60 Minutes versus The New York Times

What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object? And, no, I am not talking about Tara Reid at last call either, smartypants.

Well, the cornerstone of television magazine journalism, 60 Minutes, is going up against the most respected newspaper in the world, that old grey lady, The New York Times, whose petticoats have been ruffled as of late, by one randy reporter, one Jayson Blair.

Now, as if that isn't a battle royale in and of itself -- 60 Minutes versus The Old Gray Lady -- throw in Michael Jackson, arguably the centerpiece of the biggest celebrity scandal in the world. Everyone's favorite freak of the week. Now we're talking rasslin. Someone pull Vince McMahon from his hairdresser.

This megabattle all has to do with the blurring of the lines of news and entertainment (a practice in which I, as a blogger, am enthusiastically engaged). It is considered louche -- no, strike that unethical -- for a journo to pay for an interview. To be goddam frank here (and when am I not? when am I franchesca?) This is a real 3am in the morning C-Span kind of distinction (hey, don't look at me that way, I ran out of Nyquil).

I mean, in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter if a news organization pays for an interview, so long as the content of the interview is accurate and compelling? Fuck (puffs out chest and acts self important as he discourses on media ethics).

So, in keeping in that sacred Rembrandtian light, Don Hewett, the patron saint of "journalism" has said of that December article by NY Times reporter Sharon Waxman, in an article by USA Today reported Peter Johnson:

'''I can tell you categorically that we at 60 Minutes did not pay Michael Jackson one cent.' Asked if another CBS division paid Jackson -- which is what the Times alleged -- Hewitt responded, 'Was the deal sweetened? To the best of my knowledge, it was not.'''

Translation: Another CBS division possibly-probably made some sort of payment or "benefit" to Jacko to talk about feces covered jailhouse bathrooms on national tv. But Saint Hewett didn't know about it, so he is still on the road to canonization. Nice covering your ass, Donnie boy.

Anyhoo: Peter Johnson's story continues:

"CBS chief Leslie Moonves, who oversees both the entertainment and news divisions, did not return a phone call Monday. Hewitt's boss, CBS News president Andrew Heyward, referred a reporter to an earlier statement by CBS that the network does not pay for interviews."

You can see the network suits scrambling to cover themselves. Note the echo of the cloven hoofs as they traipse across the media landscape! The story goes further:

"The Times said Monday it stands by the Dec. 30 article by reporter Sharon Waxman. 'Our story was balanced and accurate,' spokesman Toby Usnik said. 'CBS' position was set out fully.' Waxman could not be reached but has said that her reporting was accurate.

"Waxman's story, that Jackson was paid by CBS Entertainment and not 60 Minutes, thereby allowing CBS News to maintain it does not pay for interviews, prompted intense criticism of the network."

Okay, now that that's settled, Fox News gets into the mix in the form of that jolly gossiper Roger Friedman. Page Six calls it the first media feud of the new year! Friedman writes in his December 30 column:

"It must have been exhausting for the New York Times' Sharon Waxman to write her Michael Jackson story published in Tuesday's issue.

"This required reading all of our columns about the Nation of Islam's influence over Jackson and then reconfiguring them to seem like they were new."

Ouch. If this were the eighteenth century, that would be like smacking her in the face with an ermine glove and demanding satisfaction. That would be like spilling Tara Reid's vodka and cranberry drink. Anyway, The Corsair will keep you updated.