CONTRIBUTORS
LINKS
Tbt* News Editor Josh Korr knew he'd likely damage local rapper Black Reign's rep with last Wednesday's cover. The snarky headline -- "Street Cred? Shot!" -- humiliated the 24-year-old rhymer who resides and works an office job in Brandon. The St. Petersburg Times-owned tabloid regularly uses such tactics to move papers. But last week, the free daily went too far by applying a double standard to hardcore rappers like Black Reign that doesn't exist for other artists in the business of depicting violence. Furthermore, the headline misrepresented the actual story.
The article's author is St. Pete Times staff reporter Ben Montgomery. He writes and files his stories; an editor crafts the headline. On the Times' version of Montgomery's article about Black Reign, which ran on the bottom of last Wednesday's [Nov.7] front page, the headline reads: "A sudden reality check," keeping in line with the thrust of the piece. Not so with the headline tbt* ran on its cover, with a picture that shows Black Reign looking much more menacing than the headshot that ran in the Times. (Both images were lifted from the rapper's MySpace site.)
"I thought this was a really fine moment of honesty," Montgomery said in an interview. "I really felt it was a gift from the guy. He was being candid about a real and scary situation that stands in contrast to the things he [raps] about.
"If you look at this story the way it was in the [Times], there's complexity. In a vacuum, it's a complex story about the reality of violence. It certainly doesn't make fun of him."
Black Reign is shown on the cover of tbt* scowling and pointing menacingly with his left index finger. Under the "Street Cred? Shot!" headline, the subhead reads: "Local rapper Black Reign is best known for his song 'Gun Shine State.' On stage recently, he heard a sound for the first time: a gunshot. He ran and hid in the ladies room."
Did Montgomery feel betrayed by the tbt* headline?
"Not a sense of betrayal, necessarily," he responded. "In all my reporting, I try to establish a level of trust with the sources. It's a hard enough thing to do without someone wondering if they're going to be made fun of."
Did Montgomery feel the headline was sensationalized?
"I'm not sure that's the right word," he said. "I think if anything, the headline wasn't reported. In my view, it doesn't fit this story. There's nothing in there about [Black Reign's] street cred. It would be different if we would have had fans talking about how this admission affects his career -- but that's not really what this story was about."
Tbt*'s headline mocks Black Reign for not acting like the characters he depicts in song. He's ridiculed for being a phony. For being scared -- as if in order for him to rap about shooting someone, he had to have actually done it, as if he should have pulled out his gat and returned fire that night several weeks ago in the Brandon nightclub called Fluid. The night a 36-year-old mother was shot and murdered.
I asked tbt* News Editor Josh Korr, who wrote the headline, if it reflects the essence of Montgomery's story. "I think it does," he said, "I didn't listen to the song ["Gun Shine State."] I'm not familiar with his canon. I went to his MySpace and the song wasn't there. But I found something you guys wrote."
Korr referred to the critic's award Creative Loafing gave Black Reign in our September Best of the Bay issue. It was a humorous entry (or at least a stab at humor) I wrote titled "Best Song to Play for Prospective Transplants." While on the phone with me, Korr read back one of the lines I wrote: "... the ultra-violent single by hardcore rapper Black Reign. The song finds the Tampa Heights native threatening would-be rivals with bodily harm via his firearm."
I tell Korr that I was the one who wrote it. (Best of the Bay items do not have bylines.) He stopped quoting my words and continued with his defense of the headline: "I'm not familiar with all of his work. ... But a main aspect ... He has some songs about violence, and once again it's a hip-hop artist, and it's all about posturing. That's what the headline [reflects]."
I mentioned to Korr that tbt* music writer Julie Garisto did a mini-profile on Black Reign that ran in June. In it, the man born Anthony Blocker never alluded to being a real-life gangsta. "We're killing ourselves over who's the best or who's tougher," reads Black Reign's quote. "You never hear about Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci arguing over who was the best painter. Hip-hop is a craft. People need to come together if it's to grow."
Korr said he didn't think of Garisto's story when it came time to write the headline. "It ran six months ago," he quipped.
I pushed him on the issue, citing a classic country music example.
"I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die," sang Johnny Cash in his famous hit "Folsom Prison Blues."
Cash never set foot in Folsom Prison -- other than to perform there after he was famous. He never shot a man. It was understood that Cash was an entertainer -- that even though he was singing from the first-person perspective and wrote the song, it wasn't about him.
When Cash's Jamaican holiday home was broken into and he was held at gunpoint with his family, the media didn't respond by mocking him for not pulling out his own gun. Likewise, no one expects Martin Scorsese to be a tough guy because he makes movies about tough guys. I asked Korr if he would have mocked a macho country singer like Cash if he had been in the same awful situation as Black Reign found himself recently. I asked if hip-hop artists are being held to a double standard.
"That's a larger cultural issue that a headline cannot address," Korr said. "I'm going back to your quote and his lyrics: He's putting on a persona; it's fair to poke a hole in that persona.
"If there's a second thought," Korr concluded, "it's because someone died in the shooting."
On Oct. 18, the Times ran an extensive story about the murder that took place at Fluid Lounge and Nightclub. Last week's Black Reign piece was a human-interest follow-up, a microcosmic look at what can happen to individuals in times of crisis. It was sensitive, not mocking. That it got handed over to the tabloid and turned into something tawdry is a shame. That a local rapper trying to carve out a career now has to answer doubts about his street cred, has to answer for what was characterized as a cowardly act, is patently unfair.
Korr said he was not aware of the Times news story about the murder. "As far as I know," he said. "There wasn't [one]."
Black Reign sounded weary when I phoned him around 3:30 p.m. last Wednesday.
"How's it going?" I asked.
"Not good," he said despondently.
The rapper explained that I would have to call him back after 5:30 p.m., after he got off work. I did. The young man sounded worse, explained he'd been on the phone all day, said he wanted to do the interview in person, perhaps tomorrow. I said it needed to be done ASAP. I gave him my number. He said he'd call me back in 20 minutes. I tried him again around 6:30. No answer. Voice mailbox: full.
Black Reign called back the next day. Reluctant to speak on the record, he insisted he just wanted to "move on." Said he already had a big concert planned. But he did say (on the record) that "[the newspaper] shouldn't have gone there." He defended his song "Gun Shine State," made it clear he doesn't condone gunplay and then concluded: "I just want to leave it alone."
COMMENTS
RE: tbt* misfires
Posted by Duane Ration on 11.17.07 @ 09:00 PM
FYI - I posted a comment up above (the first one) and I also posted the same (well, almost the same) comment on the TampaCalling blog (http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/tampacalling/2007/11/07/tbt-misfires/#comment-7417) as well as on a Tampabay.com blog (http://blogs.tampabay.com/media/2007/11/deconstructing-.html?cid=90045208#comment-90045208). Mr. Tatangelo responded to my 1st comment here. He also responded to my 1st comment on both the TampaCalling blog and the one on the tampabay.com blog. I responded to both of those comments. He then responded to my 2nd comment, but only on the TampaCalling blog. This might sound confusing so I'm taking the liberty of reprinting the entire conversation thus far here, so it might make more sense. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- dration Says: November 15th, 2007 at 12:50 pm I couldn’t help but notice that you somehow “forgot” to mention in this commentary that Black Reign is a member of the Umbrella Corporation, as is Durium “Deacon” Jones, who (by pure coincidence?) is (or at least was, at one point in time) employed by Creative Loafing as a Marketing Director. So much for full disclosure. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wade Tatangelo Says: November 15th, 2007 at 2:29 pm Dration: We disclosed that Durium worked here in my Umbrella Corporation cover story. This article was about tbt* and Black Reign, not the network to which he belongs. Plus, by the time I wrote this piece Durium was no longer employed here. Here’s the link: http://tampa.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A301584 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- dration Says: November 15th, 2007 at 6:50 pm Wade (Mr. Tatangelo), I’ve always noticed (and appreciated) how Wayne Garcia seems to consistently make note (sometimes even repeated note if it’s something he’s written about before) in his columns about his past associations/friendships/relationships or employment whenever he’s writing about something where even the possibility of “conflict of interest” might rear it’s head. I admire his honesty. Whether or not Mr. Jones still works for Creative Loafing might not relate to this story in your view, but from my perspective, including that fact (regardless of it’s having been in a past issue) would have been appropriate. You say not. Okie-Dokie. You’re the journalist, not me. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wade Tatangelo Says: November 16th, 2007 at 10:34 am dration: I make these decisions with my editors. They’re not made lightly. For instance, four/five years ago I was a freelance music writer for the St. Petersburg Times. My editor David Warner noted this in an introductory piece when I started at Creative Loafing in February. Should have this been disclosed again when I wrote about the Times-owned tbt*? We didn’t think it was necessary. Your thoughts? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, now it's all in one place, everyone up to speed? Here's my last, and this is my last, I've wasted far too much time on this already, response. Enjoy! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Tatangelo, You asked for my thoughts. I accept the invitation. You should be careful what you ask for though. Before I get into it I would like to state that I'm not an avid reader of the *tbt. That's only because, more often than not, their distribution bins are usually empty by the time I roll by them and I'm not going to drive around and around South Tampa looking for one that still has a copy left in it. I actually do read Creative Loafing fairly regulary though, finding a distribution bin with plenty of copies still in it is hardly ever a problem. That might sound like a dig but it's actually the truth. Personally, I think that what I now know was the intentional ommision of those two facts wasn't a good idea. Those two facts (or maybe it's actually three, but who's counting?) being that (1) Black Reign is a part of the Umbrella Corporation, as is Durium "Deacon" Jones, who was, but no longer is, employed by Creative Loafing and (2) you were a freelance music writer for the St. Petesburg Times in the past. I would have included the first group of facts so any potential readers would know that there is/was some sort of tie (however minute) between yourself, the company of which you are currently employed by, and the artist who you are defending. That would have given any potential readers the opportunity to have read your article more objectively (in my opinion). Of course I can understand why that particular disclosure was not included in your article, chances are it could open the door to letting the average reader look at it as some kind of cheap shot retaliatory piece and that wouldn't have serves your arguement well, I guess. Maybe the decision not to include your previous connection with the St. Petersburg Times was correct. I mean it's not like you were really employed by them as freelancers arem't really considered full time employees are they? I could be wrong but isn't that why they're called freelancers, they submit articles and the potential employer decides if they're worth paying for or not, if they are, the freelancer gets paid, if they're not, well, better luck next time, right? Your occasional employment with the St. Pete Times probably is a moot point anyways. I only say that because it's fairly obvious that Creative Loafing has an established gripe about the *tbt already. While you and the Creative Loafing team might want people to think it's all about how they're "yellow journalists" or something along those lines it's more likely about how they probably put a crimp in the Creative Loafing's advertising revenue. Of course that's only my personal take on the situation, I could be way off base. Probably not though. Ok, I guess that's my response to the question of whether or not the exclusion of those facts was a good call or not. Maybe I'm still on the fence though, it's hard for me to tell. Allow me to address some of the many things about the actual article that you wrote that I just don't get though. The first one is in regards to the following excerpt : ""I mentioned to Korr that Tbt* music writer Julie Garisto did a mini-profile on Black Reign that ran in June. In it, the man born Anthony Blocker never alludes to being a real life gangsta. “We’re killing ourselves over who’s the best or who’s tougher,” Black Reign said in Garisto’s piece. “You never hear about Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci arguing over who was the best painter. Hip-hop is a craft. People need to come together if it’s to grow.”" This excerpt caused me to give myself a nasty scab where I scratched my head so hard trying to both figure it out and also why you chose to include it. The first thing was that it's pretty much been established that Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci actually did have a bitter rivilary with each other. If they were alive today I seriously doubt that they'd be MySpace friends. More likely they'd be trading shots on the streets of Florence. My money would be on da Vinci, he'd surely have built at least a prototye of one of his many gnarly weapons while Michelangelo would have been throwing wads of parchment or clay or something in return. No real contest there. I guess my first point there is that this quote was a result of Black Reign not really knowing what he was talking about. Fair enough. What REALLY confounded me was why you chose that part of the quote to reference in your article, besides it being ridiculous (in light of the facts about the true relationship between the two artists) I couldn't really understand why you included it, especially when you look at the second half (the part you didn't include in your article) of the same quote. It was this : "There are too many egos, too much gimmickry. All this blinds the world to the artists who have something unique going on in their performances. Me, I write songs that are interesting, without a gimmick. I'm just doing me." Now I find that quote much more interesting, and much more relevant. Allow me to explain. When I read that part of the quote it makes me think - "Well, this guy (Black Reign) is saying that hip-hop has a lot of performers who use gimmicks to gain popularity. He claims that he's not one of those performers, that he doesn't use gimmicks (which I take to mean that he's the same guy on stage as he is off), he's not "fronting" or creating a false persona to be accepted, rather he's just being himself.". Maybe I've totally misunderstood what he's trying to say there, maybe not. Whatever the case may be, I think the quote you included was, well, fluf, and hardly relevant to your story, the second part (which I reprinted above) seems to be more relevant to the whole issue of whether or not Black Reign claims to be a real-life gangsta or actually "tougher" than he actually might be in real life. To be totally honest, I haven't bought any of Black Reign's mix tapes, nor have I seen him perform. I have listened to the songs he has posted on his MySpace page though, and while I'm not going to go to the trouble of transcribing his lyrics here (forgive me) I will say that, in song, it seems to me that he does try to come across as a tough guy, the kind of guy who isn't going to take any shit or (I think the following is a correct quote but I really have no desire to listen to his tracks again so it might be off) "talk things out". I guess I'm trying to say that, despite his claim that "I'm just doing me.", I just don't buy it. Maybe if his songs were about working the old 9 to 5 and then going out to his car to put on a doorag, hip threads and some serious bling before getting on stage to tell people how it goes down on the cold, hard streets of Brandon, well then I'd buy his "just doing me" thing. It's kinda like the "gutterpunks" who go spanging after getting dropped off in downtown St. Pete by dear old Mom in her new Benz. Laughable. Again, when you get down to it, I think I do understand why you didn't include that second part of his quotation, it wouldn't have added any strength to your arguement. More than likely it would have underminded it. I still can't figure out why you included the excerpt of the quote that you did though, as it really doesn't have much to do with your article. Maybe that was the intent, maybe not. I'll admit, I've probably totally gotten off base here and not addressed the "real" issue but I don't think it matters. Does it? I've tried to put my jumbled up thoughts into words and chances are I haven't done a very good job of it. What the hell. At least I tried. In conclusion I guess I'd say that I really think your column was just an excuse for Creative Loafing to heave another cheap shot across the *tbt bow. I find it hilarious because it's not like Creative Loafing is really in any position to levy charges of unprofessionalism against anybody else. C'mon, let's be real, the C.L. is just as much of a rag as the *tbt, both publications basically suck, that's why they're free right? Well Mr. Tatangelo, it's been fun, a total waste of my time but, hey, I feel like I owe it to you, I mean you consistently discredit yourself further and further in practically everything you write, I love how you make serious gaffes and then how your editors and fellow staff members back you up, I amazed that you've never said that you're sorry for anything you've written, no matter how uncool, flawed or unprofessional it might be, you truly are one in a million and I couldn't think of anyone alive more suited for your position with Creative Loafing. I'm ashamed to admit it but I'm looking forward to your next awkward, in print, faux-pas. I can't imagine what you'll do or say next. No doubt you will surprise me. Gotta love it. Love, Dration P.S. - If you're thinking - "Wow, this nut-job really doesn't like me!" - you're right, I don't. We've never met and I truly hope it stays that way. You're best off not asking why though, I'm positive you wouldn't like to know. I do apoligize for my rotten grammar/punctuation/run-ons/etc., I honestly never paid much attention in school.
RE: tbt* misfires
Posted by Joe on 11.16.07 @ 05:40 PM
is the fact that because of a senseless act someone is dead... both TBT & CL are capitalizing on a travisty with these articles shame on both of you!!!
RE: tbt* misfires
Posted by John on 11.16.07 @ 04:55 PM
Between the writer, the rapper and the public the one with the biggest concern about this headline is . . .Creative Loafing. Methinks the issue is less to do with concern about the accuracy of tantalizing headlines (as CL has had a few doozies in it's history as well) and more to do with erosion of marketshare. I'm not an expert but would presume TBT's target demographic and CL's is similar - if not the same. Frankly, this piece reads like the literary equivalent of the school yard bully picking on the new kid. I am intrigued by the fact Wade is posting to defend his article in this forum. In my narrow experience that's unusual. I would think an author with confidence in their work would allow it to stand on its merits without the need for running commentary. Different strokes I suppose . . .