Straight Talk on ‘Quantum Leap’ Dispute
Critics by definition operate outside the rule of responsible reporting since they are read primarily for their opinions. Even with this latitude, when a critic lies about the facts to support his opinion, he should be called to task.
Case in point. Howard Rosenberg’s column of Jan. 17 (“NBC Takes Hit Over Gay Issue on ‘Leap’ Show”) begins with the allegation that “during a squabble with the network over production of the episode (“Running for Honor”) last September, ‘Quantum Leap’ executive producer Don Bellisario had asserted that NBC officials raised the possibility of the studio (Universal) compensating NBC for airing the episode in the event of a sponsor dropout.” Rosenberg goes on to say that “NBC had denied making such a suggestion. . . .”
NBC’s denial is correct. I never made the assertion.
The assertion was actually made by an undisclosed source in Variety. If Rosenberg had called me, as did Variety, the Hollywood Reporter, CNN, NBC News, E! and Entertainment Tonight, I would have told him what I told them--that NBC had never asked for compensation with regard to that episode.
Next, Rosenberg joins Richard Jennings, executive director of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, to allege that changes--including the addition of a positive gay character and the impression that the character Sam leaped into was gay--were made in the final shooting script after NBC and GLAAD intervened.
Not true.
The episode in question was in the third day of filming when the controversy broke. The only change made in the final shooting script was to alter the ages of the boys involved so they would not be teen-agers. (There was an attempted suicide in the script and NBC did not want to depict an attempted teen-age suicide.)
Rosenberg goes on to accuse me of being a producer who “has the habit of making misleading or ambiguous public statements,” and uses as an example a recent controversial episode where Sam leaped in as a chimp.
Rosenberg knows better.
He called me on the chimp episode looking for ammunition to support his admitted animal-rights bias against the biomedical research community. I disagreed with his distorted view that one-sided pressure was being exerted on me to squelch the episode.
I informed him that the animal-rights groups were pressuring just as hard to exploit their point of view as were people in the biomedical research community. Obviously to Rosenberg, this makes me “ambiguous” in that controversy.
Finally, in his column on the “gay” episode, Rosenberg takes issue with the character of Al (portrayed by Dean Stockwell) admitting that his homophobic attitude was wrong. While I find Al’s growth of character admirable, I understand a man of Rosenberg’s arrogance not being able to fathom it.
Straightforward enough for you, Howard?