NYO Rebuttal

8/7/2019 NYO Rebuttal

1/6

Former GMA Producer Shelley RossResurfaces, Reminds Us of Her

EmbarrassmentsApril 4, 2011 | 12:50 p.m.

By Kat Stoeffel

We hadn't heard of former Good Morning America executive producer

Shelley Ross until yesterday, and she would probably prefer we never

did. As one of only a handful of women executive producers in

network news, (there were only 2 of us to exec produce any of the daily

network morning shows in the last 25 years) most media reporters

know who I am.

Ms. Ross was featured in a SundayTimesround-up of

ICorrect.com, which Ms. Ross pays $1,000 a year for the space to post

rebuttals to what she sees as inaccuracies in blog and newspaperitems lingering around the infinitely archiving web. Ms. Ross is

mostly worried about coverage of her dismissal from CBS, which was

documented with audible snickering by the Post, New York Magazine,

and even the Times. Since no one ever spoke to me from the NY

Observer, how would you know what items I am most worried about.

"Documented with audible snickering?" Well that's just too hard toanswer.

"I was recently shown proof that two stories in particular, from 2007

and 2008, have been manipulated to reappear on the first page of my
http://www.icorrect.com/search/node/shelley%20rosshttp://www.icorrect.com/search/node/shelley%20rosshttp://www.icorrect.com/search/node/shelley%20rosshttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/weekinreview/03wordforword.html?src=tptwhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/weekinreview/03wordforword.html?src=tptw


2/6

Google Search," Ms. Ross wrote on her personal blog. Invoking Sarah

Palin, Ms. Ross refers to the anonymous detractors as "blood

bloggers," calls ICorrect her "BFF," and hopes it becomes as popular as

the yellow pages.

We hope she's not holding her breath. Just curious, are you speaking

for the entire paper? Theres just one name on the byline. So far it's

unclear what ICorrect offers celebrities beyond what they could

accomplish on Facebook or personal websites. ICorrect offers a

succinct and organized reference site for those of us who have suffered

the impact of lies, sexist characterizations and twisted truths to post

corrections so we don't have to waste time or energy repeatedly

addressing the offending material. ICorrect doesn't require citations,

which would at least give the rebuttals some legitimacy, ICorrect

requires its members to have a legal representative or a professional

agent for verification. In my corrections I have included citations and

Nielsen research which verify my rebuttals. It is impossible, however,

to provide eyewitnesses, for instance, to a tantrum or meltdown that

never occurred and it's algorithmically weak. Again, the purpose was

not to crack the first page of my Google search, but to place the truth

on the record for interested parties to find. ICorrect has yet to crack

Ms. Ross's first page of Google results. To rig that requires a little

more web savvywhich is something you must know of since this nasty

little article in the NYO, which says in the headline that I've

"resurfaced," cracked page one of my Google search in just hours.

(Hey, I've never been away, but someone who never heard of me


3/6

wouldn't know that.) Now cracking page one of my Google search is

quite a feat since you must know your newspaper is pretty low on the

Google algorithm scale. Maybe someone you know has been gaming

Google to put it there. Compare it to two Newsweek articles I wrote

last November. They just recently moved to my front page on Google.

One, Sarah Palin: the 7 Hidden Messages in her New Reality Show

got over 100,000 hits the first week it was online and took this long to

get to my front page. Also on my front page youll find a news release

that the latest (third) edition of a medical book I wrote with a retired

professor of clinical neurology was selected for the launch of Dr.

Mehmet Ozs new online website, Sharecare. Yes, it is a shame this

NYO story moves real my accomplishments down. or a custom

consulting service, which costs more like $10,000 a month, as Ms.

Ross knows if she flipped to the Style section of the same New

YorkTimes. Thanks for the tutorial from the Times, but as you know,

I addressed it in my blog.

"Once something is online, it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to

delete. Why dont you do the right thing and delete your post? So

tweaking one's online reputation usually boils down to gaming the

search engines. Image-conscious people with an understanding of the

Web's architecture can try doing it themselves, by populating the Web

with favorable content. That might involve setting up their own Web

site or blog, or signing up for popular social networks like Facebook,

Twitter and LinkedIn," the Times wrote.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/fashion/03reputation.html?pagewanted=2&ref=stylehttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/fashion/03reputation.html?pagewanted=2&ref=stylehttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/fashion/03reputation.html?pagewanted=2&ref=style


4/6

So far correction has proven a much weaker spin strategy than burial.

Ms. Ross's ICorrect have only drawn more ironic, if not outright

mocking, attention, and led newcomers like yours truly to read up on

years-old media beef we would have never otherwise seen. This

column is the only place that's been "outright mocking," a sad

commentary for a media reporter so recently introduced in November

after a promotion from an internship. (Citation: Village Voice,

November 29, 2010: Breaking: The New York Observer Hires Kat Stoeffel,

a Lady! A Media Reporter Lady! which includes a Memo from Aaron Gell,

subject: Welcome Kat! Note to Aaron: you need to help Kat learn the

recent history network news and protect her from sources who slip the

Observer stories like this one, and the one slipped to her predecessor,

Felix Gillette. Does anyone ever come out of a defensive internetcampaign with their reputation redeemed? First, I wouldn't call

my action of setting the record straight a "campaign." To more

specifically answer your question, too bad you can't ask it of RichardJewell. If you've never heard of him either, in 1996 he was a security

guard falsely identified as Atlantas Olympic bomber. It was a really

big story as reported: a nut in a uniform who who planted a bomb in a

backpack so he could find it and become a hero. It turned out Jewell

was, in fact, just a humble security guard who probably saved more

than a hundred lives. In the end, he sued all the new organizationswho repeated embellished stories from their anonymous FBI sources.

He even collected gigantic sums of money from. You see, publishing a

lie with malicious intent or reckless disregard for the truth is against

the law. Can a rebuttal be vivid enough to record over the tabloid hit
http://www.betabeat.com/2011/03/18/hashable-ceo-michael-yavonditte-responds-to-hashable-is-worthless/http://www.betabeat.com/2011/03/18/hashable-ceo-michael-yavonditte-responds-to-hashable-is-worthless/http://www.betabeat.com/2011/03/18/hashable-ceo-michael-yavonditte-responds-to-hashable-is-worthless/


5/6

piece in the collective memory? I wasn't trying to be vivid, but I'll do

my best with your selection below:

Not if the they keep getting anecdotes like this:

After CBS fired Ms. Ross, a colleague from her previous job at ABC,

Charlie Gibson, reportedly muttered at a funeral they both attended

over the weekend, "It took us six years to get rid of her. How come it

only took them five months?" This item in particular is not an item

that brings any embarrassment to me at all, as you suggest in your

headline. This item only brings shame to Charlie Gibson who has

never apologized for, or retracted the disgraceful comments he uttered

during a profoundly sad funeral service. He did however, through a

spokesman at the time, express his regret that his comments were

repeated.

To really get the picture of how truly disgusting it was to learn thatanyone sat gossiping during this funeral service, let along a person in

such a position of leadership and authority, you first have to know who

was being eulogized. James Bogdanoff was a beloved producer with

whom I had worked many years at ABC News where he began his

career in the tape department. When I was executive producer of

Good Morning America, I hired him to be the late night producer after

His job was to troubleshoot all the last minute scripts, videos and

details of the show, plus handle overnight breaking news.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/03/in_defense_of_early_show_produ.htmlhttp://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/03/in_defense_of_early_show_produ.htmlhttp://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/03/in_defense_of_early_show_produ.html


6/6

James was only 47 when lost his 4-month battle with esophageal

cancer, leaving behind a young wife, an 8-year-old daughter and two

20-something nephews he had raised. The nephews had lost both

their parents just nine months apart and on this day, they stood before

a packed house of mourners who had gathered to honor James and

recalled the moment their young uncle sat on their bed and gently

asked their permission to move into their house and look after them.

This funeral was as excruciating as it gets. So it's not difficult to

imagine the horror of the family first hearing that James' funeral made

Page Six, only to learn it was Charlie Gibson's cheap gossip remark.

So, Kat, I hope I proved you wrong; I hope you find this rebuttal vivid

enough to record over any tabloid hit piece in the collective memory.

I think the facts in my other corrections, albeit less vivid, will be

indelible as well.

[email protected] :: @kstoeffel
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

NYO Rebuttal

Documents

Transcript of NYO Rebuttal