The Idol Flap: He Said, She Said

Media Professor, Sports Announcer, and even Game Show host Steve Beverly presents his insights on ABC digging the dirt on American Idol.

Fifty years ago, Edward R. Murrow succeeded in starting the spiral which brought down the bully tactics of Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy, whose actions threatened free expression and exercised innuendo as a measure to create images of guilt. Murrow used a novel technique: he allowed McCarthy to hang himself with a cornucopia of film of the redbaiter's own words and pictures.

A shade more than 30 years ago, the reporting of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein brought down the house of Richard Nixon through the use of multiple sources to check, re-check and verify sensitive information.

Wednesday night, ABC News Primetime Live was neither a celebrated piece of halcyon journalism, nor did American Idol and Paula Abdul come away unscathed. Any viewer who has followed the history of disqualified Idol contestant Corey Clark is aware he is hardly a statuette for credibility. Clark was axed from the show in a previous season after failing to disclose to producers a criminal past. Likewise, the Clark issue at the time yet again pointed out the embarrassing rate of game opera and talent contest competitors who have slid past background checks better than a bald tire on a rainy street.

From a journalism standpoint, John Quinones' report was revealing in how much the media has changed in the last half-century. When Herb Stempel went to reporters about the fixing of Twenty One in the mid-1950s, he had to wait two years for his story to be published. The reason: Herb was all alone making the charges. No corroborating evidence could be established. The legal mechanisms at major media agencies required more than one voice of whistleblowing.

For all intents and purposes, ABC's report was a one-source story. A story which possessed more than one smack of a young man looking for publicity. The young man has it now and probably a guarantee of big sales for his forthcoming biographical song about his alleged relationship with Abdul.

To buttress the story: Corey Clark's parents---interested parties, to be sure, but who can only react, not confirm, except to say Corey and Abdul had exchanged an abundance of phone calls. Then, you had seven former Idol hopefuls, including a popular George Trice. They could express shock, disappointment, anger, or confirmation of suspicions, as they did. None of them could provide eyewitness testimony.

In other words, we had one person who alleges a dalliance with and prejudicial help was provided by Paula Abdul: Corey Clark. Based on the story itself, the evidence alone as provided by Clark is hardly enough to convict Abdul in a court of law. However, he has succeeded in creating a shroud which merits a full, complete and unvarnished investigation by the Fox Network, 19 Entertainment and FremantleMedia. To do no less reduces all of the parties involved to the level of NBC after Stempel's allegations when network executives took a "you guys aren't cheating over there, are you?" approach to Dan Enright and Jack Barry.

We have seen multiple pre-emptive strikes by Fox, Abdul's attorney and even Ryan Seacrest and Simon Cowell since ABC announced it would present its "Fallen Idol" hour. That's nothing new. Enright accused Stempel of mental instability, a charge which still is a sore spot with Herb today. Nixon and his staff hurled endless salvoes, to the extent of threatened legal machinations to execute government control of network media. Bill Clinton employed it before the Gennifer Flowers allegations. More recently, CBS and Dan Rather went to the pre-emptive to diffuse charges about his 60 Minutes story which ultimately forced Rather's early "retirement."

Stempel, who in a 2000 interview with us reiterated nothing was noble about his whistleblowing other than to retaliate against promises he alleges Enright broke about future TV career possibilities. He also told us, "The network and its attorneys did everything within their power to uncover every possible speck of dirt they could find in an attempt to discredit me. It was terrible."

The difference here: Clark has a legally-checkered past and his answer to Quinones' question of whether the smoke the singer is creating is a publicity stunt was less than credible.

Nonetheless, the allegations are serious. Note that in public statements attempting to diffuse ABC's report, Fox executives stated they are investigating the charges. They must. If even a smidgen of Clark's charges are true, the show's integrity---which is tenuous, at best, with a voting procedure allowing unlimited telephone or text balloting for contestants---is at stake. So, to be sure, is the integrity of every knockoff version of Idol because of the scrutiny of the king of talent contests.

In one respect, the label of "judge" is inaccurate for Abdul, Cowell and Randy Jackson. While they do select the top 32 who advance to Hollywood, once that final 12 is chosen, Abdul and friends are celebrity evaluators. They offer critiques, not up-or-down votes on the finishes, even though their comments potentially influence viewer choices.

However, all three have a responsibility to remain independent of the contestants other than the requirements of the live telecast. We have always felt Cowell should not have a potential financial interest in any of the contestants' futures, regardless of his track record as a music executive. Yet, if any of Clark's contentions are true: that Abdul gave him money, made suggestions about and paid for wardrobe and engaged in a personal relationship with him which compromised all objectivity, we have major problems here, regardless if Clark was ultimately disqualified for his behavioral past.

Any of those actions---and we continue to emphasize the words, if true---are the equivalents of offering performance-enhancing drugs to an athlete. Even the mere attempt to offer Clark---if such occurred---financial, coaching, or personal support should be grounds for Abdul's dismissal from the show. To do such destroys a level playing field between the contestants.

If Clark's claims are exaggerated or outright false, despite appearing on a network newsmagazine, then a thorough and detailed investigation will exonerate Abdul, swell her popularity and reduce Clark to professional rubble.

What we fear is Fox has such a financial interest in keeping Idol as its strong flagship show that any internal investigation may have equally dubious credibility.

The only way to truly clear the air for Idol and Abdul is for the network and production company to commission an independent investigation in the same fashion CBS did during the Dan Rather/60 Minutes case. True, Rather's long career as a network news anchor came to a hastened shameful end and the once-proud image of CBS News was left with a stain which OxiClean would struggle to remove. Yet, CBS did the right thing and made swift and appropriate changes.

If no wrongdoing is in the air, a quality independent investigation will confirm it, seal it and forever tarnish Clark as a fly-by-night golddigger.

If an independent panel concluded Abdul offered him preferential treatment, she should go. Idol may suffer some tarnish but the integrity of Fox as a network which will uphold honesty and fairness in its contest shows would be protected.

We even would venture a suggestion for a four-member investigative team who could do the job swiftly, efficiently and professionally, if given free rein to do so: Dr. Bob Thompson, director of the Center for Popular Television at Syracuse University; Dr. Steven Padgett, director of the Hall School of Journalism at Troy University; David W. Richardson, a former veteran television news director and current business executive in Jacksonville; and Ruth Kocielak, a veteran broadcaster from the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Their credentials are impeccable.

We said last week and still believe Idol will suffer little short-term damage from the ABC report alone. That would have only happened if someone came forward with indisputable evidence of the voting outcomes of Idol as manipulated or outright fixed. Clark did not provide that. In the short run, ABC succeeded in likely achieving a stronger-than-usual Wednesday night rating as the May sweeps launch. Clark gained exposure he never would have achieved otherwise. Idol's current ratings will probably gain a slight bounce, even from the negative exposure.

Yet, Fox will not be able to sweep this one under the table by relying on the enthusiasm of the show's blind loyalists. The track record of national media suggests now that ABC has opened the door, a crowd will rush inside. Whether Clark's allegations are of substance or of the bogus type from an embittered former contestant, no shortage of reporters from every possible media source will begin pecking away at Clark's charges and other elements of the show.

Remember how Herb Stempel was on an island for two years in 1956? Not until Ed Hilgemeier and James Snodgrass and Stoney Jackson stepped forward to tell their stories did the floodgates open about quiz show rigging. The media moves much faster today. Clark's best hope for credibility is in other contestants who do not have as suspicious a past as does he to come forward with similar charges. If they don't, his accusations and his motives will not pass a litmus test and ABC will have drawn an audience to a Teflon story.

At the peak panic period after the quiz scandals of the 1950s erupted, one statesman stepped forward and may have saved television networks from a government straightjacket. Dr. Frank Stanton, then president of CBS, looked a Congressional panel in the eye and stated: "We will not only control what airs on the CBS Television Network but how it is presented." The idea Dr. Stanton was presenting in the wake of television's biggest black eye was of a network which would stand for no less than total honesty and integrity in its presentations. What is astounding is how refreshing that sounds today.

One way you will be able to determine if all of this has more than grunt-and-groan: if over the summer, Abdul announces she is "leaving" American Idol in order to "pursue other things," the time-honored ease out statement. If that were to happen, you would have at least a slight stench in the air.

ABC owes its viewers more than a one-source story for an hour during a sweep month to project credibility. On the other hand, Fox owes it to its viewers and to the broadcast industry as a whole to provide indisputable evidence American Idol is a clean show, to the extent that none of its celebrity stars are offering favors to its competitors. That will not be achieved by a quick whisk of the broom.
http://www.tvgameshows.net/column.htm

Personaly I think ABC is mad that their baby "Alias" gets beaten by the contestants ensemble perfomances followed by the elemation which are the features of the Wenesday night Idol show. Accually radio talk show host Jim Rome (famous for talking smack about sports and popular culture) has a great nickname for American Idol. Rome calls it "American Karaoke."

At least on so-called Country Music copy cat "Nashville Star" the contestants they have to play their own instruments and write their own songs. It shows that Star is not a Karaoke contest unlike Idol.

The outcome...FOX will dodge a bullet, but they better keep their nose clean.