Let's go through a batch of letters. This first one's from my longtime pal, Gary Brown, who works as a journalist in Florida…
Not that we need to stretch this out any further, as you said it pretty well today, but as a journalist and copy editor with a few years of experience under my belt, let me say you're right. Stating that Stan Lee created Spider-Man is technically correct, but misleading. There are two correct ways to do this (assuming this is an article about Stan): 1. Spider-Man, co-created by Stan Lee; or 2. Spider-Man, co-created by Stan Lee and artist Steve Ditko.
One of the real difficulties in this job is that you have to be an "expert" in many things. So, when you write about something you have scant knowledge of and use information you thought was a solid — and it's wrong — you perpetuate certain inaccuracies that seem to have a life of their own. We know this all to well in our hobby and how it gets mangled in the news media. Should journalists check and double check their material? Sure. Many of them do. Some don't. Sometimes time gets in the way. No excuse, that, but it happens.
One thing we do in our newsroom is go to other workers who have knowledge of certain subjects. People come to me about comics stuff all the time. But if someone is writing a story on the creation of the surfboard and somehow credits it to the Beach Boys and there is no one to help on it … well, it happens. Slowly we are developing a nice mountain of sources for these things in comics: people like you; Web sites like Toonopedia; and an increasing number of books. Of course, we don't always agree about the "facts," but that's another story.
Hope you're well. No hurricanes in sight this morning.
One of the things that shattered my trust in "The Press" was following articles about things I knew stuff about such as comic books. For a long time, I didn't see a single newspaper article about comics that didn't contain some outrageous inaccuracy, up to and including the one which identified me as the editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics. I think it's getting better, what with so many former comic readers now employed in the field, and the ease of doing research on the Internet. Still, you keep seeing errors that could have been prevented with thirty seconds of Googling. It's one of the reasons I'm leery of articles about Washington or The World, at least until such time as I see multiple sources reporting something.
Here's a message from Tony Collett…
In answer to your questions as to whether O.J. is getting paid for his appearance this weekend, from reading what you wrote, my guess is the money will not go to him directly but to some sort of account or fund to pay for his kids' college education. He still has some of the civil suit damages to pay off and I believe with some exceptions such as his NFL pension, any money he receives has to go to pay off the suit.
I suspect it's something of the sort…but the first article does say, "Riccio [the convention promoter] said he would keep whatever is left of the proceeds after paying for various expenses, including Simpson's travel costs." It sounds like those expenses include the donation of either a flat fee or a percentage of the take to some sort of special fund that is at least ostensibly earmarked to pay to send the kids to college. If so, it was misleading to suggest that Simpson was not receiving a penny for making the appearance, and was doing it as a favor and to test the waters for future appearances that might pay his kids' way through college. Oh, well. At least the article didn't say Stan Lee created Spider-Man.
Pierre Fournier, who I assume lives in Canada, writes…
Re. your post "Wanna Start Something"… I write for TV, and up here, starting a show at :29 or :59 is quite common, especially during prime time. It's called "hot switching." The point is that you "keep" viewers by sliding directly from one show into another, whereas the old method of running a bunch of ads between shows allowed viewers to surf and perhaps end up watching another station.
Nowadays, they'll flash Station ID between shows, and hot switch immediately to the start of the next show. The program promos that used to run between shows are now split-screened during a show's end titles, and the commercials run within the show, after the initial hook and show opening. Recently we've been getting a lot of "countdown ads". You get a regular, full minute commercial between shows, but they have a countdown clock superimposed (usually top right) that says "(Show Title) starts in 60 seconds… 59… 58… 57…" Shows flow into one another as an antidote to zapping.
They do that here sometimes, including blurring (one way or the other) the end credits into the opening of the next show. The thing that puzzles me about starting Saturday Night Live early is how that helps them. On weeknights, the late night shows start at 11:35. This enables the local news broadcasts to sell a bit more commercial time and it discourages switching at 11:30. Why don't they do that on Saturday? What's with the fudging of 30 or 60 seconds? Their main competition, Mad TV, starts at 11:00 so the minute doesn't make any difference there. Beyond that, if the goal is to get people who watch the 11:00 news to not switch over to something that starts at 11:30, shouldn't they run the news past that time so those viewers miss the beginning of the competing show? The way they're doing it, if I find the opening of SNL boring and decide to channel-surf and see what else is on, I'll have missed a minute or so less of a competing 11:30 show.
I could understand starting at 11:35. I'm trying to imagine the viewing actions of the person who is more likely to stay tuned to a show that starts 30-60 seconds early. How does that work? And how could that be a good trade-off for annoying the people who miss the opening of Saturday Night Live because of it?
Thanks to all who wrote, including those whose messages I didn't post here.