I’ve never been able to pull off the infallibility thing. I’m genetically inclined to screwing up.
In his comment on my non-news news post on the absence of WCCO radio reporter, Eric Eskola, Britt Robson cuts me a new one:
“I’m late to the party here, but the big problem with this post is in the first paragraph. All the “media insiders” have pretty well been apprised of the reason(s) why Eskola is absent from the scene. Well, how were they apprised? Did Eskola tell each and every one of these “insiders”? Or did some of the media insiders decide it was okay and appropriate to gossip amongst themselves and are now trying to figure out “how do we explain it to the general public, if we do at all?”
That double standard is patently arrogant. Whether the reason(s) behind Eskola’s hiatus are sordid or sympathetic, what purpose does it serve to essentially say, “Us media insiders have probed enough to know what’s going on but now we’ve decided that for the sake of his privacy we shouldn’t tell you.” It sets you up as clubby and elitist. Because in this case, you are.
If you really wanted to protect Eskola’s privacy, you wouldn’t have printed a word about him. And if you REALLY wanted to protect his privacy, you would resist the temptation for behind-the-scenes sleuthing into a matter he obviously doesn’t want to publicly divulge at the current time.
Like almost everyone in the media, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Eskola’s work. I have no idea why he left his post in the front row of Capitol press conferences, but I assume it was for a good reason. If I were a media columnist, I’d like to think I wouldn’t broach the subject until I could divulge the whole story. Of course Brian has provided me with the 20/20 hindsight on how not to proceed. Because now Eskola has less privacy than before the post, with the public rabble free to speculate and appropriately believing that the media has chosen to protect one of its own.”
I probably should go into high defensive dudgeon, railing on with a lot of, “Who the f**k do you think you are calling me … “arrogant”, “clubby” and “elitist”? But Robson makes too many good points.
I think I was clear enough that I was applying The Golden Rule to what I said — and the way I said what I said — about Eskola. Yes, all (okay, “many”) of us clubby media insiders had heard the story about Eric’s situation, complete with many of the details. In most circumstances I keep a distance from the strictly personal problems of local media types. Divorces, DUIs, coke habits, seen sneaking out of Sinners on Tuesday nights … I don’t care. Call me back when it effects their work.
What got me about this story was that the clubby insider wall had been breached when I — a long ways from Eric’s inner circle — started getting asked, or rather “told” that “word was …” Eskola had screwed up professionally and was being disciplined by WCCO or someone.
Golden Rule-wise, I wouldn’t want that happening to me. As I said, in most cases sensitive personal problems are not only forgiven by the public — if it’s an addiction or something — but most often are treated quite sympathetically, especially in the case of someone like Eskola who enjoys a solid reputation for reliability and work ethic.
Did I think twice about saying anything at all. Yes, I did. So why did I write anything?
Because, A. It kind of is my beat. Even in blog world. I’m a reporter. Eskola is a high-profile media person. The last days of the legislative session are like the World Series to a sports writer, with Eskola usually playing our Roger Angell. Therefore his absence is a story. B. WCCO radio wasn’t doing anything to address/suppress the “disciplinary” rumors. C. I actually believed that saying what I said — as much and as little — would stabilize the tongue-wagging a bit to Eric’s benefit.
When he returns he may not see it that way at all. But he isn’t available for comment at the moment, and that was the call I made.
Was there a, “have your cake and eat it too” facet to my “report”? Yeah. I can see that. I walked the line on the one hand claiming to respect his privacy while on the other getting my name in the information pipeline. It’s kind of cheesy. But that’s the game some times, and I’ll apologize for it up to a point.
And that point is that on balance my concern for Eric’s well-being outweighed my desire/need to tell a juicy “celebrity” story. If I wanted to I could have.
But am I clubby elitist? You’re damn right I am. And I’m paid accordingly.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply