RE: Secrets of the Media
Interesting post about the appraisers in Phila ( all of them who I know ).
If there was a carat weight discrepancy, with all three appraiser coming up with different carat weights, the reporters should have given permission and filmed the actual weighing of the stones. Instead it appears they chose not to have the appraisers do what they should have done to render completely accurate carat weights, rather than relying on three calculated estimates of the weights.
But exposes are all driven by RATINGS. Like people selling anything, most investigative reporters are looking for sensationalism. That is what sells.
I''ve been involved in many TV exposes over the years, and on one I refused to do what the producer wanted. It was about a guy who was switching diamonds. They wanted me to stand outside this jeweler''s store, after the consumer had the diamond reset, and make a conclusion as the whether the diamond was switched ONLY USING A 10 X Loupe!
I told them that I would only do this if they supplied a motor home, with all the lab equipment necessary to make this conslusion beyond the shadow of any doubt or question. This was going to be a national expose and I was not about to ruin someone''s reputation, on national TV using a potentially substandard and professionally reckless method. So the producers got someone else who did what they wanted.
In the background research, they attempted to report that when resetting a stone, it was prevalent that it would be switched. The research didn''t bear that out. They went to about a half dozen places and got the same diamond back, but they kept searching for someone who would switch the stone. In the aired expose they did mention that they went to several jewelers, had the stone reset and got the same one back but they certainly made a far larger "beef" over the stone being switched at this one jeweler''s establishment. The jeweler in the expose did have a reputation for switching stones, but they did sort of paint the entire industry with a black paint brush to create sensationalism ( and ratings).
Another little "backstage" fact is the many of the reporters don''t really do the investigations. Much of the legwork is done by others, but the presentations highlight that the reporter did. Also for every minute of air time, there is probably about 5-8 hours of taping, which is then edited to show the most sections of the tapings that drive home the intentions of the producers to make the expose "newsy". Some of this the reporter doesn''t have the decision as to what get''s cut and what doesn''t. In many of these exposes, the real quotes of experts are edited to show only airing the most outrageous or "entertaining" quotes. In some cases, this ends up being very embarrasing to the experts that did participate.
I don''t want to attack all of the reporters. Some are very attentive to reporting all the facts, and exposing with a high level of competency and accuracy. But there are others who aren''t. It also isn''t just with TV, print journalists can report accurately or sensationally.
Just thought you''d all like a little information of the back door stuff.
Rockdoc
300x240.png)