendment rights, LeMieux said. He cited the recent visit to St. Louis by President George W. Bush, when antiwar protesters were herded away from the president's travel route by local police following the directions of the U.S. Secret Service.

"Now people who are critical of the president or critical of the war or critical of the way that Muslims and Arabs are being treated ... are seeing that speech starting to be suppressed," he said. "There are times when it is easier for us to explain why you don't allow the government to restrict hateful speech like the Klan's or the Nazis,' because they can turn around and use those same regulations to ban anti-war protests and things of that nature.

"This is an opportunity for us to do some education because people who probably agreed with us on our representation of the Klan now have their rights being restricted."

LeMieux said there is a great need for public education on First Amendment rights. He believes the St. Louis area probably is no different than most others in its understanding and support for civil liberties.

"Some of our affiliates have gone out and done tests like putting the Bill of Rights in the form of a petition and going out to strip malls," he said. "They've seen if people would read it and be willing to sign on to that petition. They were surprised at how many people objected to something within the petition. They had no idea they were looking at the Bill of Rights.

"One of our biggest challenges is educating people of their rights. If they don't know their rights, they have no idea when their rights are being violated. They need to know why it is not even a good idea to open the door to restricting rights."

LeMieux believes a First Amendment image campaign would require creative approaches. The traditional news media are likely to reach people who already understand civil liberties.

"There is a small portion of Americans who are generally interested in this. It is easy to get the message to them. The question is, 'How do we educate the rest of the people?' Our national office is starting to think of ways to get our message out into popular culture."

On some issues, conservatives are the most supportive members of Congress when the ACLU enters a debate, he said. On the other hand, there are people who identify themselves as conservatives who nonetheless seem to support restrictions on the First Amendment rights of people with whom they disagree.

"I think people who are conservatives have less of a problem understanding what we are doing," LeMieux said. "People who are Republicans and conservatives and buy into all the demonizing the party has done to groups like ours ... when you talk to them you realize they have no idea what we do. They just parrot what they've heard on Rush (Limbaugh's radio show) or wherever. Those people are a lost cause. I'm not going to convince people who are indoctrinated with that kind of stuff."

Late Edition
"Missouri has the same problem with businesses using dummy corporations to avoid paying taxes." -- Rep. Dan Bishop
By Charles L. Klotzer

During the past year, throughout the country the media rushed to report on corporate corruption and tax avoidance. No one was spared. The personal dealings of corporate executives and their handling of corporate affairs were the daily fare of the news media for a while, at least, during the early part of last year. During the early months of 2002, the three television networks-ABC, CBS and NBC-devoted 512 minutes to Enron and other corporate abuses, according to the Tyndall report. However, that interest sharply declined in the latter half of the year when they devoted collectively only eight minutes in June, eight minutes in August and seven minutes in December to corporate misdoings.

With this much attention paid to corporate dealings, one would expect local editors and news directors to start digging into corporate management. As far as we know, this did not happen.

That this national corporate malaise may have its counterpart locally came as shock to Missouri Representative Dan Bishop, who was just elected this past November. But unlike the mass media, he did something about it.

Bishop wrote a report for the American Forum, a national research body focussing on issues of importance to local communities.

"Imagine my surprise," he wrote, "when I was sworn into the State House, to learn that Missouri has the same problem with businesses using dummy corporations to avoid paying taxes. Corporations who do business in Missouri are able to avoid paying Missouri taxes by following a similar plan. First, they establish a patent company in Delaware where there are no taxes on parents and trademarks. Then, the company's stores pay royalties to the patent company in Delaware relatively equal to its profit margin. The result: The company pays no taxes in Missouri."

Bishop did not leave it at that general level. He named companies.

"One corporation that takes advantage of this loophole is Toys 'R' Us. Toys 'R' Us established such a 'dummy corporation' in Delaware named Geoffery Inc., named after the giraffe in the Toys 'R' Us logo. Geoffery Inc. owns all the rights to the Toys 'R' Us trademark and charges Toys 'R' Us stores in the amount of the net profit. This scheme works well for Toys 'R' Us and other corporations using the loophole, but it is costing Missouri taxpayers $5 million a year."

Frankly, we must admit, we had not heard of Dan Bishop before. His web site tells us that he was elected to the Gladstone City Council in April 1999, with more votes than any other candidate for the Council has ever received. After one year, he was elected Mayor of Gladstone, Clay County's largest city. The following excerpts from Rep. Bishop's report highlight what the Missouri legislature can do to provide additional revenue of which the state is in dire need.

"There are several other [Missouri] loopholes that give undue tax breaks to millionaires and provide special benefits to large corporations. For example, one loophole exempts yacht owners from paying Missouri sales tax. Instead, buyers of boats weighing over 5 tons can pay a watercraft tax. This tax has a maximum of $3,050 no matter how much the boat costs. So the super-wealthy can purchase a $300,000 boat for major yacht parties and end up paying a tax that is one percent of the price of the boat. However, a person buying a small boat to go fishing with their family has to pay the entire 6% sales tax." Because of these findings, Rep. Bishop is supporting legislative efforts to close these corporate loopholes.

We hope that the St. Louis print and broadcast media will join in this push somehow to create a more equitable tax base, even if this does not meet with the approval of the corporate community.

Religious right representatives gear up for big push in Missouri legislature
(This item was reprinted with permission from Church and State (Feb. 2003, page 18.)
A band of newly elected Religious Right legislators-many affiliated with conservative Baptist churches-is gearing up to push a social-issues agenda in the Missouri legislature.

Seven conservative Baptists were elected to the Missouri House of Representatives in November, reported The Pathway, a Baptist newspaper in the state. The seven join five previously elected Baptists who are expected to join forces with social conservatives from other denominations to push a Religious Right-style agenda. "We're seeing a bellwether change in Missouri politics," said Rep. Ron Jetton, who serves as speaker pro tem of the House. "I believe we can have a huge impact on legislation."

Continued Jetton, "And I will be working for a constitutional amendment to allow voluntary prayer in schools. I couldn't even get a hearing on this legislation last session."

The social conservatives also plan to push new curbs on abortion and curtail funding for the arts. Rep. Cynthia Davis noted she attended an orientation session in Kansas City after her election.

"They were trying to convince us we need to support the arts and culture," she said. "I told them I didn't understand why we were being asked to support public pornography."

Davis noted that the state is experiencing budgetary woes and added, "I see it as an opportunity to come in and cut and slash programs that are eroding the moral structure of what people have been trying to build." Several of the representatives said they are convinced that God helped them win.

"I prayed about it," remarked Davis. "And I do believe that God affects the outcome of elections. I believe He puts people in positions in times like this to help shape the future of the state."

Another new representative, Mike Cunningham, said he prayed the "Prayer of Jabez" before starting his campaign.

"The prayer talks about expanding our territory, and I figures this was a way of doing it," he said.

Features
Checkbook sports journalism
Television news pays big bucks to sports figures who are often the subjects of controversial stories
By Bob Schaper

There was a moment early this year-a week after the St. Louis Rams ended their ignominious season, yet long before the finger pointing and recrimination had completely faded away-when sports journalism smacked into big money. The collision happened in the underground studio at KSDK (Channel 5), where Kurt Warner relaxed on the couch during a broadcast of "Sports Plus." The polished and seasoned sports director at Channel 5, Mike Bush, was blessed with a journalist's dream: a one-on-one interview with a benign, yet oddly subdued superstar caught up in a bizarre three-way drama involving himself, his wife and his head coach.

Bush started out playing softball: Which teams did Warner favor in the second week of the playoffs? San Francisco or Tampa Bay? Oakland or New York?

But what everyone in St. Louis really wanted to know, in no particular order, was:

o Was Mike Martz enraged about Warner's newly discovered fracture in his throwing hand?
o Was Warner furious with Martz's ambivalent praise and lukewarm support toward the end of the season?
o Would Brenda Warner be scolding any other radio commentators during a live broadcast, and if so, when and where could one tune in?

Questions, in other words, that any journalist would ask under the circumstances. But, there was a catch: You see, for all intents and purposes, Warner works for Channel 5.

Not technically, of course. But, for the last two seasons-with a third on the way-Warner has been under a very lucrative contract to appear with Bush on Sunday nights following Rams home games. His job is to offer professional insight-what went right on the field and what went wrong. In years past, when the team was riding high, no one paid much attention to the journalistic aspects of the arrangement. When the team is 13-3 and everyone's happy, how much controversy can there be?

But, this year was different. This year the locker room was turned upside down with angst: embarrassing defeats, bad play-calling ... disaster at every turn. And, at the very heart of the Rams' woes sat Warner himself-injured much of the year; maligned the rest. On this particular Sunday night, there was tension in the air. For once, there were tough questions in need of asking.

Given the cozy arrangement between Warner and the station, a skeptical viewer could be forgiven for wondering if Bush would go after the hard answers. More disturbingly, even if a few zingers were sent Warner's way, how could the true cynic be sure they hadn't been leaked in advance, and the answers carefully prepared? In short, what were we watching here? A real interview with an embattled sports star-conducted by a serious journalist-or some kind of six-figure kabuki dance, complete with overhead lights and choreography?

By any degree of fairness, the answer has to be that true journalism prevailed that night. Bush did ask the tough questions-and he kept asking. Granted, Warner swatted them away like Jesus handling the Pharisees, but at least, the attempt was made. What emerged from the session, most observers would have to admit, was a semi-revealing glimpse into the chemistry between Mike Martz and his star quarterback.

But the incident raises some questions, as does the entire phenomenon of exclusive-and often lucrative-deals between sports stars and local media outlets. Should news sources be paid to tell their sides of the story? Should athletes be treated any differently than other news sources? Perhaps more fundamentally, when it comes to sports journalism, do ethics matter in the first place?

$100,000 deal
To start with, Mike Shipley wasn't hired yesterday. The news director at Channel 5 has been with the station for 21 years. When it comes to his business arrangement with Kurt Warner, Shipley is forthright and open.

"This is a situation that's not uncommon, that news organizations-particularly television stations-would have agreements with high-profile sports talent," Shipley says. "There's really nothing unique about it."

Indeed, from a technical point of view, Shipley calls Warner a "contract agent," just another expert analyst who shows up occasionally, tries to shed some light on a complex subject and then collects a fee. In many respects, Shipley says Warner is no different than the political scientist or business expert the station hires from time to time.

"Our agreement calls for Kurt to meet with us a certain amount of times per week and to have opportunities with him that the other stations might not necessarily get," Shipley says. "He's a real class act and credit to the community, and being associated with somebody like that is the kind of association we want to have."

One senses there is also a desire to keep up with the Joneses. KTVI (Channel 2) has the rights to the Rams' preseason games, as well as the right to broadcast NFC games via its affiliation with Fox. "Some stations have the games, and we knew that we weren't going to be in a position to be able to have that, and so we were just looking for a way to differentiate our coverage," Shipley says. "It gives us something the other stations don't have with regards to analysis of the Rams' product during the year."

Does that mean no one else in town can talk to Warner? Absolutely not, Shipley says, adding there's nothing in Warner's contract to prevent him from participating in news conferences or locker-room interviews. "We cannot limit access to him in the locker room," Shipley says. "But, it does give us some exclusivity with regards to one-on-one interviews he does during the rest of the season."

Warner's agent, Rob Lefko, backs Shipley up.

"It was very important to Kurt to not be restricted," Lefko says from his office in Chicago, "but rather to just offer (Channel 5) much more than what he would normally be expected to do anywhere else."

From Warner's perspective, the deal helps simplify his life. Lefko says if there is a restriction on doing interviews, it's strictly a function of time. "Sports Plus!" is simply an outlet for the fans to see and hear Warner in a way that he can control and finds comfortable.

"With KSDK, we have a way that fans know where to expect to see him," Lefko says. "It allows for continuity and for developing programs and offering much more to the fans."

Oh, yeah, and then there's the money.

No one will be surprised if Channel 5 and Warner refuse to talk terms. And, in a sense, at least from a philosophical point of view, the amount he's paid is irrelevant. But, for the record, a former assistant news director at Channel 5-and later general manager of WJBK in Detroit for almost 10 years-says an amount between $100,000 and $125,000 a year would be appropriate for someone of Warner's status.

"When I was running TV stations in Detroit, we were paying Scott Mitchell (a mediocre quarterback for the Detroit Lions from 1994-1998) $1,000 a night," recalls Mort Meisner, president of Mort Meisner Associates, based outside Detroit. "He'd come in on Monday night to do analysis after home games."

Now Meisner represents on-air news talent, including Channel 2's John Pertzborn. His firm has also recently begun representing Major League Baseball players. Meisner bases his estimate on what scant details Lefko provides: Warner's deal is year-round and includes on-air appearances and other promotions. In Meisner's estimation, Warner is worth much more than Mitchell.

Meisner also sheds some light on the typical provisions contained in such contracts. "The way the exclusive arrangement worked with Mitchell was that he would do no interviews of any merit," Meisner recalls. "He might answer some brief questions right after the game. But, in terms of anything in-depth-and we defined what that was-he wouldn't do any sit-downs until he came on air with us first."

Without going into details, Shipley says his contract with Warner contains all manners of provisions, including what happens if Warner is traded, injured, retires, etc.

Meisner says such arrangements are nothing new and have been going on for years all over the country. "It's commonplace," he says. "It really isn't unusual at all."

Just sports
The tricky part of all this is when Warner becomes the story. Third-party analysis is one thing, but when the Rams are embroiled in a quarterback controversy-and Warner is the quarterback-isn't paying him a bit like paying one party to a legal dispute to tell its side of the story?

A little bit, Shipley admits-but that's the whole point. "Obviously, as the quarterback, every week he's the story about the Rams," Shipley says.

Shipley says he isn't uncomfortable with paying Warner to talk about himself, though he admits he couldn't get away with it in other areas of the news. Elected working officials, for example, would not make appropriate contract agents, Shipley points out. "I would not have any interest, and I don't have any expectation, that Dick Gephardt, for example, is going to become a political analyst for Channel 5," Shipley says.
So shouldn't the Rams wait until Warner retires? Or, are the rules for sports journalism different than other areas of the news?
"I don't think so," Shipley says. "When we do sports stories, we consider it sports journalism. I would say we treat it the same way."
Channel 5 isn't the only station in town that pays top dollar for exclusive access to sports stars. Channel 2 has a year-to-year deal with Rams running back Marshall Faulk. As news director at the station, Brad Remington is responsible for supervising Sports Director Martin Kilcoyne.

"We have a contract with Marshall that basically details the expectations," Remington says. "During home games he comes in here live and talks to us about what was happening on the field and gives us some insight. He's quite good."

Remington, unlike Shipley, says Channel 2 indeed approaches sports differently than news. "The truthful answer is yes, I think sports is different than anything else," Remington says. "If you want me to say that we cover sports the way we do politics, I don't think I can say that-and anybody who does is lying to you."

That's not to say that there are no rules for sports journalists. "Do you try to be ethical? Sure," Remington says. "I still think we're trying to be good journalists and we're trying to be ethical."

The challenge is trying to cover the local teams objectively without alienating either the players or the fans. "They have to walk a tightrope," Remington says of his employees. "I think our guys do a pretty good job. If you watch our coverage, certainly we're not going to be shy about criticizing the Rams because of any deal we have with Marshall-or the Rams, for that matter."

Back at Channel 5, Bush admits that his interviews with Warner can be a bit awkward at times, primarily because he has worked so closely with Warner over the years. "To be perfectly honest with you, I'm a little uncomfortable sometimes with the arrangement," Bush says. "I see the side, from a journalistic point of view, that it can get in the way of doing your job properly. I try not to let it get in the way, but I can see where it would be a difficult situation, because you're constantly with the same person."

The positive side, according to Bush, is that ultimately the viewers get to see more of their favorite players. "You're getting more availability from a person people are interested in," Bush says. "Kurt would not be as available to us (without the arrangement)."

And for Bush, getting information to the people is what his job is all about. In a typical broadcast, he has exactly three minutes and thirty seconds-leaving little, if any, time for commentary. "My job is to get as much information out there as possible, so I don't try to express too much opinion," he says. "Now, when I get on the radio and do KMOX, I have some strong opinions about Kurt and the situation he went through last year. I have gotten to know him because of his relationship with Channel 5. If the guy was a jerk, I would hopefully call a jerk a jerk. But I don't really think he is. I mean, I think he's not only a great quarterback, but a great human being."

Still, it's exactly that sort of familiarity that Bush says can lead to problems. "When you get to know somebody really well, and you like that person, it's hard to be objective," he says. "But, you do the best you can. I tend to believe the theory that there really is no such thing as objectivity, and it's just you do the best you can."

One thing Bush makes clear: no matter how well he and Warner know each other, Bush does the asking and Warner does the answering. Period. "Kurt does not say to me, don't ask me this or don't ask me that, because that wouldn't work," Bush says. "He has no idea what we're going to ask him. Sometimes he won't answer them and sometimes he will."

Bush says he has no restrictions on the types of questions he can ask. "In terms of not ticking him off, nowhere in the contract does it say I can't be critical or I can't say something bad about him or the way he's playing football," Bush says.

Back in Detroit, Meisner says the real problem with these arrangements sometimes occurs when athletes try to cover for their friends in the locker room. "There are some former athletes who do regular radio shows, who sometimes, because they don't want to violate a friendship, won't divulge something," Meisner says. "Three weeks later a story will break and they'll say, 'I knew that.' Then, the station will say, 'If you knew it, why didn't you say something? You're getting paid by the station!'"

Going it alone
One guy who's been on both sides of the fence-as a collegiate linebacker who signed with the Dallas Cowboys in 1986 and now a sports journalist-is KMOV (Channel 4)'s Steve Savard. Without Faulk or Warner in his corner, Savard might be the odd man out, but he holds no hard feelings.

"I don't have a problem with it," Savard says of the other stations. "I think it's great for them, obviously. It really doesn't limit our access to either athlete, at least in a group setting. Marshall will always talk in a group setting."

Likewise, Savard says, Warner is one of the most accommodating superstar athletes in pro sports. "You can approach Kurt anytime or anywhere and he will likely grant you an interview," he says. "He's off the chart in terms of media accessibility."

One agreement Channel 4 does have is with retired Blues player Kelly Chase. During the hockey season, Chase comes on Sunday nights to discuss the NHL. "Believe me," Savard says with a chuckle, "Chase is compensated in a different stratosphere (than Warner and Faulk)."

Perhaps Savard is more understanding because some have pointed out that he has an indirect arrangement with the Rams. As the Rams' radio play-by-play voice on KLOU-FM since 2000, Savard must also objectively report on the team six days a week. "I'm not employed by the Rams at all," Savard says. "The Rams don't pay me dime one. All my salary on the radio side is drawn from Clear Channel (Communications)." Still, Savard concedes the Rams have a say in who their announcer is. "(Team president) John Shaw of the Rams certainly signs off on it, yeah."

In the end, Savard takes an almost fatalistic approach to media critics and their theories. "You get that all the time, you kidding me?" he laughs. "I could deliver a story on the air-perhaps a controversial story on a hot topic-and I could do it in the most objective manner right down the line, and somebody out there is going to interpret that I'm biased one way or the other. Everything in our business is based on perception.

"You can't worry about it," he says, shrugging it off. "You're always going to be accused of something in this business."

With numerous personnel changes and the recent hoax, RFT future muddy
By Elizabeth Vega

Readers of the Riverfront Times have at their disposal a virtual buffet of changes to the publication since it was gobbled up by New Times Inc. five years ago. How about the revolving door for editors that shuffled out both Safir Ahmed and his replacement, gun-slinging Jim "Speedloader" Nesbitt, in a single year? Or, the slow picking-off of long-time staff members-most recently Eddie Silva who was let go two weeks ago? Then, of course, there is the noticeable shift in content that has rankled the nerves of even the most loyal readers. Gone are the advocacy stories of the past. Today's RFT is trying to be "edgy," "counterintuitive" and "wacky."

But, the most disheartening change at the RFT is something the readers likely wouldn't notice. It is something, however, that dismays long-time writers for the publication who remember the days when their desk drawers contained bulging folders of letters from readers, some full of praise, others disparaging but rarely lukewarm. The letters, says one contributing writer who asked to remain anonymous, were a reflection of the paper's connection with the community.

"Today," the writer says, "reporters hardly get any letters at all."

Former Executive Editor Cliff Froehlich, now A&E editor at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, isn't surprised.

"The RFT has marginalized its readership to the point of irrelevancy," Froehlich says. "The RFT rightly or wrongly was seen as a rallying point. Even if someone disagreed with it, they would pick it up and read it because they wanted to find out what we had to say. New Times ownership has resulted in the RFT becoming disconnected from the community."

Froehlich is one of the many readers who no longer frets over the changes but has chosen to simply stop reading it. He points to New Times' formulaic approach as the reason. "They don't really care that much about local perspectives," he says. "They have their approach, and they are going to impose it."

Monika Bauerlein, a senior editor at Mother Jones and a familiar name in the alternative press industry, agrees.

"New Times has a record of not taking into account how different places can be," Bauerlein says. "What works for them in Phoenix may not work well in St. Louis. They have a formula, and in their mind, they have found something that works. Unfortunately, that formula means steam rolling over the uniqueness of a place."

For this reason, Bauerlein says, most people in the industry are ambivalent about the chain. "They do some things very well, but at the same time, they have certain idiosyncrasies that are hard to live with," Bauerlein says. "At the corporate level there are some extremely strong personalities involved. The key is to get along with those people while still maintaining a vision of where the paper should be."

Clearly, Nesbitt, a strong personality in his own right, was unable to meet these tasks, especially the one of getting along with owners James Larkin and Michael Lacy. According to former staffers who refused to go on the record, Nesbitt's relationship with Executive Associate Editor Andy Van De Voorde was especially tense, so much so that Nesbitt called Van De Voorde, "the lean white shark." In his last few months as editor, Nesbitt found himself third guessing his every decision. He orchestrated a quick exodus before the chain could fire him but left behind a looming question of who is really in charge.

Bauerlein, who worked with Nesbitt's replacement, Tom Finkel, a St. Louis native who has a history with New Times, says Finkel may be better equipped to do what past editors couldn't-merge the former community intimacy of the Riverfront Times with the New Times vision.

Nevertheless, there are still many challenges to overcome, says former owner Ray Hartmann. While New Times is often the name that comes up when experts point to both the benefits and downsides of large alternative chains, the entire industry is struggling with a new reality, one that is much different than when these papers were first founded in the '60 and '70s.

Today's alternatives are dealing with a mid-life crisis of sorts, amplified by a struggle to reach a wider range of readers during harsh economic times.

"The challenge for the alternative press as a whole," Hartmann says, "is that most are literally trying to serve the children of their original readers. They are trying to reach out to the Boomers-Gen X and Y. That is three generations of readers and intensely challenging. I don't know if I still had the paper how I would approach it. I'm not sure, down the road, where you go from there."

Too often, the direction is choosing to placate shareholders at readers' expenses.

"Being independent, economically, safeguards the journalistic intent in the long run," Bauerlein says. "Not because corporate owners walk into a newsroom and say 'you can't do this or that,' but because, ultimately, the primary goal is not really to do journalism but to return money to their shareholders."

To corporations, returning money to shareholders often means implementing a blueprint companies like New Times believe works even if it includes pulling a prank to make a statement and create a buzz.

Case in point, Mike Seely's "SheBron's Truth," a 3,000-word spoof that profiled a 12-year-old female basketball prodigy. The fictitious story mirrored stories done at other New Times papers, including Phoenix, which did a cover story about how some desert turtles stood in the way of Bill Bidwill's plans for a new stadium. The story was green-lighted by New Times corporate editors but "SheBron's Truth" fell flat-in part because most readers, especially those who were not tuned into the hype surrounding Lebron James, an actual high school basketball prodigy, didn't get the joke.

In the Feb. 26 issue readers responded with outrage.

"Har-dee-fucking Har! You elitist's assholes! I am sick to death of all the condescending bullshit this paper prints out," wrote Erica Crowell-Hoffman. "Yeah, I believed your story. Why shouldn't I? I've been reading this paper for over three years on a weekly basis. I don't analyze each story in detail but took it for granted this was one of a few legitimate papers in St. Louis that give a voice to those who needed it. I feel betrayed by you, and the whole situation makes me sick. Fuck you and your sorry-ass rag."

Nelson Nolte, another reader, wrote this letter to the RFT editor, "If I ever accidentally read one of your articles again, I will place the amount of trust in the story on par with the stories reported in the Onion. At least the Onion is funny."

Managing Editor Roland Klose, who is acting editor until the arrival of Finkel refused to comment for this story. Lacy also did not return phone calls.

Seely, who to many personifies New Times' shift in editorial direction, defended the SheBron feature as a "valuable social commentary" about the media's fascination with young basketball players. He believes that, despite the grumbling, the RFT is still a very strong publication. Clearly, he is right in one regard. Despite increasingly difficult circumstances, including low morale and a sense that the editor has little power, many of the writers continue to do strong work-work that continues to wins lots of awards. Most recently, Bruce Rushton won the prestigious Gerald Loeb award and Geri Dreiling received the Guild's Terry Hughes award.

"I think we do great investigative pieces, first of all," Seely says. "Obviously what we have got is arguably one of the best writers in town with Geri, and we have really serious pros like Bruce, DJ (Wilson) and Jeanette (Batz). They all do incredible work. Then, you've got jokers like Randy (Roberts) and me adding levity to the paper. It is a nice mix, and I am sure you can expect to see more of that."

It is a mix clearly targeted at reaching a younger market. Hence, the cover feature on Pabst beer drinkers and the story on WB 11 Newscasters Melanie Moon and Kathryn Jamboretz.

So, is the younger market responding to these stories? Seely says yes.

"Most people, in regards to all those stories, responded quite positively," Seely says. "I think it is the old guard, who aren't keeping an open mind, who are complaining."

Amanda Doyle, editor of the Common Space, an online monthly publication, isn't part of the old guard. Doyle, 32, is part of the 18- to 32-year-old demographic that New Times is now trying to reach. "I think New Times is responding to the lowest common denominator," Doyle says. "And, in the process of doing that, they are alienating readers."

Doyle says she is one of them. "It seems like the RFT is less and less relevant," she says. "I still pick it up but usually just for the concert listings."

Susan Hegger, assistant managing editor of the Post, was the editor of the RFT in the mid-'80s. She says she read the RFT cover to cover for years after she left and continued to do so until very recently. Today, she says, she rarely reads it.

"By the 1990s, it had successfully become part of both the community at large and the counterculture," she says. "Now, it's part of the establishment. It's not really an alternative newspaper. It's sad that it's not really a local paper anymore-it's not organically part of St. Louis."

For many, the SheBron story was the final straw and reflected an unsavory shift in editorial principles.

"I think the SheBron piece was an announcement of the new direction New Times wants to take the RFT," says Antonio French, publisher of Public Defender. "It is their way of saying integrity is not something they need in their new journey. Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll-you don't need a lot of integrity to sell that."

Both Doyle and French want to see the alternative cover weightier topics like city politics, development issues and other St. Louis concerns.

Frustrated by what they perceived as a lack of coverage in this arena, they took matters into their own hands. Doyle responded with the Common Space. French responded with Public Defender, which is currently on hiatus because of lack of funding. Neither Doyle nor French has made money from the ventures.

Bauerlein says there is a lesson there as well. "My fantasy," she says, "about the future of the alternative media is that the investors will realize that you don't make a lot of money with journalism and that they would sell the papers back to people interested in doing journalism."

London TV show an eye-opener
By Frank Absher

It all began innocently enough. An article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Wednesday, Feb. 12 told of a British television production company that was seeking St. Louisans to appear on one of its programs.

"America on Trial" was to be a sort of audience participation show broadcast on the U.K.'s Channel 4. Produced by London Weekend Television (LWT), the show was to include opinions of 20 people from the St. Louis area who would receive free round-trip airline tickets and hotel accommodations in London. It sounded too good to be true, but over 500 people applied for consideration.

LWT had pitched the program idea to Channel 4 recently, but it got the green light a scant two weeks before the broadcast. A spokesman said they chose St. Louis literally by closing their eyes and putting their fingers on a U.S. map. They didn't want New York, the spokesman said, because they were seeking "grassroots" opinions.

All you had to do, the article said, was e-mail or phone LWT and they would choose from among the respondents. Roshan Salih, an associate producer, told me his company made every effort to pick a varied but balanced group of people. They were "qualified" over the phone by being asked their opinions on the Bush administration and the president's handling of the Iraq situation. He also told me they got a much greater response than they had anticipated and were only able to call about 200 people back.

Those who met the producers' criteria and who had valid passports were notified Monday, Feb. 17. The flight was scheduled for the following Wednesday, giving participants two days to get everything in order for the trip. Salih admitted that the need for passports and the rushed arrangements knocked a few people out of the lineup and also caused the randomness of the group to be slightly skewed.

Fortunately for those who made the trip, the producers' pockets were fairly deep. Some quick figuring yielded a round amount of over $2,000 per person just to bring in the 20 St. Louisans. The Wednesday flight gave the participants-including myself-a full day and night to recover from the inevitable jet lag. At a quick Thursday night meeting, Salih greeted everyone and emphasized the need to speak clearly and in short responses if called upon by the program's moderator, Jon Snow.

It was clear when eavesdropping on conversations among the St. Louisans that some had really done their homework prior to the trip. They were up-to-speed on the latest Mideast developments as well as recent history, and their opinions on the proper course for the region were all over the spectrum.

By the time the mini-buses arrived at the hotel Friday afternoon to take everyone to the show's taping, nervousness had begun to set in. We were told three of us had been chosen to be interviewed a little more extensively by Snow and those people should be prepared to share their opinions at a moment's notice.

After 20 minutes in London traffic, the buses arrived for the taping at the BBC television production complex on Wood Lane. Viewers of the old Monty Python series remember exterior shots of the main building which has now become the centerpiece of a huge multi-building complex. Standing seven stories high, the main facility has three underground levels and contains eight fully equipped major production studios.

In the green room, we were told there was a randomly selected studio audience of 250 people who would serve as the "jury" in the mock trial, voting electronically once all arguments had been heard. The show would be divided into three segments, with Snow coming to St. Louisans for their opinions following each segment. During the segments, "prosecution" and "defense" spokesmen would be able to call and cross-examine expert witnesses.

Again the producers implored us to be ready to chime in with our opinions. "Give us your gut feelings," said producer Matt Macintyre. "Get your points out quickly. If you're boring, Jon Snow will cut you off." Several members of the St. Louis group expressed their concern about possible misrepresentation of sentiments and facts due to the program's title. They didn't feel it was America on trial so much as it was the Bush administration, and the title "America on Trial" implied that all of us supported what Bush was doing, which was not the case. Those who spoke up were told to make that point when the moderator came to them.

As the time for taping drew closer, the conversation level in the green room began rising. We were finally escorted into one of the cavernous studios and seated in bleachers among other members of the audience, who came from varied backgrounds and nationalities. Middle Easterners were well represented.

Again, it was obvious there was a lot of money in this production. There were six pedestal cameras, one overhead robotic camera and one roaming camera. Huge graphics around the studio contained portraits of George Bush, Saddam Hussein and military equipment. A production assistant told the audience to turn off all cell phones because their use interfered with intrastudio communications. Snow did a quick warm-up, telling the audience, "Anybody who wants to go to the loo should go now." He approached the sections where St. Louisans were sitting and confirmed the names on his seating chart. And then the taping began.

Snow told viewers we were there to consider whether "America's strike first foreign policy is thinly disguised imperialism, which threatens to fuel another arms race, spawn a new generation of terrorists and destroy international relations." As promised, he gave St. Louisans ample opportunity to comment on what was said, although some of their comments elicited loud catcalls from audience members. One woman told of her support for her country and her president and that she was listening to God. When Snow asked which God that was, she responded, "I'm listening to the God of the world ... " which offended several internationals in the audience.

Another St. Louis lady was offended by the amount of anti-Americanism she perceived, saying, "I feel like I came a long way to be insulted ... Every time we turn around we're giving money. We don't ask what religion, what race, what anything. Every time we turn around, we help the rest of the world." Still another acted as if she were on the Jerry Springer show, shouting out for Snow's attention when she wanted to make one of her emotional points.

At the end of the program, members of the audience voted the United States guilty of the charge, 56-44 percent.

"America on Trial" was good show business with conflict and information sprinkled in. Snow, considered one of the top TV presenters in the United Kingdom, was dapper and official in his approach. During one break in the taping, he spotted an Iraqi woman in the audience and greeted her in her native tongue. Invited guests included White House advisor Richard Pearl; Labor MP Bob Marshall Andrews; Con Coughlin, who is executive editor of the London Sunday Telegraph; and Danny Finkelstein, a Times of London columnist. Their arguments were good theater, and at the reception following the taping, they continued with good-natured banter.

It's doubtful anyone's opinions were changed by the broadcast, but several of the St. Louisans had their eyes opened. These people said they were totally taken aback by the anti-American sentiment they heard from the audience. A couple of the women said they were harassed by people who would kick their chairs when they tried to speak, and at least one woman said she was spat upon following the program.

The verbal sentiments included a lashing out at the U.S. government for sending Israel $1 million a day, all in the name of preserving a democracy; the Bush administration's disregard of some international treaties while at the same time criticizing other countries for doing the same; and the implied attitude that the U.S. way is the only way. Some of those same emotions came up on the Channel 4 website after the show. One contributor wrote: "Americans have got to start taking a broader perspective and stop this 'us vs. them' mentality that admittedly is pumped into brains by the likes of Fox News ... Some of the bewildered responses from the St. Louis people in the panel just amazed me ... I hope that Americans wake up to the threat, yes that's right, threat they pose to the world."

The day after the program aired, the Times of London published a poll in which it asked 2,000 Brits who was the greatest threat to world peace. The result was a tie: 45 percent said Saddam Hussein, and 45 percent said George W. Bush.

New press rules make a bad situation worse
By Steve Perron

Members of the St. Louis news media are about to find that getting information about patients in local hospitals will be about as easy as reading a doctor's handwriting. Effective April 14, 2003, the Missouri Hospital Association (MHA) will implement new guidelines and policies regarding disclosure of patient information. Most Metro-East hospitals are members of the MHA, so the same rules will apply. Some hospitals are already putting the new policies into practice.

The changes stem from the federal patient privacy act (HIPAA; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) signed in 1996 by President Clinton. The new directives regarding the media fill a massive three-ring binder, but for the average reporter or assignment desk editor, they boil down to two critical points:

1. If a patient doesn't want the press-or anyone else, for that matter-to know about them, the hospital isn't going to answer any questions.

2. If the reporter asking the questions doesn't already have the patient's name, he or she is not going to get anything. And, depending on how strict the hospital press liaison cares to be, reporters may also need to know the patient's age before any information will be released.

It is the second point that has the local press so worried.

Gone are the days when a reporter could call a hospital and ask for conditions of "those guys brought in from that accident a couple of hours ago on 40, by Brentwood ... at least, I think they were guys, but one of them might have been a woman ... they were driving a Ford Escort and ran into a guardrail. So, what're their conditions?"

Under the new guidelines, the PR person will ask for the motorists' names and, maybe, ages. That's when the reporter says, "What? How should I know? I wasn't even there! We just sent a photographer by for pictures. How the hell should I know their names?!"

Well, get used to it.

For hospital workers, the process works like this: Every patient is asked if he or she wants his or her name listed in the hospital directory. If the patient consents, limited information about the person can be released-but only to people who already have the patient's name. That limited information includes age, gender, condition and religion. The religion provision is for the benefit of hospital chaplains. If the patient declines to be listed in the registry, no information will be released. This restriction applies no matter who is calling or what they already know.

These restrictions represent a major change in how members of the media get information from hospitals, so hospital representatives held a series of seminars in January. The seminars were attended by both members of the news media and members of hospital media relations staffs. Anyone attending these seminars could see there is still a great deal of confusion about the new policies among the news media and hospital personnel.

For example, it is not clear if this procedure will apply to fire department paramedics. HIPAA specifically mentions ambulance personnel but not firefighters. So, are fire department EMTs covered? No clear answer on that question.

What about medical disasters, like the nightclub fire in Rhode Island, the West Nile outbreak or a deadly heat wave? The media can't be expected to know all these names, but a legitimate argument can be made about the public's need to know about the severity of certain disasters. It is a gray area, but hospital workers say they are prepared to release general information, such as the total number of injuries or deaths, along with a breakdown of gender and conditions. But, no names.

There is confusion among hospitals about how to treat victims of violence. Some plan to treat victims of violence like any other patients. Others are adopting a strict no-tell policy, opting not to place the names of victims of violence in their hospital directories-period. And, remember, if a patient's name is not in the directory, no one can get any information about that patient.

What about an unconscious patient? Information will be released only if that patient has been listed in the hospital directory at an earlier time.

Another concern for members of the media is finding out about a patient's death. It's one thing to report that a person is in serious condition when the person is actually in fair. It's another to report the person is in serious condition when he or she is actually dead. However, coroners and medical examiners are not covered under the HIPAA guidelines, so reporters can call those offices for information.

This situation also hints at the strong likelihood that a whole new code language will develop between members of the press and hospital PR staffers. For example, a reporter may be told to "call the coroner" for information about the condition of a patient. The obvious implication is that the patient is dead.

On the street, reporters and photographers will be instructed to always get a shot of a car license plate at an auto accident and to always ask the police and EMTs on the scene for names. Police, firefighters, and family members are specifically excluded from the HIPAA restrictions. It will quickly become apparent to the media that without a patient's name, they are out of luck.

Despite all the questions over the new policies, one thing is certain: readers, listeners and viewers can expect more lines like "unknown at this time," "unavailable" and "not being released."

Sawyer sets standard for war reporting
By Dan Hellinger

Few observers believe that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch provides the kind of enterprising and critical foreign affairs reporting that marked its glory days in the middle of the last century. Yet, occasionally, that tradition shines through.

A group of stories in the Sunday, Feb. 9 edition offered readers a superb example of journalism at its best. Jon Sawyer, Washington Bureau chief and a veteran foreign correspondent, traveled to Beirut to delve into the minds of the four most important Palestinian organizations fighting Israel.

Most supporters of Israel regard these groups as terrorist organizations while Palestinian sympathizers often refer to them as freedom fighters.

Whatever label one chooses for them, these are dangerous times for an American reporter to be seeking out any armed group in the Middle East.

Yet Sawyer visited the headquarters in Lebanon of Hamas-whose leader provided a warning-Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Al-Fatah. One headline in the five remarkable articles read, "Americans could be targets if U.S. goes too far, group says."

For many Americans, "they are all crazy over there" in the Middle East. The notion that different Arab and Islamist organizations are not divided among themselves in their views of America, Israel and Saddam Hussein is the path of least resistance. News reports that fine tune the politics of the region make it harder for the Bush administration to rally the country behind a war for cultural survival.

Sawyer's reports demonstrate that each Palestinian group views its struggle against Israel as a much higher priority than saving Saddam Hussein. Mounir al Makdah, leader of Al-Fatah in Lebanon, told Sawyer his fighters would resist a U.S. occupation of Iraq. But, at a rally his group organized and Sawyer attended, Hezbollah's General Secretary Hassan Nasrallah called upon Hussein to step down in favor of a government of national reconciliation.

Sawyer's interviews and pictures by photographer Gabriel Tait put human faces on these Palestinians. In contrast to photos and video that show some Palestinians dancing in the streets, the image that came across in these stories were of determined soldiers, divided at times against one another, but more frustrated by American policy than angry at America. Sawyer's stories and Tait's photos are gripping journalism that doesn't require the local angle to draw in the reader. Although, of course, Americans are now learning to factor in foreign news to their everyday thinking.

For the most part, St. Louisans will have to depend on the Post and hope it somehow lives up to the reputation reporters such as Richard Dudman earned for it during the Vietnam War.

Most of the electronic media are treating the Iraq crisis as though it were a sporting event. It's free programming, after all.

Particularly shameless is KMOX radio, which has erected billboards promoting "Showdown with Iraq," a phrase repeated on air by the same breathy announcer who promotes Cardinals games.

The Post and KMOX radio have traditionally had the best resources at their disposals. Now that KTVI (Channel 2) has brought Charles Jaco into its stable of broadcasters, it will be interesting to see whether the local TV upstart can lure viewers from KMOV (Channel 4) and KSDK (Channel 5). Even if it does, the Post will need to continue setting the news agenda for the metro area. Sawyer has made a good start.

"Democracy Now!" offers news unavailable elsewhere
By Benjamin Israel

It's only been on the air in St. Louis since Feb. 15, but Webster Groves resident Phil Carmody is already hooked on listening to "Democracy Now!" when he takes his daughters to school, comes home and eats breakfast. During its second week on the air, Carmody wrote in an e-mail, "It's the radio equivalent of air for the drowning.

"One example that leaps to mind was hearing Dr. Helen Caldicott last week laying into the mentality behind nuclear proliferation, and particularly that of the U.S. I can't give it verbatim, but she referred to the men behind it as testosterone-sodden reptilian mid-brains. Truth!!!"

It's not only the rhetoric that attracts Carmody. "Yesterday I learned that Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey was not allowed to enter the U.S.-think anyone heard about that in the corporate media?" he wrote.

A quick check of the websites of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and KMOX yielded no information about Devlin-McAliskey's deportation from O'Hare International Airport, apparently part of the war on terrorism.

KDHX at 88.1 FM now carries "Democracy Now!" at 8 a.m. Monday through Friday. Double Helix, the not-for-profit corporation that owns KDHX, started programming "Democracy Now!" last August on DHTV, which is available on Charter Cable in St. Louis City.

Subscribers to Dish TV can see it on Free Speech Television at 8 a.m. weekdays. "Democracy Now!" host Amy Goodman said she wants the show "to build public awareness and to build public involvement in politics" and practices what she calls "grassroots journalism."

KDHX is a listener-sponsored community radio station that, for years, has broadcast music and cultural programming for roughly 23 hours of the day and public affairs for one hour in the evening. KDHX Chief Executive Beverly Hacker said the station's programming committee decided to roughly double its public affairs programming out of concern about "the consolidation of the media. We're only getting one side."

The one-hour Monday-through-Friday show starts off with a newscast dominated by reports about the U.S. preparations for war and the responses of the anti-war movement. In its first few weeks on the air in St. Louis, the program continued with 10- to 15-minute interviews.

For example, one morning Goodman interviewed 16-year-old Brett Barber, a Dearborn, Mich., high school student who was sent home from school for wearing a T-shirt bearing a likeness of President George W. Bush and the words "International Terrorist." She also interviewed Kary Moss of the Michigan American Civil Liberties Union.

On another day, she interviewed Eugene Angelopouos, a professor at the National Technical University of Athens, who had been detained, shackled and questioned about his political beliefs at Kennedy International Airport, and on the day after, he was arrested and charged with being a terrorist leader.

"Democracy Now!" also ran an excerpt from an old interview with University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian.

"Democracy Now!" senior producer Kris Abrams said, "The guests that we choose are often very different. We don't edit out the more controversial aspects of the interview."

One day, "Democracy Now!" correspondent Jeremy Scahill reported from a hospital in Basra, Iraq, on the large number of cancer cases in children in an area littered with the remains of depleted uranium shells from the 1991 war and the difficulties treating them when an embargo cuts off the supply of medicine.

The last half hour has been taken up with long excerpts from speeches: linguist Noam Chomsky, historian Howard Zinn, pediatrician Helen Caldicott, novelist Arundhati Roy, and, on the anniversary of his assassination, Malcolm X.

What you don't hear is coverage of the Grammy Awards or the Mike Tyson fight or someone like Cokie Roberts analyzing how the war will play with the voters.

"Democracy Now!" started in early 1996 as a daily show on the Pacifica Network covering the election-not just the two major party presidential candidates but minor party candidates and ballot propositions around the country. The non-profit Pacifica Foundation, begun by pacifist poet Lewis Hill, started its first radio station, KPFA in Berkeley, Calif., in 1949 and now operates stations in Los Angeles, New York, Houston and Washington, D.C.

The show proved so popular that it continued after the election ended. Goodman was a reporter for WBAI, the Pacifica station in New York, before starting "Democracy Now!" In 1991, Goodman and reporter Allan Nairn drew international attention and survived a massacre in East Timor, and their reports won the Robert F. Kennedy Prize for International Reporting, the Alfred I. DuPont-Columbia Silver Baton, the Armstrong Award, the Radio/Television News Directors Award, as well as awards from AP, UPI and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

"Democracy Now!" now goes out over 50 radio stations-including KOPN in Columbia, Mo., and WEFT in Champaign-Urbana, Ill.-plus a host of cable television stations, a handful of over-the-air television stations and Radio for Peace International on short wave.

Abrams said the largest U.S. cities without it are Chicago and Philadelphia.

Take Five will be missed
By Benjamin Israel
If you've been looking for a copy of Take Five, the paper that SJR editor Ed Bishop once called the best alternative paper in St. Louis, and wondered whether it has folded, the answer is, "Not quite yet."

Editor and publisher Sylvester Brown said he hasn't put out an issue since November, but plans to publish a farewell issue in April.

"At my age, I'm just burned out," Brown said. "It was just a grueling lifestyle. I wrote most of the articles."

Brown founded Take Five in 1987 when he was a student at Forest Park Community College.

"We looked at ourselves as what the Riverfront Times was to the (St. Louis) Post-Dispatch: a little more investigative, a little more objective. I saw myself as a little bit more inclusive on African-American issues than the American."

The November issue was an example. Coming out on the eve of the election, Brown and his managing editor and wife, Victoria Anton-Brown, devoted 20 of 23 pages of copy to the election. It led with an editorial Brown wrote saying that the Democratic Party takes African-American voters for granted.

Take Five published lengthy interviews with Democratic incumbent Sen. Jean Carnahan, Republican candidate for St. Louis County executive Craig Borchelt, Secretary of Education Rod Paige about Jim Talent and Green Party activist Zaki Baruti. It opened its pages to articles by Democrats, Republicans and Greens, and Brown interviewed a variety of African-Americans about their feelings about the Democratic Party.

It was probably the most far-ranging discussion of the election a St. Louis reader could find in one local publication.

Of the other three pages of copy, one was devoted to a story by senior writer Lori Reed about a march against police violence and two were devoted to entertainment stories.

What Brown said he avoided in all his issues was the staple of papers like the American and the Ladue News, pictures of prominent people in fancy clothes at banquets. "I don't like showcasing the corporate elite," Brown said.

Over the years, Take Five opened its pages to activists like John and Susie Chasnoff of the Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression, John Hickey of the Missouri Pro-vote and attorney Eric Vickers and did some investigations of its own.

Brown is particularly proud of the paper's coverage of how the police beat George Bell, a retarded man, in his own home. "We got the transcripts, found another witness who was beaten by the same sergeant."

Referring to the North County woman who spent 16 years in prison for murder before a federal judge freed her in 1999, Brown said, "The Ellen Reasonover story, we did it about 13 years ago, and the Riverfront Times did it five years ago."

Take Five also took on the exploitation of young boxers and the juvenile justice system, as well as international issues. In the December 2001 issue, Brown devoted six pages to his critique of the war on terrorism and the war in Afghanistan, showing connections of our military actions to oil industry interest.

"I saw this as something that would make change as well as monitor change," Brown said.

Brown said he and his wife took on public relations work to supplement their income from Take Five, which never made a profit.

"I'm not the best salesman," Brown said. "I didn't have the best political contacts. I didn't have the best business contacts. The Argus and the American are part of the National Newspaper Association. They get national buys. When I talked to them, they weren't accepting monthlies."

Take Five served as an advocate for black-owned businesses, sponsoring shopping tours and championing Sterling's Market.

"It's been a wonderful, wonderful ride," Brown said.

He's selling ads for the farewell issue and may stage a reunion for its former writers including Jabari Asim of the Washington Post, Fred McKissack Jr. of the Progressive and Margeena Christian of Jet Magazine.

Dr. Jockenstein, operating on your mind
By Kerry Manderbach

The man known to many as Dr. Jockenstein was born Roderick G. King and raised in East St. Louis. Rod attended Rock Junior High School where fate helped determine his future. One of his teachers was the mother of KATZ personality Donny Brooks.

While in high school, Rod got his first taste of the radio business in the late '60s with an internship at KATZ in St. Louis. Rod approached deejay Donny Brooks and offered to be his "gopher," telling him, "Your mom was my teacher." He lugged the equipment Brooks used at his personal appearances and soon was helping Brooks at the radio station.

He later attended Southern Illinois University-Carbondale on a law enforcement scholarship. But, he'd been bitten by the deejay bug and began spinning records for sorority and frat-house parties. After two years at SIUC, he decided his classes were "obsolete" and went back to East St. Louis.

Rod was soon throwing parties in his basement at home, "Bluelight Basement Parties," spinning records in his new persona as "Touché The DJ-The Jock That Never Stops." The parties always drew large crowds.

It was about this time that "Super Soul 1490" WESL program director Jim "Gentleman" Gates noticed a drop-off in attendance of his parties. "It was almost empty," says Gates. "I found out Jock was giving a party at the same time and it would be packed out, I mean jammed. So, I figured if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I hired him."

King as Touché started perfecting his on-air persona. "He had no formal training," says Bernie Hayes, a legendary St. Louis radio figure. "He learned the business from Jim Gates and Donny Brooks."

While playing traditional "soul" radio station fare, King was also spinning more of an R&B style called "funk," which was replacing soul music, and younger listeners gravitated to the grittier sound. Some of those funk cuts King was spinning were produced by a group known as Parliament-Funkadelic.

Heading up this new group was future Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Famer George Clinton, known as "Dr. Funkenstein." In 1976, Parliament came to St. Louis, and local performer Gene Robinson arranged a meeting between Clinton and King. King ended up emceeing the local Parliament show and a party afterwards.

"I was dressed up like a doctor, trying to be George Clinton Jr.," King said. "All 20 of those guys came by and we just partied. At the end of the gig George said, 'If I'm Dr. Funkenstein, you've got to be Dr. Jockenstein, the Mad Doctor of music behind the turntable.'"

With his new identity, King started to widen his fan base. He developed a new tagline: "This is Dr. Jockenstein, operating on your mind," and he resurrected an old idea, High School Roll Call. Bernie Hayes and DJ Jake Jordan had their own versions. "I started 'Roll Call' at KATZ in 1966," says Hayes. "I would have the kids call in. Jake Jordan came in to KWK in 1969-1970; he also had a thing called 'Roll Call.'

"Jim Gates ... put me on morning drive," King remembered. "Going to work one day I was trying to think of something that would get the kids up to go to school. Then I got to saying, 'OK, it's Roll Call time.'" Jock led his callers through the drill in rhyme, and then let them use their own raps, thus becoming the first "rappers" on commercial radio.

"Here we go on the ra-di-o, I'm the DJ jock in ster-e-o. We're gonna have a good time, On the Roll Call line.

"On the go-on the radio! WESL!"

Then Jockenstein would ask his callers: "Hey, what's your name? What's your sign?

"Give me that No. 1 school. Your favorite teacher with the golden rule. Your favorite station in the nation."

Playing in the background during Roll Call was "skating music," instrumental versions of contemporary hits, usually flip sides of radio station promotional copies, distributed by the record companies for deejays to play while doing local ads. Deejays also used to spin these records at their part-time jobs at the local skating rinks.

King recalled, "I had letters from Southwestern Bell to change the time I was doing the 'Roll Call' show because I was tying up their switchboard." By now, King's show had grown into a four-hour shift. He stayed at WESL until 1979 and then got an offer to be the program director of competing KATZ/WZEN-FM. "They wanted Gates," said King. "Gates asked, at the time, for some astronomical figure. And they said, 'Well, we'll just take Jock,' and they brought me over and made me program director."

But FCC deregulation was soon to cut a swath through the radio industry. "As I reflect on it now," King lamented, "that was the end of community radio as far as the Black neighborhoods were concerned ... it was all corporate business."

Rod King had been spinning records on his Saturday "Jammin' Oldies" show at Majic for about two years when, in early 2002, something went wrong.