« Klady's Weekend Estimates - Spirit of 7/6 | Main | Why Blogging Is Hard, Part Deux »
July 06, 2008
Did I Miss...
... a very serious discussion anywhere about the head of ICM being a board member on the company that runs the Los Angeles Times?
I mean, Oracle's board... whatever. But an talent agency leader with a significantly influential position overseeing, ultimately, the LA Times... especially in a time of such turmoil and so many "new ideas" coming from Sam Zell?
Maybe I missed it, but it seems to me like this is not an insignificant issue when the LA Times is meant to be a paper of record in this industry. Moreover, it seems to me that the lack of any coverage that I can find even questioning whether there is an issue of influence there is stunning.
Some people thought the LAT WGA strike coverage was anti-union. Berg was on the company’s board as of late December. Are ICM clients getting preferred position or coverage? After decades being covered by the LA Times, how much influence will Berg have on "friendly" journalists keeping their jobs while "unfriendly" ones are kicked to the curb under cover of massive firings?
I'm not saying that this has or will happen. I am not an intimate of Mr. Berg's... and neither are the journalists who have deluded themselves into believing that they "know" him through covering him. If you were an LA Times reporter or freelancer and uncovered something uncomfortable for ICM or an ICM client, with another round of cuts coming, would you jump right in, full of piss and vinegar, knowing that Jeff Berg was whispering in Sam Zell’s ear?
Again… maybe someone has spoken to this before. I know that I feel I should have back around Christmas.
But this is not a nothing story.
At the very least, there is a real issue for SAG and other unions about a major media owner, The Tribune Co, having an agency head as a board member, as conflicts of interests are all what the War Over Delivery has been about. Mr. Berg is, in theory, a seller… and he is on the board of a buyer, which also owns the central group of TV stations that makes up the core of the CBS and WB-owned CW network.
And looking at the Board of Directors for the parent companies of all the studios and the New York Times and News Corp and Reed Business and Nielsen… not a single industry talent agent to be found on any of the boards.
Just sayin’…
Posted by dpoland at July 6, 2008 05:12 PM
Comments
Yup, you missed it, you we're too busy assembling your Oscar charts... 10 Weeks to Go, when this came out:
http://www.latimes.com/news/education/chi-071220tribune-board,0,2604400.story
Posted by: T. Holly ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 7, 2008 08:58 AM
were, were. I can spell, I can psell.
Posted by: T. Holly at July 7, 2008 08:59 AM
Is there some analysis there that I am not reading, T Holly?
Do you even read what I write before you attack it? (Oscar charts!! HA! Hysterical! Insightful!)
I repeat... "a very serious discussion anywhere"
I repeat... "I should have (spoken to this) back around Christmas."
I saw the list... I didn't get into it. I should have. And everyone else should have. And now I am.
It's bad enough having you attack for amusement when you are on point.
And by the way... do you have ANYTHING to say about the SUBJECT?
Posted by: David Poland at July 7, 2008 10:45 AM
You make me meaner than I deserve credit for. I read, as I always do, what you wrote carefully and went looking for a discussion of any sort, and there is nothing that comments, or speaks about or to the LAT announcement. I used its date (12/20) to see what was happening here, as a barometer for the world at large (a compliment). Bad on me for not explaining. That's all the time I had.
Posted by: T. Holly at July 7, 2008 11:54 AM
Cool.
But you make my point.
Why isn't this being discussed elsewhere? Odd, no?
Posted by: David Poland at July 7, 2008 12:27 PM
Because this kind of conflict of interest is more common than you might think. It happens all the time and it gets downplayed all the time. It's downplayed to such an extent we don't even know half of the instances.
Posted by: Roman at July 7, 2008 01:43 PM
Just saying... not to push or anything, but can you dig up past board announcements and see if it takes this story any further...?
Posted by: T. Holly at July 7, 2008 04:09 PM
This is enough to make me wish David Geffen was still interested in buying the LA Times.
Posted by: T. Holly at July 7, 2008 10:58 PM
I'm not sure what you are asking for, T Holly.
I looked at a lot of links and found nothing speaking directly to the agency issue, only acknowledgements of a new board that Berg is on. No one hides his job. But no one seems to feel it's any kind of issue either.
Posted by: David Poland at July 8, 2008 02:31 PM
There's no story because the people who care are the same people who don't go to the library to research who's been on the board for the last ten, twenty, thirty years. Who would buy the pitch and who wants to free-post hard research? Who wants to sum up with a series of "what ifs" one of the other suitors had won?
Posted by: T. Holly at July 8, 2008 11:18 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)