KCBS Takes ‘Action’ Too Far . . . Once Again

How far is too far when it comes to covering the O.J. Simpson trial? Try this.

On the screen are two computer-animated figures. The male, a black-clad African American wearing a watch cap over kinky hair, attacks a blond Caucasian woman in a black dress from behind, pulling her back and stabbing her in the chest, then slashing her throat so deeply that she appears decapitated. Swiftly dispatched, the woman begins collapsing to the ground beside a pool of her own blood as the video ends.

What newscast would air something this grisly, this inflammatory, this prejudicial? One of the usual suspects, of course: KCBS-TV Channel 2’s “Action News.”

Channel 2, which once used atmospheric music to create eerie ambience for a crime story by reporter Harvey Levin, slid further into journalistic hell at the start of its 11 p.m. newscast Tuesday when it introduced the above 14 seconds of animation en route to its lead story by Levin, detailing the prosecution’s single-killer theory.

*

The slaying animation supported not only that theory but also a theory that the murderer was African American and, by extension, was O.J. Simpson. (Ronald Lyle Goldman, who was killed with Nicole Simpson, was not depicted in the animation.)

CBS-owned-and-operated KCBS says it purchased the video from 21st Century Forensic, an independent video company. If it wants to be fair, the station should now commission and air a second animation depicting the Simpson defense’s multiple-killer contention.

The slaying video not only did not belong in a legitimate newscast but also appeared to violate the standards of the CBS News division under which Channel 2 newscasters presumably operate, a news division that appears not to care just how low “Action News” descends.

The news division’s own rules state that re-creations should be used rarely, but when used “must be a faithful reproduction of the original event.” How “faithful” was the one aired by “Action News”?

It showed “in chilling detail how the murders may have been carried out, at least from the prosecution’s standpoint,” anchor Ann Martin read from a script as the depiction rolled. “A video company put this tape together,” she added, “based on information that came out during the Simpson preliminary hearing.”

How’s that again? Did her script say “information,” from which one might infer that the video was based on fact? While the script was technically correct, the “information” it referred to was biased against Simpson. Why was the slayer depicted as black? And why was the slaying of Goldman omitted? Because his death does not fit as neatly into the single-killer scenario? Because, in someone’s eyes, his death was less significant?

This wasn’t news, it was 14 seconds of irresponsible, opinionated, pro-prosecution theater.

“What’s next,” an “Action News” staff member quipped later, “an animation of the jury convicting O.J.?” Don’t give Channel 2 any ideas.

*

STEP RIGHT UP! When is news news and when is it a commercial? On TV, news hucksterism is so incestuous that, at times, separating the editorial and sales staffs is almost impossible.

Strong evidence of this blurring comes in the glut of stories that commercial network and local news programs regularly manufacture to advertise their own company’s entertainment shows and companion news programs. So routinely cluttered is TV’s news landscape with sales pitches that the public has become desensitized to this grimy practice.

Even fewer protests have been registered, moreover, against photographs of KNBC-TV Channel 4 news anchors appearing on the screens of TV sets for sale in Robinsons May ads, an unholy symbiosis the station has been participating in for years.

Greeting newspaper readers in one such ad this week, for example, were the smiling mugs of Channel 4’s Jess Marlow and Wendy Tokuda. Although no names or newscasts are mentioned, the station still gains exposure from this partnership. And, in exchange, the store and its products gain the endorsements of the news anchors, however subtly.

Given this climate of insensitivity, it’s probably not surprising that Channel 2 consumer reporter David (“Fight Back!”) Horowitz and the station would defend his own paid endorsement of Pro-Caps in TV and radio ads for the vitamin product.

“Pro-Caps are so incredibly unique that they’re the only product I’ve ever endorsed,” Horowitz declares in the commercial that has been running for some time.

Channel 2 spokeswoman Sybil MacDonald said Thursday that the station is “concerned about the potential for a conflict of interest” but that Horowitz had not done any stories on vitamin or nutritional supplements while at Channel 2 and would not be allowed to do so for the duration of his present contract.

Speaking by phone, Horowitz rejected the notion that what he’s doing is unethical or even inappropriate. “Am I embarrassed about it?” he asked. “Absolutely not. What I’m doing is absolutely fine.”

Horowitz said he’s been openly endorsing the vitamins in catalogues and elsewhere for about three years, becoming involved with the manufacturer, Winning Combination of Santa Monica, as an equity partner (who profits from sales) while between news jobs at KNBC and KCBS, where his contract allows him to commercially endorse “this product” only. MacDonald said Channel 2 let Horowitz continue to do the commercials because of his previous contractual obligation to Pro-Caps.

He was attracted to Pro-Caps, Horowitz said, as someone who had been using vitamin products for three decades, and he publicly endorsed it only after having it “lab tested” and doing other “intensive work” on the product to determine its quality.

“In terms of my experience, I should know the difference between something that is terrific and something that isn’t terrific,” he said. “I get approached about 20 times a year to endorse something, and I say no. But this is something I believe in in my heart of hearts. It’s not like I’m a pitchman for a product.”

No matter how open he is about it, though, that’s exactly what he is.

And that’s the case in spite of CBS News standards that ban participation “in billboards, commercial messages or lead-ins to commercial messages. . . . “

CBS News “does not allow its anchors or correspondents to do any kind of commercial endorsements,” news division spokeswoman Kim Akhtar reiterated when asked Thursday about Horowitz.

With one especially notable exception, that is. He’s the veteran CBS News correspondent Charles Osgood, who is allowed to continue to do commercials on radio during his “Osgood Files” commentaries as part of the deal he made last year to succeed Charles Kuralt as anchor of “CBS News Sunday Morning.” CBS News acknowledged then that it was making an exception to its no-commercial policy to persuade Osgood to take the TV job.

But . . . wait. Why was he earlier being allowed to do commercials? Is there a separate standard for radio and TV, as well as for some newscasters?

“There’s hypocrisy here that kind of upsets me,” Horowitz said, “that if a network is making an enormous amount of money on a program (“CBS News Sunday Morning”), they will make an exception. What’s the difference if Charles Osgood endorses a product on radio?”

None. That’s the point.