<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<BODY.CONTENT>
<UID>
9502090094
</UID>
<PUBLICATION>
DETROIT FREE PRESS
</PUBLICATION>
<DATE>
951210
</DATE>
<TDATE>
Sunday, December 10, 1995
</TDATE>
<EDITION>
METRO FINAL
</EDITION>
<SECTION>
SPT
</SECTION>
<PAGE>
1F
</PAGE>
<ILLUSTRATION>

</ILLUSTRATION>
<CAPTION>

</CAPTION>
<BYLINE>
MITCH ALBOM
</BYLINE>
<AFFILIATION>

</AFFILIATION>
<MEMO>

</MEMO>
<COPYRIGHT>
Copyright (c) 1995, Detroit Free Press
</COPYRIGHT>
<HEADLINE>
IS THERE GIVE WITHOUT TAKE? SOMETIMES
</HEADLINE>
<SUBHEAD>

</SUBHEAD>
<CORRECTION>

</CORRECTION>
<BODY>
Tis  the season when giving is in fashion. You see Santa Clauses ringing
bells for needy causes. Food banks and clothing drives are in full gear. And
in our multimedia world, even TV, print and  radio are involved in "helping
out."

  But lately I've been wondering how much is help and how much is
self-promotion. I should say right here that I am a little cynical about this.
In covering sports,  I have seen some big-name athletes have their photos
taken with sick children when the athletes had 1) no idea where they were, 2)
no real concern for the kids, 3) appointments that they wanted to get  to
quickly. The "charitable acts" were just photo opportunities, set up by agents
to enhance their clients' images -- along with their endorsement power.

  And the media gobbled it up.
  So you'll  pardon my skepticism. Personally, I believe in the  axiom "the
highest form of charity is that which is given anonymously."
  In today's world, not much is anonymous.
  So you pick your spots.  Good and bad.
  Take, for example, the news on WDIV-TV, Channel 4, in the segment it calls
 "Ruth to the Rescue." Ruth is Ruth Spencer, a quality TV journalist with 15
years'  experience. Her role  for the last two years has been  "consumer
advocate reporter," helping to uncover scams and dangerous products -- based
on calls and letters from viewers.
  This is not a new concept. Newspapers,  radio and TV stations have been
doing it for a while. Spencer will go through hundreds of letters and select
those "we feel would help the largest number of consumers." It might be
roofing scams, or  how to ensure your car mechanic isn't lying.
  Usually, the Channel 4 investigations get some action. After all, if you
were a sleazy company and saw a TV crew coming your way, you'd straighten up
pretty fast. In most cases of "Ruth to the Rescue," there is some good done,
and there is a happy ending.
 From the disturbing . . .
  Of course, they  wouldn't be media if that happy ending weren't  part of
the story. Last week, after Spencer and her staff helped a group of local
school kids get tickets for an ice show, the kids sang a "thank you." 
  Channel 4 filmed it and used it as a promo.
  Was this self-serving? Yes. But it's nothing any other TV station -- or
radio station or newspaper -- wouldn't do.
  Sure, it would be better if the good deeds were done without fanfare. But
these  are  media. At least Spencer's segment is truly about helping people.
  Now let's go to the other end of the spectrum. Some of you might have
heard a nighttime radio program in this market that claims  to be a sort of
sex-help talk show. If you listen for five minutes, you realize what that
means is talking as dirty as possible under the guise of "clinical sexual
advice."
  Last week I heard something  distressing. A woman called in and began to
talk about her "problem." She was a home health care worker, who was taking
care of a 33-year-old attractive woman who had suffered an accident and was
paralyzed.  This accident victim couldn't feel anything.
  The health care worker, who bathed her, was admitting on this radio show
how she'd been fondling this woman, and eventually sexually molesting her, all
 without the woman's knowing, because she couldn't feel or -- at certain
angles -- see what the worker was doing.
. . . to the truly redeeming
  Anyone listening would have been shocked. But you  could almost hear the
glee of the hosts. Instead of tracing the call and calling the police --
people have gone to prison for far less than what this  woman was describing
-- the hosts continued to milk  her for details. "Where do you touch her?"
"How do you touch her?" "What was her reaction?"
  Only after 10 minutes of this did one of the hosts dispense some tepid
"advice," saying: "Admit it, you're  abusing her, aren't you?"
  Yes. And the abuse runs both ways. These so-called "helpers" are really
only in the business of using people's sex problems to create a popular
program. It is no different from the glut of TV talk, which claims to be
"examining issues" when it's really just staging freak shows.
  In hopes of high ratings, of course.
  Like I said, you pick your spots. The media are  about being rated,
selling ads, copies, issues. It's hard to find anyone in them  offering help
anonymously.
  But just to show you the whole world hasn't gone kaput, let me end with
this news item:  In Memphis, someone sent St. Jude Children's Hospital an
envelope with a McDonald's Monopoly game piece inside. The piece read "Instant
Winner." It was worth $1 million.
  The envelope had no return  address.
  That story, I think, was for cynics like me.
  'Tis the season.
</BODY>
<DISCLAIMER>

</DISCLAIMER>
<KEYWORDS>
COLUMN; MEDIA; PROMOTION
</KEYWORDS>
</BODY.CONTENT>
