Monday, November 19, 2007

Fans find reality not reported by Enquirer

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Photo courtesy of here.

Dan Horn wrote about Nick Lachey’s reality television show at Fountain Square for Sunday’s paper, but “reality” was in short supply.

The TV prodcution staff changed the schedule at the last minute, causing fans (and newspaper reporters) to wait, which gave Horn a great opportunity to manipulate the words of participants—turning his coverage of what should be viewed as a great opportunity for Cincinnati into a series of petty complaints. 

“They’re staging reality,” said Jeri Hamrick of Symmes Township.  “But that’s smart for the production staff because some fans might not have been able to control themselves.”

The first three words of Hamrick’s statement are used by Dan Horn to create a false image about the event last Weekend on Fountain Square.  The rest of her comments were not included in the story—comments that emphasized the positive potential of bringing the national spotlight to focus on Cincinnati’s creativity.

“I said a lot of positive stuff that wasn’t printed,” said Hamrick, when asked if The Enquirer adequately communicated her perspective.  “I was pissed at that article, to say the least.”

Hamrick continued, “When the Enquirer guy interviewed me, I said that I was really glad this was being brought to Cincinnati and that it can really bring and show our city in a positive light.  Most people remember Cincinnati for the riots years ago. This has a chance to shed positive light.”

For Hamrick, Dan Horn’s fabrication of facts seemed even more shocking when he wrote about things that did not happen.  For example, Horn wrote:  “When Hamrick tried to get into Graeter’s to see Lachey, a crew member turned her and Conner away.”

“I didn’t even try to go in Graeter’s,” said Hamrick. 

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

Socializer!

Username

Password

Auto-login on future visits

Show my name in the online users list

Forgot your password?

Register

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

cincysuz says:
19 Nov 2007  at  10:07 am | #

If any of these things did happen, that’s just the way it goes on a set. There are time constraints, union rules, and big $$$ involved. People shouldn’t take it personally if they didn’t get all the face time they would have liked. That’s Hollywood!

The only disturbing part of this article was the description of a 10-year-old child’s emotional breakdown over a 30 something year old man who was at the height of his musical career before she was even born. She wasn’t old enough to watch the reality show and certainly too young to understand it if she did. Where’s this coming from? Aren’t the parents worried about their baby’s fixation on a man that should be seen as a father figure not a sex symbol by a child? Instead of bringing the child to see the object of her pre-pubescent obsession, her parents, and all those like her, should get these children to a therapist and quick.

says:
20 Nov 2007  at  04:39 pm | #

Cincysuz, I’ve read a lot of your crap on here and this time I felt the need to speak.  Who said anything about this child thinking Lachey a sex symbol.  My 10 year old doesn’t even know what a sex symbol is.  The point is that he is a celebrity and right or wrong...Americans have been brought up to idolize them.  His being the closest thing to a celebrity she’s gotten close to and her being a 10 year old girl hyped to meet him has nothing to do with sex I assure you. 

What disturbs me is that instead of reading this for what it is, you choose to put the sex spin on it.  Maybe you should get yourself to a therapist....and quick.

cincysuz says:
20 Nov 2007  at  06:46 pm | #

Oh please get over yourself - You’ve violated rule 2, 4 & 5. Dean?

says:
20 Nov 2007  at  06:51 pm | #

Are you in the wrong strand, cincysuz?

WHOAAA AGAIN... says:
20 Nov 2007  at  08:11 pm | #

Aren’t we talking about the Enquirer reporting here?
Why do I feel like a nun with a ruler?

And something that your daughter should learn- celebs are people too! They brush their teeth, put on their jeans and tie their shoes.
When in a prior life I had a job at Riverfront where I was in the tunnels with all of the superstars of baseball in the 70’s. I was so star stuck. It took just one person to tell me- guess what? I bet he peed this morning too- to crack me up. After that I realized that they are just normal people who want to be treated like normal people.
Just like when Clooney is in Cincy. He is here a lot more than people think. Because people know him and leave him alone. Your daughter needs to learn that as well. I was 17 and got my lesson. Interesting enough- Nuxie is the guy who cracked me up with that statement. And you know what-it was true and still is. We all pee in the morning! No matter who we are! And we all want to be treated with respect and sometimes left alone.

cincysuz says:
20 Nov 2007  at  08:18 pm | #

No. If you please, Mister Dean, Sir. I believe, and excuse me if I’m being too forward, but I believe I am in the right strand and am surely not intending to offend you Mr. Dean or any one else.

Mrs. Oh Please Get Over Yourself, in my humble opinion, is in violation of 3 of your very wise Rules for Commenting. (1) Off-topic because she commented to me, not the subject (2) She insulted me and said that I both write crap AND need a therapist and (5) She didn’t debate thoughtfully. This seems very unfair as I didn’t even know that Ms. Please Get Over existed so nothing I wrote was directed to her. Nor did I know that she had a small child that worshipped Mr. Lachey, dear friend of Mr. Jeffre, though I don’t doubt that Mr. Lachey is totally deserving of being idolized, even by little children.

So maybe I can please you both by modifying my opinion and offering a conciliatory compromise. I agree 100% with her that Americans raise their children to mindlessly idolize people for no reason and she can rest easy that her child is probably in that category, not the sexual category.

says:
20 Nov 2007  at  08:24 pm | #

cincysuz.

(1) It is not off topic.  It follows a logical strand:  you connected the idea of a sex symbol to the post, and the response follows that thinking.

(2) The rule states that insults “subject the comment to deletion.” If you are honest, you will see that the vast majority of the post makes a point, and the flare at the end is relatively mild.  (You must understand, cincysue, that you don’t see the contents of what I delete.  Things have gotten very nasty in the past few days, to say the least.  I have not been letting things through...)

(5) The post was at least as thoughtful as your rant about sex symbols.  It does seem more likely the girl was impressed by celebrity and not carnal desire.

cincysuz says:
20 Nov 2007  at  08:48 pm | #

I really didn’t think you would be able to recognize a negative post directed at me. And I was right. But I bet if I came back and told her what I really think about her parenting skills, which since she “started it” I would have every right to do, you’d be all over me with a lecture about civility.

And by the way, you insulted me by calling my thoughtful and passionate concern for adolescent girls, the group being marketed as “tweens” that are being sexualized too young, a “rant"--something you accuse me of constantly. It’s a recognized danger and a national conversation that I guess you’ve missed.

says:
20 Nov 2007  at  08:48 pm | #

I believe that I no more targeted you than you targeted a 10 year old child unable to defend herself.  The flare at the end is almost verbatim what the end of your post said.  If you can’t take it in return please don’t write it. 

The point of my post is exactly that....that society in general raises children to idolize these people.  My daughter is crazy about Hannah Montana. Does that make Hannah Montana deserving of her idolization just because she has some talent?  No.  However...I choose to indulge her...because it makes her happy, and gives her goals (she is learning to play the guitar), just as I would indulge her if she was the same way about Nick Lachey.  I personally feel that he has done nothing to make himself a bad role model. 

Now of course if she had posters of the Chippendale dancers hanging in her room...I might feel differently.

says:
21 Nov 2007  at  07:12 am | #

cincysuz,

I am familiar with “tweens”—the manner by which our culture sexualizes young girls at increasingly younger ages.  However, encouraging young girls to wear make-up, tight pants, and to show or hint at cleavage… well, I just don’t see how that connects to Nick Lachey, or to the concept of “celebrity.”

One can be taken by the presence of celebrity without being sexualized by the experience.

Please clarify if you think the crying girl was sexualized, or if Lachey was turned into a sex object.  You are not being clear.

says:
21 Nov 2007  at  09:28 am | #

Wow...off topic a bit… i’ve read and here’s my thoughts…

Yes it’s concerning she cried...but she’s 10...that borders the age where if milk is spilt kids cry....give it a break.

Her mother should use this as an opportunity to teach her the reality of it. He is 30 something...he is a celebrity...what’s the best way to react?

I would say something like this if it was my kid “ Pretty cool he took the time to come out to Cincinnati. Why did ya cry kid?” As Dr. Phil would say.... “open the cummunication...don’t shut it down by telling her that her emotion was wrong”

I’m pretty sure it’s not because he’s a “Hot, celeb” it’s probably more nerves the fact he is a celeb and she’s meeting him....

Cincysuz i think it’s great there are moms out there that pay attention at the"weirdness" of it...and my hope for her mom is she uses it as a opportunity to talk with her daughter.

I’m guilty of doing the same thing when I was her age...it wasn’t anything sexual...i was a crush...it’s how my parents handled it...opening conversation and right and wrong relationships vs crushes…

Besides… i can think of a LOT more celebrity’s that would cause me more concern...Thank God it’s a good guy like Nick...and as my husband said....i’d worry more if she had no emotion to it…

says:
21 Nov 2007  at  09:30 am | #

Oh and the “tween” comment...come on… i was there and she was very appropratly dressed for a 10 year old!

Huh? says:
01 Dec 2007  at  12:21 pm | #

Why is this in the “Politics” section?  At best, wouldn’t this be considered entertainment?  Or do you think the Enquirer’s bad coverage of Nick Lachey is a conspiracy to stop JJ2k9?

says:
01 Dec 2007  at  01:09 pm | #

Huh, we try to keep all the sections updated as best we can. We don’t get paid for this, remember. And Huey P. Newton said, “everything is political”.

The Dean didn’t write anything about a conspiracy, did he? He just wrote that because he knows Nick and me now, it made him think about the way this story was covered. It was pretty negative about something that is very positive for this city.

This coming from a paper that writes positively about things that are negative for our city is interesting indeed.

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

<b>

<i>

<u>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: