|
|
|
And you thought the Sandra Tsing Loh episode was fading away.
KCRW General Manager Ruth Seymour has apparently had enough of being bashed by Loh over their much-publicized split. Seymour today released a statement titled "Setting the Record Straight in the Matter of Sandra Tsing Loh" and along with it the text of an apologetic letter Loh sent after broadcasting the F-word on the air.
Seymour writes: "The discrepancy between the content and tone of this letter and the subsequent attacks on KCRW has yet to be explained. I guess Sandra figured that attacking KCRW gets far more attention than a 3-minute weekly commentary. Unfortunately this came at the expense of the station that had given her a home on the air for six years."
The text of Loh's letter, new comments from Loh trashing Seymour, a letter from Will Lewis denouncing the L.A. Press Club, and numerous links and updates follow:
First, Loh's letter released by KCRW:
March 1st, 2004
Ruth Seymour
KCRW
1900 Pico Blvd.
Santa Monica, CA 90405Dear Ruth,
I just want to say, once again, how deeply horrified I am about what occurred Sunday morning. While uttering an expletive over the air was the very opposite of my intention, I should not have placed another person in a "gatekeeper" capacity for my work. I genuinely hope KCRW will not suffer lasting negative effects due to my foolish and ill-time mistake.
I also wish to extend my apologies to (the recording engineer)...He is an excellent engineer, who I thoughtlessly--and unfairly--put in a professionally precarious situation. The responsibility for this disaster is mine, not his. While I myself have been fired, I hope that (the recording engineer) will be able to continue in his otherwise wonderfully productive career at KCRW.
On a personal note, I do remain extremely grateful for the long tenure I've had with you, and the valuable opportunities that have come my way because of my affiliation with your great station. I continue to wish you all the very best.
Sincerely,
Sandra Tsing Loh
Seymour's statement says that the station did not release the letter earlier "in deference to [Loh's] personal situation." But she says that Loh's hiring of a public relations firm and "misleading statements about her own culpability" prompted today's release.
Earlier Tuesday: KPCC gives air slot to Loh
Previously: KCRW's email to listeners, Loh ho ho
* Updates:
1)Seymour's statement gets no play in the story on the L.A. Times website.
1a) In Wednesday's Times story, Loh fires back at Seymour:
"It repeats the station's habit of lying to the media and underscores, on a personal level, how frightening it is for individuals to take Ruth Seymour on for battle."She added, "This character assassination business — that KCRW is suggesting that I am some publicity-mad opportunist, when in fact Ruth started it by firing me and telling the world, including subscribers via e-mail, that my airing of the expletive was intentional — is unfortunately typical of KCRW, which I think of as a reign of terror."
Also, KPCC chief Bill Davis says that, unlike at KCRW, Loh's scripts will be OK'd by an editor before airing. But he says she will get plenty of air time, morning and afternoons, and unlike some radio industry vets (who have excoriated Loh at LARadio.com) says she acted appropriately by recording the f-word and asking an editor to bleep it.
1b) Loh's most vocal media champion, Cathy Seipp, is scheduled to be on Dennis Miller's CNBC show Wednesday night.
2) KCRW staffer Will Lewis, a member of the L.A. Press Club, sent an open letter to the club denouncing its rallying around Loh. He is listed as a management and marketing consultant on the KCRW website; he was general manager of Pacifica station KPFK during the incident he mentions at the end, and while Seymour was at the station. The letter follows:
Shame on the Los Angeles Press Club for allowing itself to be used by Cathy Seipp, Allan Mayer and Sandra Tsing Loh in the name of freedom of the press.Here are the facts: On Tues., March 16th, the Club posted an invitation for "A Party For the Loh Life"..."because it is the responsibility of a free press to take an anti-idiotarian stand against fear-of-the FCC hysteria..." The party on the 18th was sponsored by The L.A. Press Club.
Sandra Tsing Loh and free speech? Give me a break. Sandra's program was originally cancelled because of an obscenity she taped and did not have removed before broadcast. The word is covered by a 70-year old provision in the United States Federal Code that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Love it or hate it, it's the law of the land. Sandra was not censored; the commentary was broadcast twice on KCRW. Sandra in a letter to the station took full responsibility for the incident.
By the time of the party, all of the participants knew that she had been offered her program back at KCRW, but that she had refused. The purpose of the party was to promote Sandra and bash KCRW.
The Los Angeles Press Club has a distinguished history of defending freedom of the press. In the 70's it defended reporters like the late Bill Farr who served time for 46 days in a county jail rather than reveal which lawyer violated a gag order during the Charles Manson murder trial. It offered a forum for myself when I refused to turn over original SLA and Weather Underground communiques and tapes to the FBI and the LAPD.
It's sad to see the Press Club demean itself over a word that most of its members cannot say on their radio or TV stations and cannot or will not print in their publications.
Will Lewis,
Senior Management,KCRW
LA Press Club Member
This demonstrates how dangerous it is to stand next to Ruth Seymour: She has developed an absolute mania for shooting herself in the foot. The woman is so utterly self-absorbed that she doesn't realize that she's making no one look bad but herself. She really and truly believes that Loh was endorsing her own firing. Amazing. Of course, if she keeps it up she could ultimately qualify for being more to be pitied than censured. Some hope . . .
Posted by: Robert Fiore at March 23, 2004 04:19 PMIf Ruth Seymour and her minions wonder about the "discrepancy between the content and tone" of the apologetic letter Sandra originally sent to Ruth and her "subsequent attacks on KCRW," perhaps they should compare what Sandra told Ruth in the letter (that "uttering an expletive over the air was the very opposite of my intention") with what Ruth claimed in a mass email the station started sending out later the same week (that Sandra's faux pas was "intentional").
Ruth & Co. started out this thing lying about Sandra, and they continue to do so.
(And for the record, Sandra did NOT hire a public relations firm to help her get through this mess. Sandra is a friend of mine, not a client.)
Posted by: Allan Mayer at March 23, 2004 04:21 PMit looks like the npr folks in dc took a page from ruthie's book when they gave bob edwards the boot. it's not as bad, but it's close.
Posted by: philippe at March 23, 2004 04:27 PMThis is ridiculous. Sandra Loh did what most people do immediately after they get fired with no notice: They assume that whatever they did was terrible, and it's all their fault.
The letter Sandra first wrote to Ruth was penned under duress. Anyone who knows anything about employment law knows that letter may not be an accurate depiction of the events that preceded it. For Ruth to release that letter says a lot more about Ruth than it does Sandra.
The most intriguing footnote here is KCRW's contention towards the bottom of their home page missive that Loh played dumb during her HBO/Real Time with Bill Maher satellite interview on Friday March 12th:
"Little more than a week later, KCRW offered to reinstate "The Loh Life." Ms. Loh was to respond by the next day. Instead, she requested an extension over a weekend to make up her mind. That same night, Ms. Loh chose to appear on television, and never told the interviewer that she’d been offered her show back."
Posted by: Brian at March 23, 2004 04:55 PMOK, that's just ridiculous: Was to respond by the next day? According to who? According to some KCRW fantasy of how things should have gone? Sandra told Ruth Seymour she wanted to think about it over the weekend, Ruth said she understood and agreed. Sure, Sandra "chose" to appear on television. Why shouldn't she have? But to talk about the offer publicly before letting KCRW know her decision would have been a little unseemly.
Posted by: Cathy Seipp at March 23, 2004 05:08 PMOnly one way to settle this:
Ruth Seymour and Sarah Spitz in a steel-cage tag-team match against Sandra Tsing-Loh and Cathy Seipp. Losers leave town.
Posted by: Freddie Blassie at March 23, 2004 05:17 PMSarah Spitz is Ruth's flack, by the way (KCRW's publicity director). If Cathy's unavailable on Ruth's team, Alan Mayer can substitute...
Posted by: Freddie at March 23, 2004 05:20 PMI have never heard so much whining and complaing in my entire life! What are you, a bunch of reporters or something?
Oh wait.
Anyway, basta! I beg of you! There ARE other things to bitch about, like city editors, copy editors, the lady who just yelled at me because her newspaper got wet and the fact that the Press Club charged $80 to enter their stupid writing contest, which is $30 more than it costs to try your luck at a Pulitzer. I should know -- last year I submitted a brief I wrote about a car crash on the San Diego Freeway.
Posted by: Josh at March 23, 2004 05:21 PMI'm with you there, Josh. $80 to enter the Press Club contest is just ridiculous. I've included myself out of that one since I won $1000 a couple of years ago for a journalism contest that cost nothing to enter. It really put the notion of paying $80 for a plaque in perspective.
Posted by: Cathy Seipp at March 23, 2004 05:26 PMDon't get me wrong, Cathola, I've got a couple of those Press Club plaques myself and they're pretty nice. They've got a little drawing of a guy squishing grapes in a wine press. Or at least that's what I like to think he's doing.
But for 80 smackers, I can buy 40 jugs of Charles Shaw at Trader Joes, which strikes me as a much smarter investment. If you want to come by, I'll uncork a bottle.
Posted by: Josh at March 23, 2004 05:42 PMAh, Sarah "Well, I don't know you" Spitz. Now there's a huffy little poon if there ever was one.
Alas, Loh moving to KPCC gives me no choice but to install Sirius to get my NPR.
Posted by: joseph at March 23, 2004 05:57 PMSomeone from KCRW has taken the time to post the press release on blogs.
Even better after he posted it to my blog (ooooh, I'm scared) he also took time to email it. Verbatim. Thanks Will Lewis but I gotcha the first time.
Posted by: Moxie at March 23, 2004 08:31 PMI am glad that people are keeping this story alive. The more that people freak out about things like this, the more likely the First Amendment is going to be altered. "Fuck" being said on-air isn't the end of the worl--especially when it was unintentional. As a member of the LA Press Club, I was proud that we had a party for Sandra.
Posted by: Tiffany at March 23, 2004 11:15 PMA personally abusive comment by an ingrate who goes by the name "Louie" has been deleted, two comments above (between Joseph and Moxie). If you want to attack someone personally behind the veil of anonymity, go to another website.
Posted by: Kevin Roderick at March 23, 2004 11:23 PMDid anyone read Sandra's novel--I think it's called "A Year in Van Nuys."
Just wondered if it's any good or not.
This feud has gone on far too long. It's getting boring on both sides! I'm tired of the cat fight. Enough is enough.
I'm proud to say that the company which employs me has no problem printing that word. I hardly find it demeaning to stand up for the rights of others to do likewise.
Posted by: LYT at March 24, 2004 02:31 AMlots of publicity, everyone's name is spelled right, and no obituaries...
wouldn't all this coverage cost millions if you had to buy it?
Sandra and Ruth must be best buds who planned the whole thing for maximum media impact....
Posted by: mario at March 24, 2004 03:01 AMSandra is to Ruth as Justin is to Janet? No, even I'm not that cynical.
Posted by: mack reed at March 24, 2004 08:30 AMWait - that's Ruth/Sandra Justin/Janet ... never mind.
Posted by: mack reed at March 24, 2004 08:31 AMThis is an important story because it does something extrordinarily rare: it holds a station manager directly accountable to listeners. Some radio and TV execs would say that Ruth is getting what she deserves for being such a foreground, passionate firebrand when most choose to cloak themselves in anonymity, or — like Clear Channel's brass — call the really significant shots safely from out of state.
It's wonderful that Los Angelinos are engaged in a lively debate over principle and the public airwaves, though it could only happen at one of the few L.A. media outlets that haven't been sold off to absentee conglomerates. If only they might someday be held as accountable for their actions as Ms. Seymour.
Posted by: Marc at March 24, 2004 03:35 PMSo, now that KPCC is picking up Loh, will KCRW return the, er, favor by picking up The Play's The Thing (dropped by KPCC)?
Posted by: Susan Kitchens at March 24, 2004 04:14 PMFor the life of me, I can't understand how this story has remained in the press. Ms. Loh's commentaries were far from witty, insightful or memborable. However, she has done a masterful of keeping this story alive. Too bad she doesn't devote the same type of energy to her "art." KCRW's loss is certainly not a gain for KPCC.
Posted by: Armando at March 25, 2004 12:09 PMI am an unabashed fan of Loh, and I am pleased that once again Ruth Seymour's utter cluelessness regarding anything which doesn't glorify Ruth, has bitten her in the ass.
From Seymour's firing of Deidre Donahue, to her lack of awareness of Chris Doritas serious conflicts of interest, to her hiring of David Horowitz....here action long ago lost me after being a ten year subscriber, even though her pledge drives are truly obnoxious.
Firing someone like Loh who gave prestige to the station over something so incredibly stupid, which panders to the worst of FCC will continue the decline of KCRW.
And that is aces with me.
Posted by: Nancy Richardson at March 27, 2004 04:38 PM
of LA Observed
I'm sorry but who cares at this point (not bashing you, Kevin, it's your duty to stay on the story)? The whole thing is such a minor blip in anyone's life besides these two women.
Posted by: Ted at March 23, 2004 04:19 PM