1126 users online (233 members and 893 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8,769

    Let's discuss the (rumored) media exclusive....

    There's been a lot of speculation that the parents have signed an exclusive media deal with one of the networks. I have seen a lot of unfounded rumors posted about the media's involvement in this case, under the whole "my opinion" guise. I thought it would be a good idea to have a thread to discuss this supposed exclusive media deal.

    If the parents have an exclusive media deal, then how were they able to give interviews to both ABC and FOX? If both of those networks paid for interviews, then they have a media deal with them, but it's not an exclusive deal.

    If you look at the shows that are given this case the most coverage, it doesn't seem too out of the ordinary. You have all the HLN shows, which always focus on true crime. You have Judge Jeanine, another crime show. Then you have Megyn Kelly, and Good Morning America, which is a 4-hour long show, and has always given coverage to cases in the past. It's not like the case is being mentioned on every show on, say, FOX every single day, and every other network is completely ignoring it.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by eileenhawkeye View Post
    There's been a lot of speculation that the parents have signed an exclusive media deal with one of the networks. I have seen a lot of unfounded rumors posted about the media's involvement in this case, under the whole "my opinion" guise. I thought it would be a good idea to have a thread to discuss this supposed exclusive media deal.

    If the parents have an exclusive media deal, then how were they able to give interviews to both ABC and FOX? If both of those networks paid for interviews, then they have a media deal with them, but it's not an exclusive deal.

    If you look at the shows that are given this case the most coverage, it doesn't seem too out of the ordinary. You have all the HLN shows, which always focus on true crime. You have Judge Jeanine, another crime show. Then you have Megyn Kelly, and Good Morning America, which is a 4-hour long show, and has always given coverage to cases in the past. It's not like the case is being mentioned on every show on, say, FOX every single day, and every other network is completely ignoring it.
    The different reports I've read have said that Tacopina only has given to exclusive interviews to ABC/GMA. So IMO, it is JT himself that is deciding who he talks to and who he doesn't talk to. The parents haven't been in the media at all since the beginning.

    It's pretty obvious that JT is in this for the publicity and only the publicity. If the parents are smart they'd get rid of him and stay with Pircerno.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    711
    Today has been interesting.

    Tacopina did meet this afternoon with reporters, including local reporters, in front of the Lister home. Television cameras were inside the Phil Netz home this morning. Not positive on Lister and whether they are associated with GMA who had a reporter there.

    If you watch the video, you will see that Joe Tacopina met with a local NBC reporter in a one-on-one interview today in a wooded area.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Somewhere Out There
    Posts
    2,595
    http://www.kctv5.com/story/16043329/...back-into-home Here is an article mentioning exclusive interviews for Tacopina. It is an article from today.
    "Words can break someone into a million pieces, but they can also put them back together. I hope you use yours for good, because the only words you'll regret more than the ones left unsaid are the ones you use to intentionally hurt someone."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eastern Washington
    Posts
    1,416
    I know I should probably know this but I don't watch GMA...is it an NBC show?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    582
    There is exclusive, and there is exclusive - and I think some people get confused by the two meanings.

    When Debbie first came out with her drinking confession, several different shows claimed to have an "exclusive" when they all had the same information. What that "exclusive" meant was that the reporter was alone with the parents. The information was not the "exclusive" part (as proven by the fact that everyone got basically the same info).

    The other kind of "exclusive" is when the interviewees are ONLY talking to one outlet - and that is the kind that is paid for. So, the parents would have made an agreement with say GMA or FOX, and they would not talk to anyone else. That has not really seemed to have happened in this case, at least not while they were still giving interviews.

    The confusion may have come when Ashley Irwin told local reporters that they had a deal with national news (paraphrased). I think she MEANT that they were only going to talk to national news, not that they had an actual paid "deal" with them, but that was misconstrued. (That is my own opinion - but it is based ion the way that the following interviews went).

    And, I think that the reason they went with only national news is because it was getting out of hand, and national news provided way more "bang for the buck" so to speak. Local TV will show the national news, but national shows may not show the local stuff. They had the opportunity to get national coverage and they grabbed it. Which is exactly what all the "experts" say to do when your child is missing.

    So, basically, all the <modsnip> took that to mean something sinister - that they were making some financial gain from it, and they ran with that assumption, even though there is absolutely nothing to support it, and plenty to dispute it. I gather that some other recent cases have involved payouts and some posters seem to forget that what one person did in another case has no bearing on what is happening in this particular case. JMO, as always.
    Last edited by ynotdivein; 11-16-2011 at 05:41 AM. Reason: no name-calling please
    In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth and have begun striving for ourselves. ~Buddha~

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sacramento CA
    Posts
    9,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaxson View Post
    I know I should probably know this but I don't watch GMA...is it an NBC show?
    Good Morning America (GMA) is on ABC.

    http://abcnews.go.com/watch/good-mor...rica/SH5587637

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eastern Washington
    Posts
    1,416
    I don't believe there is a media deal with the parents. JMO

  9. #9
    I'm not really certain where to post this, but if any of the Irwin's are tuned into WS, PLEASE, I know that you FEEL that you've had enough questioning, HOWEVER, it's TIME. It's TIME to talk to LE, seperately. If you have nothing to hide, then there shouldn't be a problem, and I believe that you haven't anything to hide.

    Yes Deb, you drank too much and something very bad happened, BUT, I know that you didn't do anything to Lisa and was not responsible for her going missing. So, do the right thing now, continue answering those LE questions to the best of your ability, and don't allow them to throw you. YOU CAN DO THIS!!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    southwest Indiana
    Posts
    5,005
    FWIW, If there is a media deal, I honestly do not see anything wrong with that. The reasoning behind my madness is that we know this family may have been struggling financially before this happened. They still have 2 boys to care for, feed, cloth, etc. They may still have a mortgage, and monthly bills. They still need to live.
    With that said, if one or both is found guilty and they used the media for financial gain then my outlook would be somewhat different.
    Anything worth dewing, is worth dewing well!
    Proud parent of 3 rescued schnauzers


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eastern Washington
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Dewey2Me1MoThyme View Post
    FWIW, If there is a media deal, I honestly do not see anything wrong with that. The reasoning behind my madness is that we know this family may have been struggling financially before this happened. They still have 2 boys to care for, feed, cloth, etc. They may still have a mortgage, and monthly bills. They still need to live.
    With that said, if one or both is found guilty and they used the media for financial gain then my outlook would be somewhat different.

    ITA Dewey, they have to live somehow while they are going through this but if one of them is guilty I am gonna be pi**ed.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Dewey2Me1MoThyme View Post
    FWIW, If there is a media deal, I honestly do not see anything wrong with that. The reasoning behind my madness is that we know this family may have been struggling financially before this happened. They still have 2 boys to care for, feed, cloth, etc. They may still have a mortgage, and monthly bills. They still need to live.
    With that said, if one or both is found guilty and they used the media for financial gain then my outlook would be somewhat different.
    If there is a media deal financially, I'd find that disturbing. While what you say is true about bills, mortgage and the other children, to profit off of your missing baby? I'm all for the idea that if life gives you lemons make lemonade but I'd worry about the other two boys then.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,931
    If the parents are truly innocent, I don't necessarily see a problem if they made money. If they're not innocent that's a whole other story.

    But I don't trust JT's motives for a second and it looks like this is his doing.

    The way I see it, he makes DB stopped talking to the media. She said to local media that she couldn't talk about her missing baby because she was grieving, but the very next thing she does is has the national media ( GMA ) inside the home to film her other children trick or treating. She told another local media outlet that she wasn't allowed to talk.

    The less DB talks, the higher her price goes up for that one big exclusive $$$$$ interview. Joe T has his exclusive, that's where his pay will come from. I never believed that there was a wealthy benefactor paying his salary.

    JMHO

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,771
    I think that ABC approached the family early on and told them they would provide legal and financial assistance for exclusive interviews, in effect telling them to stay away from all other media including local. So all they had to do for this deal was to ignore all media, something at that point I'm sure they were more than happy to do. Have they signed something? Possibly considering DB's statement to one local reporter that "she would talk to them if she could but she can't".

    In turn I believe JT has a deal with ABC. He provides his legal assistance to the family free of charge in exchange for exclusive access to the family for photos and interviews. He gets paid by ABC for these exclusives and he gets free publicity but does very little work for it...a win/win for him. He is barely familiar with the case and spends no time in MO. Of course that will change if charges are levelled against one or both parents so it is in his best interest to spin this to the point of making the DA or prosecutors office think twice before deciding to go ahead with any charges in the face of so much doubt. Without a "smoking gun", they are not going to get a conviction in this case against one or both parents so I think JT can breathe easy that there will be no trial and he won't have to work hard for the money. I also think there were some new pictures released during some of the early GMA shows and I believe the family has stated that they wanted the computer back to get more so exclusive pictures were likely part of the deal too.

    The only time that DB and JI have been interviewed on other national media, after that family member made the comment about the deal, was prior to JT coming to town. The drunk media tour was the weekend before JT showed up and while he was likely in talks with them, he wasn't being officially classified as their legal representative. However I do believe it was his idea for them to do that media tour for more than one national network to get that story out there before he "officially" came on board. It would certainly seem like extremely bad advice from a lawyer if he was representing them at the time so he wanted that information out there before he offically took on the case.

    As their lawyer, JT in turn provides his services free of charge and whatever financial assistance is neccessary (via ABC) to keep them afloat during this. I do believe that Cyndy Short mentioned that she had tried in the beginning to get a fund started locally for the family to cover their bills and that went nowhere because she was cut off from "rehabilitating" the family's image by going to the local media and was eventually let go. I don't think she was ever privy to the deal that was made so she was doing what she felt would benefit her clients, not realizing what she was up against. I wonder if the new lawyer has any more insight into it.

    BS has admitted in an interview that he is paid by the benefactor. The benefactor came into this via a family member. I do believe his involvement is totally separate from JT's involvement. Although it appears that he also only gives interviews to JT approved media so I guess they have an agreement? BS and his benefactor seem to be getting pushed to the sidelines and there certainly hasn't been much mentioned about that reward any more.

    JT will appear on other media from time to time IMO to make things look like they are on the up and up but we will likely only see "exclusives" that include the family on the ABC network.

    It's all seems very shady but perfectly legal I assume. And it just shows that missing children are a business proposition now for national networks. The ultimate reality show. ABC took a hit for paying KC directly in that case so they are going about it through the back door this time it appears.

    All JMO of course.

  15. #15
    BritsKate's Avatar
    BritsKate is offline Past mistakes should teach you to create a wonderful future.
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    American Expat living in England
    Posts
    5,906
    Quote Originally Posted by annalia View Post
    If the parents are truly innocent, I don't necessarily see a problem if they made money. If they're not innocent that's a whole other story.
    RSBBM

    We never know though, do we? Casey Anthony was acquitted and therefore legally unaccountable. Darlie Routier was convicted but many still believe she is innocent. We know statistically that the younger a victim is the more likely there is parental involvement but this isn't always the case either.

    I think if the media is passing around their wallet all monies should go to NCMEC or an independent board brought together to oversee missing children's cases. Simply put I do not believe any parent should be paid directly for interviews or photographs.

    The money generated by the media could be put to use for all missing persons cases rather than just those the media tends to favour such as printing costs, direct appeals, internet campaigns, billboards, etc.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. TomKat Rumored To Be Pregnant Again
    By White Rain in forum Celebrity and Entertainment News
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 11-05-2007, 06:19 PM

Tags for this Thread