Slashdot Mirror
Lauren Weinstein: If MTV Calls, Hang Up
Lauren Weinstein writes "Usually when one gets a call to participate in a news-oriented television program, subterfuge isn't a worry. But in the brave new world of 'newsertainment' -- a blurring of news and entertainment -- you really need to watch your back. Herein is the sordid tale (posted last night to Dave Farber's "IP" list) of what recently happened to me -- and my narrow escape -- when Viacom/MTV Networks came calling, asking for my help to educate the world's youth about important topics (in this case, the scourge of spam). Be warned. It could happen to you!"
For people that didn't read the article, it's actually a new show on Comedy Central called Crossballs. It's not MTV itself, or even a show on MTV.
Comedy Central also produces the great The Daily Show, which I'm sure a few guests are upset they appeared on after it airs. (Host Jon Stewart recently jokingly asked on the show why anyone is still willing to appear). It's more widely known, though, and they seem to be open about who they are.
Dave,
The L.A. Times article (avoid folding the long URL!):
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-adfi-fr eston20j un20,1,5581013.story?
coll=la-home-headlines online for now (registration required) tells the story of
Tom Freston, chairman of Viacom's MTV Networks. The article suggests that Tom's
style for MTV et al. might be the saving grace for Paramount and perhaps the
rest of the entertainment industry.
If MTV's model is the solution, we're in for big trouble. Hear my saga and avoid
the fate that almost befell yours truly -- experts and spokespeople in the IP
readership, you could be next!
A few weeks ago, I got a call from a producer who identified herself as being
with MTV Networks' "The Debate Project" - -- who wanted to book me onto a new
debate format show in production, to be taped a few days hence. She described
the show (which she never actually specifically named) as oriented toward young
people about important topics, with guests who were experts in their respective
fields. They wanted me to debate a known spammer (who they wouldn't identify at
the time) regarding the scourge of spam. It would be fun she implied, since the
audience would of course be on my side.
While MTV Net producing a show like this seemed a bit odd, it's not unheard of
for them to do topical programming. She assured me the program would definitely
air on an MTV Network but wasn't sure which one yet. Odd, but I've gotten
stranger calls from more ordinary news-oriented programs.
They sealed the deal by promising to send a car so I wouldn't have to hassle
with driving in to Hollywood from The Valley through late Friday afternoon
traffic, and even said they'd throw in $200 (egads -- payment for a "news"
appearance -- unheard of in my experience!)
OK, I'll bite -- sounds more interesting than typical interviews anyway. Then
followed more phone calls from other staffers questioning me at length on the
topic of spam, an e-mailed message with similar questions, and finally all was
set to go. They were really excited about my joining them the next day they kept
saying, and would call me in the morning before sending the car.
That same Thursday night, with the show scheduled for Friday, I was increasingly
uncomfortable. There was a bad feeling I just couldn't shake, an almost animal
instinct of something amiss that I couldn't put my finger on.
When the show had originally called, I had done some cursory googling but
couldn't fine anything relevant. This didn't seem too unusual for a show in
production but not yet on air. Now I started googling in depth.
At first I found nothing again. But then I started working backwards from the
contact phone numbers I had for the show's production staff. This time I hit pay
dirt, and while the pages unscrolled on my screen a cold chill ran down my
spine.
As the recent, angry testimonials I had found recounted, with a matching of
modus operandi that left no chance for error, the show on which I was about to
appear was a fraud.
Not really a debate at all, the show is actually a program for Comedy Central
(yes, an MTV/Viacom network) called "Crossballs" -- and its sole purpose is the
embarrassment and humiliation of the expert guests who are brought on expecting
a legitimate discussion program.
Crossballs is a rigged "reality" show, where real guests, who have been kept in
the dark about the show's real format, are paired off against actors (playing
the debate opponents) for the amusement of the live audience. The stories I read
from persons recently on the show included descriptions of crude,
sexually-oriented verbal attacks (and worse, like being handed various sexual
"apparatus") and concerns that their reputations would be ruined once the shows
aired.
As the alien commander said in "Plan 9 From Outer Space": "That was TOO close!"
In a few hours I was scheduled t
I managed to grab a mirror before the server was reduced to a smouldering pile of copper and silicon.
Enjoy.
It's hardly the only show on the air which does this - "Ali G" from the UK (and HBO) is a great example, he's interviewed the likes of Newt Gingrich, C Everett Koop, Ralph Nader, Buzz Aldrin and many others, most of whom never caught on. I'm sure the basic concept goes back as far as audiovisual reproduction technology.
The good satirical shows (like the Daily Show) merely allow genuine whackos and phonies to make fools of themselves; I'm sure there are also lowbrow shows which try to ambush and victimize unsuspecting guests as well. I dunno which sort this "Crossballs" will be (though there's one or two in the cast whom I know don't need to be doing crap to pay rent, so there's hope) but regardless, her reaction seems to be a bit over the top...
Perfectly Normal Industries
I believe the accepted term is infotainment, and in some cases - docutainment.
Since the shows are taped, they can't broadcast anything without a signed waiver, for fear of you sueing the bejesus out of them. Just stay clear of signing waivers that pertain to tapings of future events, and you'll be fine.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
The great thing about the Daily Show is that it's an actual news show: They cover real-world events, they report the actual facts, and only then do they start joking around. At least, they are no more or less accurate than any other TV news program. And since it's a comedy, and on cable, they can get away with more BS-calling and inconsistency-lampooning than most, and that's why it's so attractive to the younger generation.
One can't help but feel sorry for the legit news folks over at CBS' "60 Minutes" and other excellent news programs....
r int.html] The same news program that lines up it's guests to co-incide with their book releases (See Bill Clinton)? The same network (CBS) that uses pyrotechnics (20/20) to "demonstrate" what happens when a full sized pickup was hit - because it wouldn't catch on fire otherwise? [http://www.car-forums.com/s10/t2240.html]
You are kidding right? The news program that almost drove Audi out of business with it's false inaccurate reporting?[ http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/1115/6412145a_p
I thought the author was a bright guy, up until that comment. 60 minutes may have at one time been a respectable news magazine. That has not been the case for almost 2 decades IMHO. If 60 minutes knocks on your door and they have decided your "guilty", you have a better chance at getting your side of the story heard on cross balls.
In the end - isn't that whats the most sad?
cluge
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Quite simply, avoid talking to the media whenever possible. You can definitely expect them to put some kind of spin on whatever you say -- whether it's meant to add excitement, satisfy their existing bias, or for whatever other reason (lack of skill / stupidity). A close friend of mine was severely embarassed in our community due an idiot reporter who entirely misrepresented/misquoted what my friend said. The lesson for me was, reporters are not smart people and even if they mean well they can screw up big time, hurting you in the process, and nobody cares to read retractions. When the media comes knocking, keep your mouth shut.
The difference is that Punk'd pulls pranks on celebrities. That is much different than asking experts to debate only to make fun of them by re-editing / taking out of context / etc. Punk'd draws a lot of its entertainment value on the premise that the people in hollywoord are "perfect" people, and the public eye is usually created by the media. Seeing these people upset over something for 15 mins shows another side... None of the people on Punk'd would lose their job or reputation. Most of the time the people involved are "friends" of Ashton Kutchers.
I don't have a problem with Punk'd but this Crossballs thing seems malicious. The guest's reputation is on the line.
http://www.equalccw.com/thedebateshowfiasco.html.
Not pretty.