Critic Should Practice What He Preaches

For many of us in local broadcast journalism, Howard Rosenberg is the print equivalent of water torture; that is, his columns are nothing more than a mild irritant. Repeat it long enough, however, and the result is maddening (“KCBS’ ‘I-Team’: Tainted by Hype,” Calendar, May 8).

The resentment here is not with Rosenberg’s criticism of the job we do. God knows, with some of the recent trends in television news, we need outside critical analysis, although much of what he writes is mild compared to the heated self-analysis voiced by journalists in every television newsroom in this city.

The real ongoing problem with Rosenberg is his self-righteous hypocrisy. He whines with complete impunity, seemingly unbridled by any journalistic parameters of his own, about the perceived failures of journalists from another medium (television news) in which he has never worked or apparently even made a good faith effort to understand.

Put simply, Rosenberg is careless with his “facts” and makes no effort to do his homework. And, perhaps even worse, he deliberately mis-edits context to fit his hypothesis.

Recently, an exhaustive undercover report by Joel Grover of KCBS-TV Channel 2 news revealed a widespread, deliberate pattern by car repair shops to defraud consumers by selling them repairs they don’t need. Then, as a follow-up to that, our reporter interviewed a regulator with the California Bureau of Automotive Repair, which is supposed to protect us from this kind of blatant fraud.

In writing about me reacting to that interview, Rosenberg quotes me almost accurately. He says I responded by saying, “I don’t know of any other business where they blame the victims.” The fact is, verified by videotape, my exact statement was, “I don’t know of any other crime where they blame the victims.”

Rosenberg’s bigger transgression, however, was that he conveniently downplayed the essence of what that state regulator had just said on television. Asked about the widespread fraud by auto mechanics, the state regulator had mentioned the main problem is that consumers don’t know enough to catch these guys.

What? We don’t know enough about restaurant procedures, either, but does that mean the government shouldn’t vigilantly patrol restaurant kitchens? Do you blame a restaurant patron for coming down with food poisoning?

That a state automotive regulator would cite uninformed consumers as the cause of massive fraud was outrageous, and if my voice upon hearing that reflected outrage, then so be it. The Times is full of reporters drawing conclusions to facts, and my reaction was no different.

If Rosenberg is to set himself up as the journalistic conscience of those covering news stories, then it follows that he should at least follow some of the basic procedures he rightly demands of us. Just once in a while it would be helpful if he would pick up a telephone and check out the facts. And please don’t tell me that Rosenberg is only writing opinion so he doesn’t need to follow the same procedures as the rest of us. Rosenberg’s readers have a right to assume that his opinions are based on facts, and that he was diligent in gathering those facts.

But after working eight years in Los Angeles, I have never once spoken with Rosenberg, even though he has written about me and our station many times. What other journalist besides Rosenberg has a “beat” without ever having a single conversation with those about whom he writes?

Again, the intent here is not to discourage honest criticism of what we do. We welcome that. It’s just that, when criticism comes from another journalist, we expect it to be tempered with the same journalistic principles he has set himself up to judge in us.