Most Recent Posts

четверг

Letterman's Executive Producer: 'He's Meant A Lot To A Lot Of People'

Rob Burnett started working with David Letterman as an intern in 1985 and never left, even when the talk-show host moved from NBC to CBS. During the course of his 29-year tenure, Burnett evolved from intern to head writer to executive producer of the Late Show with David Letterman, a position he held through last night's final show.

Burnett tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross that end of the Late Show is difficult to process. "I think none of us truly understand what it feels like and what it means for this to be ending," he says. "It was very odd to hear that this was over, but I remember my gut feeling at the time feeling like: You know what? [Letterman] deserves this."

Burnett's work with Letterman has spanned from the absurd — who could forget Letterman's "Alka-Seltzer" suit? — to the somber, such as the host's first monologue following the Sept. 11 attacks.

Throughout it all, Burnett says he has had unwavering respect for the man behind the desk. "At the end of the day, I think what drives all of us is that if you're going to spend this amount of time and energy doing this, you want to be doing it for the best possible person, and at least from where we sit, [Letterman]'s the best ever at this."

Rob Burnett celebrates with Barbara Gaines, left, and Maria Pope, right, after winning an Emmy Award for his work on the Late Show with David Letterman in 2000. Kevork Djansezian/Associated Press hide caption

itoggle caption Kevork Djansezian/Associated Press

Rob Burnett celebrates with Barbara Gaines, left, and Maria Pope, right, after winning an Emmy Award for his work on the Late Show with David Letterman in 2000.

Kevork Djansezian/Associated Press

Interview Highlights

On trying to keep the last shows from getting sentimental

Dave is not sentimental, although I think he's a little more so now ... as he's gotten a little bit older. I think that happens to people. ... For a long time, we pushed guests very hard not to mention the end, not to tell Dave what he meant to them and all of this, and then at some point, as you get close, it becomes inevitable. And it has been lovely. We've had really beautiful tributes from a lot of people — Howard Stern and [Martin] Short and Tom Hanks. ... People getting very emotional and you start to feel Dave — we know what he's meant to us, but you start to realize he's meant a lot to a lot of people.

On the Top 10 lists

I was around when the Top 10 began and, like most things, no one ever really thought it would become what it would become. It was just a silly parody idea to make fun of other top 10 lists. ...

People responded to it and it actually became kind of an interesting way to write topical jokes every day. It was an interesting form. Originally, you know, the first one was very silly: "Top 10 Things That Kind Of Rhyme With 'Peas.' " Very Lettermanesque. I remember when I was a writer, just a staff writer, Gerry Mulligan and I were pushing for a long time and finally got through a list that was "Top 10 Ways The World Would Be Different If Everyone Were Named 'Phil,'" which was one of my favorites. It was so dumb. It was things like "Ben & Jerry's now called Phil & Phil's." It couldn't have been stupider. "Favorite Beatle? Phil." It was just 10 of the stupidest things possible and some of those were ultimately my favorites.

On dropping things off the roof

"I remember particularly one day at the Ed Sullivan Theater holding a bowling ball in my hand and dropping it into a bathtub full of pudding and thinking, 'I am the luckiest man alive.' "

- Rob Burnett

Dropping things off a building I did my fair share of. I remember particularly one day at the Ed Sullivan Theater holding a bowling ball in my hand and dropping it into a bathtub full of pudding and thinking, "I am the luckiest man alive."

On Letterman's bypass surgery in 2000

He was unreachable — it's strange because everything on that show, it all goes through Dave. It's all Dave all the time. Whether he's actually weighing in on it or people are just guessing what he would weigh in on, it's all about him. And suddenly he was gone and inaccessible to us for a while. There was great concern by the staff and then when finally I was back in communication with him and I got the sense that everything went well and that he was going to be back, there was great relief. It was a very emotional moment, I think, for all of us as well as for him and the audience when he retook the stage because that's where he belonged.

On how the show has changed over the years

I think this show has evolved. There are very distinct phases to it. I think the very early years, with Merrill [Markoe, Letterman's first head writer,] and all of those great writers ... it was pure innovation; it was turning television on its head. It was like nothing anyone had ever seen.

When Is a Filibuster Not Really a Filibuster? When It Looks Like a Filibuster

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Republican, held the floor of the Senate for 10 1/2 hours Wednesday afternoon and evening, airing his objections to the NSA bulk collection of telephone records in the U.S.

Many of the accounts of this lengthy performance referred to it as a filibuster, or a near-filibuster, or some kind of filibuster or other.

It was none of the above.

In the contemporary world of the Senate, the kind of filibusters you can see are extremely rare. But the kind of filibusters you can't see happen all the time. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say "virtual filibusters" are now the normal course of business.

What is a filibuster? It's a senator or group of senators exercising their right to unlimited debate. If pursued in earnest, it can prevent a piece of Senate business off the floor indefinitely. The chamber's majority leader can either remove the issue at hand from consideration or file a motion to invoke cloture.

That motion takes 60 votes to succeed. That is why you constantly hear that it takes 60 votes to get anything done in the U.S. Senate.

Once cloture is invoked, a set period of debate may ensue, followed by a debate on the issue itself.

The requirement for cloture was originally two-thirds of the Senate. In those days, filibusters were reserved for the gravest existential issues. Southern senators used it to defeat civil rights bills for decades.

But after the requirement was lowered to three-fifths (60) in 1974, senators came to embrace the filibuster as just another tool. With each decade since, the use of it has proliferated. Cloture votes are now a regular event.

But you wouldn't know it because the virtual filibuster typically goes on while the Senate is doing other business. The filibustering senator or senators may not even appear on the floor to debate the issue itself.

So what Paul did was rather the opposite. Knowing he could not really prevent the Senate from considering a renewal of the NSA data collection program as part of the renewal of the Patriot Act overall, he performed the old-fashioned "live filibuster" largely for the cameras.

This is not to say his opposition to the program is insincere. He clearly opposes it, as do the three other Republicans who joined in on Wednesday and the seven Democrats who did so as well.

But by carrying the torch for this group and illuminating the privacy issue, Rand Paul was also casting some dramatic light on his own candidacy for president.

Rand Paul's long hours on the Senate floor were about liberty, the Constitution and the need to stand out somehow in a crowded field of GOP hopefuls.

In practical terms, however, public perceptions aside, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell filed for cloture on a bill renewing the Patriot Act with the NSA bulk collection program intact for two months. He also filed cloture on another bill, passed by the House by a wide margin, that would renew the Patriot Act without that NSA feature.

Either or both could see a vote on the Senate floor before the body leaves for its Memorial Day recess.

(Not) By The Book: On NPR Authors And NPR Airtime

NPR hosts, correspondents, producers and contributors write an awful lot of books, many of them eagerly anticipated by listeners who turn them into bestsellers. But I believe NPR should not routinely help their cause by featuring the books on air and online. NPR's new top news executive concurs, in part, particularly when it comes to show hosts discussing their own outside projects on their own shows.

Until now it's been almost a sure bet that NPR listeners and NPR.org readers would hear about new books by staff members and contributors; it has been standard practice in recent years to feature them on NPR programs and at NPR.org. Increasingly, those interviews have even been conducted by close colleagues.

In the most recent example, on Tuesday, which was publication day for Steve Inskeep's Jacksonland, a history book about President Andrew Jackson and his relationship with Cherokee Chief John Ross, the Morning Edition co-host was interviewed by one of the show's other co-hosts, Renee Montagne.

Inskeep himself interviewed their third colleague, David Greene, last October, when Greene's Midnight in Siberia was published. In recent weeks, Inskeep also interviewed the show's Monday contributor Cokie Roberts about her new book Capital Dames, and Weekend Edition Saturday host Scott Simon about his new Unforgettable, a memoir of his mother's life and death. All Things Considered co-host Audie Cornish interviewed regular Friday contributor David Brooks about his new book, The Road to Character.

"Your staff have no right to be using NPR as a platform to promote projects which will enrich them personally."

- Listener Doug MacDonald

Listeners who have complained to me see this practice of covering staff-written books in financial terms. Doug MacDonald, a listener in Durham, N.H., wrote of the Jacksonland interview: "Your staff have no right to be using NPR as a platform to promote projects which will enrich them personally."

Carl Goldfield, a listener in New Haven, Conn., called that interview "unethical and inappropriate," adding "With all of the worthwhile history books being published, NPR decided there was some special merit to his? On what grounds? I donate money to my local NPR stations (WNPR and WSHU) because I believe in their non-profit missions. I am outraged to have my hard earned dollars go to support Steve Inskeep's campaign to increase his outside author income."

Others called out more explicitly the conflict in having a host's project featured on his own show, instead of elsewhere on NPR where there might be a bit more editorial distance.

And interviews aren't alone in coming in for criticism. Even a mere mention of Brooks' new book at the end of a recent Friday commentary segment drew a complaint from Steve Mangion, of Newbury, Mass., who wrote: "Certainly seems like an unwarranted plug to me."

I also heard from general managers of NPR stations about the Montagne-Inskeep interview. Oregon Public Broadcasting did not air it, citing the conflict of interest. Al Bartholet, executive director of WMRA in Harrisonburg, Va., said his station did not air the tune-in promotion for the interview because of its disagreement over "the continued practice of promoting NPR host books under the guise of a legitimate news story." Bartholet noted that when one of the station's own part-time hosts, Martha Woodroof, wrote a novel called Small Blessings last year, she was interviewed by Simon on Weekend Edition Saturday, "but WMRA did not interview her or allow her to promote her own book."

Is there a direct line between an NPR interview and sales? A 2012 chart by Business Insider showed the impact of an NPR mention using data from Goodreads.com, a site where readers list books that interest them.

Until now (see a late-breaking update at the bottom of this post) NPR has had no firm policy governing how to handle staff-written books, which is surprising, since NPR has gone to great lengths to be transparent about the picks for the recently launched Morning Edition Book Club, and, moreover, has extensive guidelines for avoiding other conflicts of interest. As the ethics handbook notes:

Conflicts of interest come in many shapes — financial holdings, romantic relationships, family ties, book deals, speaking engagements, and others. It's important to regularly review how our connections are entangled with the subjects of our reporting, and when necessary, to take action.

In minor cases, we might satisfy an apparent conflict by prominently disclosing it, and perhaps explaining to the public why it doesn't compromise our work. When presented with more significant conflicts that might affect our ongoing work, our best response is to avoid them. But some conflicts are unavoidable, and may require us to recuse ourselves from certain coverage. More specific guidance on how to make these decisions appears in the sections below.

Other national publications—although certainly not all— have strict rules governing how they handle books written by staffers. If a New York Times reporter writes a book, it will almost certainly be reviewed by a non-staff person. In recent years staff writers haven't even gotten that at The Economist, which has previously said, "Our policy is not to review books written by our staff or regular freelance contributors because readers might doubt the independence of such reviews."

In NPR's case we are not talking about reviews, but features, which are more promotional. But banning them altogether, in my mind, would be going too far, by depriving readers (or in NPR's case, listeners) of information that they might otherwise find valuable or interesting. I also got complaints about the interview of Simon. That interview seemed appropriate to me, however, given that Simon's poignant July 2013 tweets as his mother was dying became a story unto themselves, and provoked a dialogue about grieving in the social media era. Had NPR not covered the book in some way, it would have seemed odd, and NPR listeners would have been disadvantaged.

NPR should not be featuring a host's book on his or her own program.

Nonetheless, NPR should not be featuring a host's book on his or her own program (and no longer will be; see below.) Overall, it also ought to be much more stingy when handing out these features to fellow staff members, particularly when it comes to the main newsmagazines, Morning Edition and All Things Considered, and their weekend counterparts. If production executives worry they would be put in the uncomfortable position of telling colleagues, "No, your book doesn't meet our threshold of newsworthiness," the newsroom should set a policy of largely avoiding these interviews altogether, or designate one newsroom executive to be the arbiter.

I've heard the argument internally that NPR's listeners are, by definition, interested in what NPR hosts and correspondents are up to—and that NPR listeners tend to be readers. Both of those likely are true, to some extent, but in that case why not put an excerpt online, instead of devoting some of the limited on-air time to what will be seen as a promotion? The New York Times, where one almost never sees features about books written by staffers, recently ran an online Q-and-A with its personal finance columnist Ron Lieber, about his new book, The Opposite of Spoiled, where readers did the interviewing about the topic. That also seems like a reasonable option for NPR.

I'm less concerned about staff interviews if they are conducted on the midday Here and Now, or NPR-distributed programs such as The Diane Rehm Show (where Inskeep will be interviewed today) and Fresh Air, hosted by Terry Gross. They are more conversationally driven, and in the case of the Rehm's show and Fresh Air, there is some editorial distance, as the staff and hosts of those shows do not work in or report to NPR's newsroom.

Updated 10:00 a.m. on Thursday

Last evening, after I finished writing this column but before I had a chance to post it, NPR's top news official, Michael Oreskes, who started work April 27, sent me new guidelines for covering staff-written books, after coming to some, but not all, of the same conclusions that I did. He told me the guidelines were drafted after he heard the Jacksonland segment and discussed it with those involved and with key newsroom leaders. His note follows:

NPR has not had a written policy on this issue or even a consistent practice. We will now. NPR's producers and editors will use the same standard they apply to outside books to decide whether works by our own staff merit coverage and on which of our programs and platforms. That decision must be approved by the Senior Vice President for News — that is, me.

This book clearly would have met our test of coverage. Steve is a successful author who has written a well-researched work of history about one of our most important presidents and his relationship with the chief of the Cherokee. The book has already received a number of reviews and The New York Times published an Op Ed piece related to the book. There was no reason for us to leave NPR listeners out of this conversation.

NPR has no financial interest in Steve's book. His managers believed his listeners on Morning Edition would want to hear from him about his book. That was a good faith decision. Just not the right one.

Interviewing Steve on his own show created needless doubts and confusion among some listeners. That's not how we should have done it. For the future, NPR staff members will not appear on their own shows to discuss outside books or other works unrelated to NPR coverage.

I also received a reply from Tracy Wahl, the executive producer of Morning Edition:

When we consider who our hosts should interview, we assess interviewees based on their reporting and the listener interest in the topics of the books.

When it came to Steve's book, Renee Montagne expressed interest. She has long been interested in Native American history given her own family connection to the Dakotas and the West. Morning Edition managers considered her request and determined that having her interview Steve fell within the above-mentioned criteria. Listeners would be interested and the reporting was solid.

Even if Steve had not been the author, it is quite likely that she would have wanted us to book an interview with an author writing a book about Andrew Jackson and John Ross.

Some writers to the ombudsman were concerned that Renee was not able to ask tough questions of Steve because of their working relationship.

Renee has interviewed Steve about his stories many times before and no one has ever raised a concern about it and she has never had any trouble speaking her mind on or off the air. Also, as with every project we rigorously check the reporting as much as we can.

Writers to the ombudsman have expressed concern that there will be a perception of conflict of interest. I don't think that is true for the majority of listeners, although of course I can't prove that.

I believe listeners expect that hosts interrogate each other's reporting when interviewing each other about breaking news and reporting trips. I believe that they have the same expectation when one host interviews another about his or her reporting that they might do off the clock.

And finally, I'll give the last word to Inskeep, since he ended up being the focus point here, even though the issue is much broader than just this one interview. He told me:

I researched and reported out a story and, when asked, talked about it on NPR. That's what I do every day on NPR.

It's true that I get paid for working that story. I get paid for all the work I do on NPR.

It's true that NPR did not pay for my research and travel costs for that story over the course of two years, although NPR has often put reporting on the air that NPR did not finance.

It's true that Renee asked me questions, as she has with many stories on NPR.

I have, over the years, done book interviews with Juan Williams (then of NPR), Scott Simon, Anya Kamenetz, Michele Norris, Cokie Roberts and David Greene, as well as hundreds of book talks with reporters and writers who aren't from NPR and have no connection to me. The way I look at books, at least the kind of books we talk about on NPR, they are about doing original research and reporting and spreading ideas.

Editorial researcher Annie Johnson contributed to this report.

#MotorCityDrive: Is Detroit's Economic Engine Roaring Back To Life?

For generations of Americans, Detroit was the place where people made things: powerful cars, amazing architecture, beautiful music. But now Detroit is entering a new chapter. After months of often tense and difficult negotiations, Detroit is now formally out of bankruptcy. Millions of dollars of contributions from private foundations and corporations helped the city preserve its acclaimed art collection. A new generation of artists and entrepreneurs, doers and makers is calling Detroit home. So we'd like to ask, what's next? What will drive Detroit's future now? Will it be art, industry, technology — even agriculture?

Tonight, in collaboration with member station WDET, I will be in Detroit to hear and share stories about the past, present and future of Detroit with a particular focus on the creative forces that are fueling Detroit's economy. We will ask if there are lessons the city's past and present might offer other cities as they try to entice new residents and create a brighter future for the people who live there now.

You can listen to our live audio stream and join us on Twitter and Facebook using #MotorCityDrive. We will be inviting guests to add their voices during a live Twitter chat. You can join on Thursday, May 21st at 7 p.m. ET, using #MotorCityDrive.

Joining us on Twitter are:

Margarita Barry @IAmYoungAmerica, founder and publisher, I Am Young America

Matt Chung @mattChung, artist, educator, communicator at @WeKnowDetroit

Hajj Flemings @HajjFlemings, Detroit entrepreneur

Angela Flournoy @AngelaFlournoy, author, The Turner House

Don Gonyea @DonGonyea, NPR correspondent, formerly Detroit bureau

Ingrid Lafleur @Ingridlafleur, art lover, Wanderlust Art tours

Mike Moceri @mocerimike CEO of Manulith, a 3D printing and design company

Jerome Vaughn @JVdet, @WDET news director

#motorcitydrive Tweets

NPR's Davar Ardalan and Frederica Boswell will moderate from the live event using @NPRMichel.

Detroit

Most Recent Posts

Ïîïóëÿðíûå ñîîáùåíèÿ

Letterman's Executive Producer: 'He's Meant A Lot To A Lot Of People'

When Is a Filibuster Not Really a Filibuster? When It Looks Like a Filibuster

(Not) By The Book: On NPR Authors And NPR Airtime

#MotorCityDrive: Is Detroit's Economic Engine Roaring Back To Life?

Blog Archive