What to do when Pam Zekman comes calling
Pam Zekman
For years, the seven most dreaded words in the English language were: “Mike Wallace is here to see you.” So feared was the grand inquisitor of “60 Minutes” that mere mention of his name made corrupt politicians, crooked businessmen and other assorted scoundrels quake in their loafers.
Wallace, 91, is officially retired from “60 Minutes” now, and the interrogation style that he made famous is rarely seen on network television these days. But in Chicago, there’s still one investigative reporter whose name evokes a similar reaction of abject panic. I’m referring to Pam Zekman, the diminutive dynamo of WBBM-Channel 2.
For nearly 30 years at the CBS-owned station — and 10 years before that at Chicago’s two daily newspapers — Zekman, 65, has been a unique force of nature who pursues her journalistic targets with the zeal and passion of the early 20th century muckrakers. The sight of her shoving a microphone in the face of a hostile character or chasing a fleeing subject down the street with camera in tow became as familiar to local viewers as Bozo’s big shoes or Skippy’s suspenders.
Twice in the past week or so, I’ve received calls from friends — one in government and the other in private practice — informing me that Pam Zekman was poking around the business of people close to them. Although the two matters were totally unrelated, the concern and stress I could hear in my friends’ voices were practically the same. Both asked how I thought they should handle Zekman’s inquiries. Of course, I told them of my great respect for her and the work she’s done over a terrific four-decade career (being honored by her peers this year with her Silver Circle induction). And, for what it’s worth, here’s the free advice I gave to them and I’ll share with you:
- Don’t duck her. The worst thing you can do is refuse to cooperate. It gives you no voice in the story, forfeits your opportunity to correct the facts and makes you look guilty as hell. Zekman is a master of knocking on closed doors, demanding simple answers to complicated questions and, as noted above, chasing people down the street. They’re all little dramas designed to shed more heat than light. You don’t want to be seen in those scenarios.
- Never say “no comment.” That’s another way to appear guilty even if you’re not. Lawyers who advise clients to say “no comment” may think they’re acting in their best interests legally, but they’re killing them in the court of public opinion. Even an innocuous statement of concern or acknowledgement of the issue is better than stonewalling.
- Set your limits. Just because you’ve agreed to cooperate doesn’t mean you become a powerless pawn in Zekman’s hands. You can negotiate where and when the interview will take place. You can set a reasonable time limit in advance. You can even choose not to go on camera at all. Under certain circumstances, you may insist on being interviewed without cameras present or responding to questions in writing rather than in person. People do it all the time.
- Be honest. Never, ever lie. You are not obligated to reveal everything you know, but be sure whatever you do say is the truth.
- Act preemptively. If the matter in question can be corrected simply — perhaps by providing a refund, making necessary repairs or offering a sincere apology — do so before the interview with Zekman. Nothing is more disarming than telling her you’ve already solved the problem she’s come to ask about. It may not kill the story entirely, but it certainly will make you look better if you’ve already made amends.
- Protect yourself. If you’re going to submit to an interview on camera, make an audio recording of it for yourself. The point is not to intimidate Zekman (who, quite honestly, is beyond intimidation by anyone at this point), but to give yourself a backup in case questions of context or disputes about editing arise after the story airs.
- Don’t worry. What’s the worst that can happen? As with all of local news, Channel 2’s ratings are a far cry from what they used to be. Sure you may find yourself utterly humiliated before the six percent of television households in the Chicago area tuned in to the 10 o’clock newscast on an average night. But that still leaves the other 94 percent who’ll never know a thing about it.
blogs.vocalo.org
As a former journalism student who chose to go in a different direction because of the state of the industry and the economy, I felt bad reading this column. For one, the quality of journalism today continues to decline, probably the foremost reason being the added pressures and lack of resources that the networks or newspapers will provide. Investigative journalism is very expensive. The second reason is because many talented young journalists will not get their chance because of the current state of the industry and economic situation. I’m also sad for another reason. As Rob pointed, nobody watches Channel 2, including me. Through the years, I have seen a few of Zekman’s reports, but from someone who is well familiar with the various news people from Channel 7, 5, 9 and to a certain extent, 32, I would never have been able to identify Zekman. I can of feel like I’m missing out on a rare breed – that is quality investigative journalism.
32?
You’re right that a target should make some innocuous remark on the record. But there is a very good reason why lawyers tell clients not to comment. And we are about to learn it as an object lessen in Blagovitch’s trial. His public statements will be handed to him on a platter. From a legal point of view, the way to handle Pam Zekman is to have your lawyer make the public statement. Guys like Tom Breen, Mike Monico, and Joe Duffy routinely make detailed public statements that contain information and concede nothing.
Robert,
Seems like excellent advice for anyone in the public light. Could be a short primer for all the public relations people who do business in corporate America.
In another life, I had an opportunity to watch Dave Baum conduct several of his excellent media training sessions. Baum would hammer on one point. I’m paraphrasing here: “Tell your own story the way you want it told and don’t lie. If you hide, or say `No comment,’ a smart reporter will find someone else to tell your story. And you may not like the outcome.” That simple bit of advice nailed three of the points Rob made regarding dealing with Pam Zekman. Common sense. Yet at the time, after the training sessions, we still had a chucklehead Operations VP who’d hiss, “Tell them nothing. Don’t return the call.” It’s always best to get out in front–as trite as that sounds.
I’m going to take a different tack with this and ask what Bruce Wolf would do if Pam Zekman chased him down the street with a microphone. Seriously though, I don’t think you should confuse Zekman, Chuck Goudie and others as muckracking journalists as much as they are ambush journalists. Going for a sound bite or a bit of tape showing somebody’s spouse hiding behind a door or trying to get to a place of sanity is not any kind of journalism, it’s just a rating grab. I do agree with Mr. Feder’s advice though. I am a believer in clean government, I am a local advocate of it. Similarly, a business should come clean, in their own best interests as well as the public’s. But people with brains can tell what the Zekman’s and Goudie’s are up to. The issues are legit, but the tactics are self-serving at best.
Rob, I’ll call you if Pam ever comes knocking on my door. There’s a huge gap in investigative journalism in Chicago today. The Tribune and Sun-Times are both doing a bang-up job in my opinion. It’s probably their saving grace. Television – eh. Same goes for television reporters doing interviews. Over and over it seems to me that the tough questions are asked by print reporters – some exceptions include Andy Shaw, Mike Flannery on the political scene. Even Pam cut her sharp little teeth in print. One question that perhaps was answered long ago: wasn’t she tied to the Desnick Eye Clinic investigation at some point? I believe there were claims they were performing unnecessary surgeries and a close family member of hers was involved. It felt like that whole issue just disappeared – perhaps with good cause. But it also felt very “unPamZekmanlike”.
Indeed, a wonderful media relations primer, Rob; and unfortunately a tribute to a dying form of journalism.
what about bruce??!! he hasn’t been here or at his blog in almost a week. he was on the score saturday and sunday, so he’s not out of town. the website link another poster showed here predates his 2 previous blog sites. i’m jonesing, brrruuuuuuuuce
Enjoyed the piece overall but thought the last paragraph was a cheap shot. You yourself have written about the improvements CBS 2 has had in the ratings department. To come back with a shot like that falls below your normal level of professionalism.
I did not intend it to be a cheap shot, Jay. Just wanted to provide some perspective on the station’s audience relative to the entire market. As a CBS 2 executive pointed out in a note to me this morning, I also did not factor in the online component. He added: “An interested party can hear about Pam’s story and easily find it on our website. That gives a good investigative piece a lot more clout and longevity than it would have otherwise had. This is true for all enterprise/investigate work these days, regardless of the venue.”
Pam Zekman called me to ask about one of my clients, as a lawyer pal of hers was suing my client on behalf of his allegedly injured client, who just happeend to be his ne’er-do-well son.
We said very little on the record, and once the case proceeded to actual facts, it disolved and the lawsuit was withdrawn.
We did get a scare from Zekman and CBS when we subpoenaed the entirety of the video she shot for her ‘expose.’
Rob, I agree with Paul Greenlee. Zeckman, Goudie and now Dave Savini are not true investigative journalists, but by nature of the state of TV news, they have become ambush journalists going for the sensational. Sometimes, their stories are just plain laughable…Savini with his gross reports on the stains on hotel bed sheets, c’mon!
I also see what Greg Adamski suggests as the value of having your lawyer make a statement for you, but you still look like you’re trying to hide something by not speaking directly to the media. I would suggest making a limited statement that gives the reporter something…but practicing a huge amount of restraint and discipline by closely sticking to what your lawyer tells you.
I’m glad to see Pam Zekman is still doing her thing at WBBM. She is one of a dying breed in TV news, and probably in the news business altogether.
These comments purport to be from journalism students, lawyers, etc. Yet they are full of poor grammar and spelling! Ridiculous.
I agree with your media relations primer but would add my favorite advice: “Every camera is on and every microphone is live.” Illinois has a strict law about recording you without your consent but when you have already submitted to an interview and are sitting around BS’ing afterward, whatever you say may be held against you in the court of public opinion…and you may not be able to object.
Oh and in one respect, RFeder, you’re wrong. The most dreaded words in the English language have nothing to do with Mike Wallace or Pam Zekman. They have always been, “Chuck Norris is here to see you and boy, is he pissed.”
My most dreaded call would be “the undertaker is here to haul your body away.”
Could you ask that CBS executive how many people viewed each of her last three stories on their website? I’m curious how big their audience is there. That info would put his note in perspective.
My most dreaded call would be “Congratulations! You’ve won the nomination for Lt. Governor!”
But to stay on topic – since I was a kid, Pam Z. has always been something to laugh at more than learn from. I don’t think that’s hard hitting journalism. The first poster is right, real investigative journalism takes time and effort that most news organizations can’t afford to finance.
32?
——–
I actually think 32 has a decent investigative unit with producer Marsha Bartel and reporters Larry Yellen and Dane Placko.
Pam Z. is the I-Team reporter who represents The Lollipop Guild, The Lollipop Guild, The Lollipop Guild
What I really want to know is why is Channel 2’s reception so bad?
I don’t think Channel 2’s reception is that bad. Pammy Z really DOES look like that. I think she’s entertaining when I’ve seen her reports. But let’s not kid ourselves, jumping out from behind a tree and doing the whole “Aha! Gotcha!” thing isn’t investigative journalism.
Larry, I agree. But I repeat,
32?
Robert, all your friend needs to do is purchase commercial time during the newscast. CBS brass will call off Zekman if your friend places some substantial ad buys.
I see Monsanto running ads during the NBC evening news. These buys are little more than a subtle bribe to ensure their reporters don’t nose into Monsanto’s business of trying to control the world’s food supply with their frankenstein death seeds.
Why do you think defense contractors invest in the evening news? Do you think it’s because they believe Joe Sixpack wants to buy a cruise missile?
Tell your friend, Robert, to give a quick call to the CBS advertising department and I’m sure this little misunderstanding can be taken care of.
Robert, my apologies for my son’s rantings. I did not bring him up this way. He’s a good boy.
Pam Zekman is who we know she is. Everyone already knows why Monsanto does what they do. Defense contractors, well my $$$ is on GD.
Orpheus, it’s quiet time.
Let’s remember exactly who CBS is:
On Sept. 8, 2004 CBS refused to run a story on the forged “Saddam trying to acquire Uranium from Niger” documents used by the Bush administration to lie us into the Iraq war. CBS claimed they didn’t want to run this controversial story so close to the presidential election.
On Sept. 24 Sumner Redstone, CEO of CBS’s parent company Viacom, made this unusual political statement ignored by the media:
“I don’t want to denigrate Kerry… but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people…. But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company.”
“He (Redstone) never gets involved in any aspects of the network’s news coverage”, said the CEO sponsor of the conference.
Now that’s funny!
Mr. Goose would rather you didn’t know!
Couldn’t care less, Mr. Know-it-All.
GOTCHA! Zoooooooom.
Now THAT’S funny!
In 1978 the Sun-Times ran a series of articles (25 in all) on Pam Zekman and Jay N. Smith’s investigative reports regarding The Mirage, a Chicago bar that served as a front to lure city and state inspectors who lined up with “requests” for payoffs. (Zekman and Smith posed as bartenders, observing firsthand how the guilty parties operated.) Then and now, it was/is dynamic, eye-opening journalism. The Mirage series serves as a model for what journalism can and should be. So if she never did anything else, Zekman earned my respect. The fact that she’s still in the game, hammering away, indicates that things haven’t changed much (if at all). There’s still some good investigative journalism going on, but the demands of television (or is it television management?) frequently dilutes its impact.
Thanks for spotlighting Pam Zekman, Rob. She is one of my favorite Chicago treasures. It would be wonderful if she had her own show. I’d love to see her chasing someone down the street with camera in tow on a regular basis. Some seem to criticize her ‘routine’ for being funny. I think that’s what’s made Pam last. It’s the reactions of those she’s ‘caught up to’ that make it funny at times. Yet, the severity of the person’s wrong-doing (and Pam’s righting it) that is the meat of the piece – not the humor one finds in it.
Though I’m ‘nobody’ and haven’t really done anything wrong of noteworthiness, I’ve had nightmares of Pam Zekman knocking at my door for 30 years!
Show of hands, how many people were disappointed Ch. 32’s Anna D. didn’t go undercover in Melrose Park ??
Pam Z. has assisted a friend of mine in a very difficult situation that is ongoing. I’m glad there is someone out there to help regular people fight against organizations with way deeper pockets. Keep it up Pam!
Ambush TV News Journalism doesn’t accomplish much beyond putting the target interviewee in a bad light. It also frequently shows the interviewer as a jerk and sensationalist. Meaningful investigative broadcast journalism is a valuable commodity that has nearly disappeared from Chicago’s news airwaves, unless you call Chuck Goudie’s perpetually furrowed brow as a sign that he’s investigating something of relative importance.
Additionally, a news target that is being stalked by an microphone-armed reporter is, 1)probably deserving of the attention, and, 2)highly unlikely to turn into Mr. Nice Guy and cooperate with the reporter to save his/her PR skin once accosted by the demanding reporter and camera crew.
What Chicago broadcast news outlets need is less sensationalist reporting and more in-depth detail work about substantive and timely issues. The ambush only panders to the visual and neglects vital factual information.
Martin J. Jacobs: In another recent post (about Carol Marin’s defunct ’serious newscast’ of years ago), didn’t we all learn that Chicago doesn’t want the serious delivery of which you request? Pam has had newsworthy topics and kicks ‘em in the balls within camera shot to make it entertaining. I see it as Pam giving the best of both worlds: content and circus. Just want the Chicago news junkie obviously tunes in for.
The on-line aspect IS very important!
A client of mine (I’m an architect) was having problems with his landlord. A Google search of the landlord’s name turned up a Zekman “investigation” of the landlord on the channel 2 website. (It had nothing to do with the individual’s actions as a building owner, but rather, problems with the individual’s professional work.) Zekman’s piece(s) had run a year or two earlier, and no one I knew had seen them – particularly my client. Nonetheless, they turned up on the internet search.
(Zekman’s piece was a bit sad and didn’t necessarily make the world a better place. Fundamentally, the issue was that most professions don’t adequately cut off aging professionals who should no longer be practicing. Instead of putting the pressure on the state regulators and/or the profession’s regulatory bodies, Zekman was there, chasing this older person around with a mic, camera and harsh light.)
My first and favorite memory of Pam was when she was trying to expose favoritism with Chicago Police allowing parking outside of stadiums – Wrigley, Cellular, United – etc – and she ran after cars and got shrugged off by all the police force who pretended they couldn’t hear her. Don’t know if that’s journalism, but it’s interesting.
When I worked for Cook County government in the 1980’s & 90’s, our agency’s leadership set standards for our conduct: Act as if you’ll have to explain every decision to Pam Zekman. So, for much of my public service career, she’s been near my ear, skating figure-eights above my shoulder, tiny-Pam’s mic aloft and ready as she spins.
I make this point because all media -print, broadcast, narrowcast, electronic- could choose to inspire good behavior/curtail iffy behavior on the part of public service workers (or even, g-d forbid, show examples of the routine ethical choices made and decisions carried out by people in government). Instead, there are only broad caricatures of government and politicians: Find a trope, lather & repeat, create a Big Lie (yes, I intend that historic reference) by focusing exclusively on instances of personal stupidity and mendacity. Of course I urge – yearn for- systemic corruption to be researched, named, broadcast, and that its practitioners be publicly shamed through prosecution. That is the proper role of journalism (the new j-word that dare not speak its name) in democracy.
The few remaining investigative reporting shops, as well as those individuals who oppose media consolidation, will object that it’s not laziness of thought or groupthink or failure of imagination or assumptions about the public’s LCD preferences which produces such ‘dreck’ (ahem, a tech term). They rightly argue that the current economic model for ‘news’ production doesn’t value long-form stories, can’t support research, etc. “New media eyeballs won’t watch/read for > 30 seconds” – you don’t have to be Ken Auletta to understand the context. The very fact that many talented folks have been exiled to these blogs says a lot (shout out to Rich Samuels, for ex.)
Yes, and that’s a crime against the public at large: We are so ill-served as a polity by finding the Dorothy Brown ‘Jeans Day’ story late in the race and framing it as a ’scandal’ without researching and stating the extent of the underlying issue: that good public administrators do not rule fiefdoms according to whim, that they (we!) run tight/efficient organizations according to the rules of law, we know that we are accountable to multiple constituencies, that ultimately we recognize that we are stewards of public treasure and trust.
The best elected officials and public administrators help the public and public employees understand what honesty and integrity look like in vivo, how values are operationalized, are personified. This is the story line on which politicians should run (I know: dream on, sister), and which media should encourage by framing: This is the job description of the office you seek; how do you intend to lead within that context, and how will we all know if you’re doing a good job. (Contradictions abound – I’m sure we didn’t giddily embrace every opportunity to lawd sunshine when presented with FOIA requests that diverted us from doing grant-required work, for example.)
Nevertheless, I am sick to my fundament of watching/hearing/reading the recurrent lament of the few remaining journalists: ‘We don’t like reporting elections solely in terms of the horserace/who’s up-down, We’d prefer to ask deep and probing questions and reflect higher societal expectations, We deny that we’re compromised through the coziness with sources that we’ve cultivated and prize, but it’s really up to Others (whom we then ridicule as ‘goo-goo’s) to create a demand for good government, which we, the neutral media, will then cover.’ (Where’s Izzy Stone when we need him, who has his DNA now, in what actual news outlet could he practice?)
So, even though I understand that Zekman (or Savini, whomever) is no substitute for the systemic change we the people need and deserve, I’m all for proper ambush-shots if that’s the only way to support investigative reporting these days. And of course, I do admit to a bit of a tingle when the targets aren’t elected or wannabe’s, when instead the gotcha exposes even a smidge of the private sector graft that is routine.
(Anyone here support public funding for a guaranteed base level of ongoing reporting?)