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

Discussion in 'Lisa Irwin' started by eileenhawkeye, Nov 15, 2011.

  1. eileenhawkeye

    eileenhawkeye Active Member

    Messages:
    8,769
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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. Loading...


  3. cityslick

    cityslick New Member

    Messages:
    7,230
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  4. DeAnn

    DeAnn New Member

    Messages:
    711
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  5. Angelonline

    Angelonline Registered User

    Messages:
    2,595
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  6. Jaxson

    Jaxson Your barkin' up the wrong tree

    Messages:
    1,416
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know I should probably know this but I don't watch GMA...is it an NBC show?
     
  7. Karmaa

    Karmaa CASA Advocate

    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  8. RANCH

    RANCH Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,834
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    63
  9. Jaxson

    Jaxson Your barkin' up the wrong tree

    Messages:
    1,416
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't believe there is a media deal with the parents. JMO
     
  10. mamamia54

    mamamia54 Inactive

    Messages:
    2,843
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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!!
     
  11. Dewey2Me1MoThyme

    Dewey2Me1MoThyme Have clue will sleuth!

    Messages:
    5,005
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  12. Jaxson

    Jaxson Your barkin' up the wrong tree

    Messages:
    1,416
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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. :furious:
     
  13. highflyer

    highflyer New Member

    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  14. annalia

    annalia New Member

    Messages:
    1,931
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  15. Kamille

    Kamille Shine bright like a diamond

    Messages:
    16,467
    Likes Received:
    3,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  16. BritsKate

    BritsKate Past mistakes should teach you to create a wonderf

    Messages:
    5,882
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  17. Truthwillsetufree

    Truthwillsetufree New Member

    Messages:
    5,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Respectfully snipped for space....
    BBM - I remember a time when the news, journalists and reporters couldn't be bought or sold. They had integrity, people trusted them. It is a sad day indeed that the media chooses to use children in this manner.

     
  18. tehcloser

    tehcloser New Member

    Messages:
    15,013
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Has anyone seen any water marked exclusive photos?
     
  19. otto

    otto Verified Expert

    Messages:
    27,647
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Networks like ABC are chasing the money. Haleigh Cummings didn't pay off, the Cayley Anthony story sure did. If the Lisa story pays off they'll run with it ... if the Sandusky story looks better ... we know where they'll put their money. No matter where they put their money, it will end up as screwed up as any other story that has too much media attention - unsolved.
     
  20. Truthwillsetufree

    Truthwillsetufree New Member

    Messages:
    5,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No...but I haven't been looking and I'm not sure I would notice anyway...so I guess my answer to your question is not a whole lot of help.:waitasec:
     
  21. cityslick

    cityslick New Member

    Messages:
    7,230
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sadly you are correct. TV is a business, a big business at that and it includes news journalism now. It actually was cases like FCA that get over sensationalized and over covered that are part of the issue. Networks see how rating rise when they overhype certain cases to ad nauseum, now much money that brings in ratings wise. So now they are all looking for the next big case. Looking for a story that they can blow up, probably much larger than it should be, just so they can get more eyeballs on their channel than someone elses.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice