Dick Clark, Tom Heald and Steve Beverly

[tomalhe]

So you made the above post as fact when in fact you have no idea what happened. Even better.

What happened was that Tom Heald of TV Barn started the bogus Clark rumor to see if Beverly would bite on it. True to form, "The World's Foremost Authority" was reeled in hook, line, and sinker, claiming some sort of super-secret insider as his source, and Heald exposed the Perfesser as a fool later in the day, much to everyone's delight (with the probable exception of the Fool himself.)

IIRC, the Perfesser never did issue a retraction, or let on in any way, shape, or form that he had been had.

Hi, Tom Heald of TV Barn here.

Allow me to correct this.

Tom Heald had no intention of fooling Steve Beverly.

During the course of events, Tom Heald tried to stop Beverly from making a fool of himself twice. But he would have none of it.

Here's how my boss at TV Barn explained it:

The Dick Clark caper
Early on the morning of April 1, TV Barn contributor Tom Heald "reported" that Dick Clark had been named the new host of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." Whether because of its seeming plausibility — Clark, though older than Philbin, is notoriously cheap to hire, and ABC executives had been whispering their dissatisfaction with Regis for months — or simply because it was a Monday morning, many of us fell for the rumor. Hard.

Steve Beverly, a broadcast professor at Union University in Tennessee, keeps the comprehensive Web site TVgameshows.net. He passed along the rumor as fact, claiming to have confirmation from another source. (Turns out it was just a station manager who had read Tom's report.) Eventually Zap2It got interested, and the story made the wires.

We wish Professor Beverly had not deleted the fascinating posts from his site. But we understand his embarrassment. At one point, after Tom contacted him about giving story credit where due — while not revealing the hoax — Beverly wrote, "Zenentertainment.com [sic] and Game Show America [Beverly's site] both claim to be first to report the story online."

Later, in an e-mail to me, Beverly wrote: "I have a sense of humor and I don't mind being the victim of an April Fool hoax. However, when I did an April Fool of any kind, I have so labeled it clearly at the bottom of a webpage so people could not call it false reporting."

For the record, there was no way that could happen here. Tom doesn't have access to most parts of TV Barn — only the area where he posted his message. But by cleverly linking his story to two sites, he created a closed loop of unsubstantiated gossip that should have made his Tomfoolery evident to all. (Eventually, even I caught on.)

Another reader, who would rather remain anonymous, later e-mailed me: "I want a Three Stooges t-shirt, so I can wear with distinction a sign of the tribe I have obviously joined. … I was gutterally screaming at my desk, I was so incensed; it was like casting a corpse on the one game show I can still enjoy watching. And THEN …" There, there, dear reader. Rest assured, you weren't alone.

In all, it was a brilliant caper and our hats are doffed to Tom.

[tomalhe]

Here's my explanation of things at the time:

From:  tomalhe@aol.com
Date:  Wed Apr 3, 2002  11:08 pm
Subject:  Re: [tvbarn2] MILLIONAIRE Syndicated Host

 
To answer a few questions raised during the whole Dick Clark thing....

>I'm confused.

You're not the only one.
>
> >Who broke the story?
>
>> The link posted on TVBARN points to ZENTERTAINMENT's announcement of
> >Dick Clark, but ZENTERTAINMENT says it's TVBARN who announced the
> >choice of Dick Clark. That, my friends, is a circular link.

That was the point. It was intentionally sloppy circular linking by the same
person on both sites. Thus making sure the story had NO PROOF whatsoever.

Within an hour of posting it at both sites, I received an email from a
colleague, who said they almost believed, it, but noticed my name was on both
stories, and thought "aha April 1."

>> Could ZENTERTAINMENT (via Mr. Heald) have made
>the mistake of not
> giving credit to TVgameshows.net?

Nope. TVgameshows.net received an email from someone who'd received an email
from someone who'd received word about a fax -- which is somewhere between
three and five hours of the entirely bogus story being online before it was
printed as fact, along with several opinions reported as facts.

I wrote TVgameshows.net asking where they got the story from, and was told
there was no way in hell was the story from TVBarn.com or Zentertainment.com
TVgameshows.net was the only place that had this exclusive story.

After the sources were challenged, the story changed at TVgameshows.net in
two ways: the fax was mentioned for the first time, and ZEN was listed as
"another site" that claimed to have broken the story.

The site who swore up and down that I was not his source, now inadvertently
claimed I was his source. But still he didn't check. He didn't look at either
site. He didn't get his story from either site. if he had, he would have
given full credit to either site.

The problem remained. I knew I was joking, but was TVgameshows.net? The site
had run a few years worth of incredibly hokey April Fools pages. Not stories,
PAGES. Really lame lame stuff. Like Bob Barker being added to Mount Rushmore,
or Arelene Frances' fashions now being provided by Wal*Mart. The problem was
TVgameshows.net has never been all that funny.

So at this point, either TVgameshows.net had learned to write satire all of a
sudden, or, without calling Miss Cleo, I had predicted the future. Dick Clark
was ACTUALLY going to host "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire."

Only after Dick Clark's spokespeople and Disney / Buena Vista spokespeople
denied there were any facts to the story, when Zap2it.com actually DID
research things, was it researched that the infamous fax TVgameshows.net
received was DRUMROLL PLEASE ... my story at Zentertainment.com.

Now I write funny stuff at TVBarn. I write stuff funny at ZEN. There's a
difference. At Zen, I make a lot of dry bland press release information into
an entertaining read.

At Zen, 100% of my work is based on heavily researched and documents stories
-- mostly from reading 10-20 newspapers mostly industry trades, and major TV
news columnists before going to bed, so I can get up and do my real paying
work. For the most part, I don't review stuff for Zen.com so none of my work
there is opinion and I ALWAYS credit my sources.

You read a list of 2-10 names at the bottom of my TV history column for
TVBarn as well. I have no smoky anonymous sources. No insider info from
production companies, no leaked info, that I shouldn't reveal.

Frankly, I do have several friends working on several TV shows in various
parts of the industry. Aside from a rare documented exception, I don't pump
my friends for info. Yes, I knew ______ was leaving _______. These people had
actually called me to tell me. ________ told me he was working on a new show
about _____. Blank told me there would be an addition season of ______. But I
was sworn to secrecy. And when it made the newspapers, it was on the
producers timetable.

So when you have a not one but two items that come from the same writer that
list no real proof, whatsoever, people put together that 2 + 2 = 5.

>That site says that it got
> confirmation early this morning,
>and it doesn't mention getting the
> news from any other site.
> >Credit where credit is due?

If TVgameshows.net had asked to see the fax, had asked where the fax came
 from, and actually bothered to determine that it was a source with no proof,
 on April 1st. there would have been no problems.

> TVgameshows.net got 4th or 5th-hand gossip from reliable sources that it did
> not bother to check. It published a story that had no proof, because it was
> in a rush to be the first site to break the story. As mentioned above, when
> I did try to break a story for TVBarn, I had not obtained permission to
> quote the source on the record. I learned my lesson.

 Even in admitting it got taken, the man behind TVgameshows.net published
 private emails of mine, without my permission. Further, in his "apology" he
 did not credit Zap2it.com for direct quotes from Clark's people of Buena
 Vista's spokesman for their investigation. And he hopes this whole mess has
 not tarnished MY reputation.

 My hard earned reputation as a guy who writes funny stuff on the Internet.
 At times realistic stuff. But when I write, I don't write for dumb people.
 I assume that people who read "Tom Snyder admits to being most infamous
 skyjacker in history on new talk show" will get the joke and not ask, "Wow
 this sounds great! What channel is this talk show on?" I love absurd humor.

Here's what's absurd about the story I wrote. Anyone who follows game shows
would remember that Dick Clark brought "GREED" to FOX as a cheap rip-off of
Millionaire. Most of the gossip at TVgameshows.net has said they want a young
guy for the syndicated series. They want to make it more a comedy show like
"Weakest Link," maybe Jon Stewart, maybe Dana Carvey. ACCORDING TO ALMOST EVERY RUMOR PUBLISHED BY TVGAMESHOWS.NET, DICK CLARK IS THE LAST PERSON THAT WOULD EVER BE HIRED FOR THE JOB. Go figure.

I'm being blamed for someone else's bad journalism because I don't put smiley
faces at the ends of sentences. Or say when I'm joking. I'm the bad guy
because I think that if you're a subscriber or reader of TVBarn you probably
have cultivated tastes, or the assume you're checking out the latest snarky
buzz at Sean Jordan's ZEN that you're hip to the jive.

And I fooled people on April Fools' Day. And the website that got fooled, not
only screwed up, it screwed up several times ruining its own reputation.

[tomalhe]

And here ... for the first time almost two years later is the first unedited public log of what Professor Beverly (Innocent Victim) and Tom Heald (Master Manipulator, and bad Journalist) told one another, until I started blocking his mail.

Subj: Millionaire @ tvgameshows.net
Date: 4/1/2002
To: steve@tvgameshows.net

Hey Steve?

I wrote the Clark / Millionaire story up at both TVBarn.com and
Zentertainment.com several hours before they appeared on your site and can
prove it by timestamps on the material. If you're using either source for
material, we'd appreciate credit.

Tom

Subj: Re: Millionaire @ tvgameshows.net
Date: 4/1/2002 8:41:42 AM Mountain Standard Time
From: steve@tvgameshows.net

TOM:

I'd give you credit in a New York second but you weren't the source then or
now. I didn't go to your page and I don't care who was first or who wasn't.
I'm not playing that kind of game with anyone. If I get it from you, you get
the credit. But I didn't. You don't know my source, anyway, I'm certain.

STEVE


Subj: Re: Millionaire @ tvgameshows.net
Date: 4/1/2002 3:47:44 PM Mountain Standard Time
From: TOMALHE

Well, Steve, mine is an April Fools Joke, that I've had cooked up for the
last several weeks. So either we came up with the same gag simultaneously, or
I've predicted an actual showbiz move.

The question over it is, I already had mail over my pieces, before your site
had changed, and when you've done an April Fools page, it's quite obvious on
the page that all the days stories are fake, right? So it's not a question of
who owns the gag, I just wanted to make sure you weren't believing my story,
and just making it longer.

Tom

Subj: Clark
Date: 4/1/2002 7:21:37 PM Mountain Standard Time
From: steve@tvgameshows.net

TOM:

By now you probably are well aware of the major denials and accusations of
this entire thing being a hoax for April Fool about Dick Clark.

As it turns out, my source, who is Norm Miller----an old and dear friend who
is station manager of a Memphis affiliate----had received a fax and e-mailed
me to tell me of Dick getting the job. Norm called me around 4:15 this
afternoon to apologize and tell me that he had been misinformed and his
source for the information was a fax of the zenentertainment story sent to
him by another station manager. The same manager had just told him of
Clark's publicist denying the story.

Had I known this was your report Norm was quoting, I would have definitely
credited you.

What gives? Is this indeed an April Fool prank? If not, then someone is lying in Clark's camp. If it is, why this? I did an April Fool edition in 2000 but it was clearly labeled in big block letters on the same page APRIL FOOL!

I'm disclaiming the entire thing until I can get a phone call through to Clark's people.

STEVE

Subj: Re: Clark
Date: 4/1/2002 9:35:16 PM Mountain Standard Time
From: TOMALHE

Let me recap the events of the day, Steve.

You :
- printed an exclusive story, based on word of a fax of a story that
offered no proof, then made up several opinions based on the factless story,
if only to make your own story... longer.

- Denied privately the story came from Tom Heald,

- Rewrote the story and confirmed inadvertantly that I wrote it.

- And then finally after being told it was a hoax, finally went and
confirmed the original story.

That about right?

Now, 90% of what I write for TVBarn.com is satire. I write real weekly talk
show listings + fake tv listings, real TV history with fake punchlines, and
daily tv previews with fake descriptions. I expect to fool a lot of the
people a lot of the time, and I have.

From Tom Snyder's "colortini" website: "I've had several inquiries about a
new show I am supposedly doing for late night. A writer named Tom Heald wrote
some material for a website named TVBarn.com. It is run by Aaron Barnhart,
who is the television critic for the Kansas City Star. Mr. Heald, as a joke,
ran a schedule of shows entitled 'Tom Snyder, At Home in California.' The
topics ranged from 'Dinner with The Companion' to 'Frisbee in the Park with
Oliver.' Some people got the joke. But some thought it was for real. I am
here to tell you that it isn't. However, I am not at all peeved at Mr. Heald.
Seven years ago a television writer for the New York Daily News, named David
Bianculli, playfully suggested that CBS put me on after Dave Letterman. Had
he not done that the LateLateShow probably would never have happened."

The problem today is that for a Journalism professor, you really really got
taken by an April fools joke.

Tom

Subj: Re: Clark
Date: 4/1/2002 9:51:25 PM Mountain Standard Time
From: steve@tvgameshows.net

I don't deny much of what you just wrote in your e-mail. I also love
people like you who enjoy taking pokes at people who happen to be
communications professors with cheap jokes and sit back and enjoy your
laughs. They're a dime a dozen.

I admit being snookered and this has really reinforced me again about
several things. Writing satire is one thing. Nothing wrong with
it. Spicy. Funny. But you used two websites, including one which is
regarded as highly credible within the industry because of the quality of the
man who created it, to perpetuate a lie without a disclaimer and find what
you have done nothing more than an April Fool's joke.

Good. You are a equally a prime example of first-rate journalism. I hope
Aaron, for whom I have enormous respect, appreciates how his site was used.

STEVE

Subj: Re: Clark
Date: 4/1/2002 11:37:53 PM Mountain Standard Time
From: TOMALHE

I understand your denial of "I got taken in by a world class hoax" has to
make you the poor victim, Steve, but you did not ask my permission to quote
my private emails to you. That's a poor understanding of internet ettiquette.


I've revealed the details of April 1, at atgs, TVBarn, and an about to reveal
at ZEN , and have done so without printing any private conversations. And
since a lot of this depends on sources, I'd think you'd actually quote the
source of the Clark and Buena Vista denials, the story at Zap2it. com.

>But you used two websites, including one which is
>regarded as highly credible within the industry
>because of the quality of the man who created it, to
>perpetuate a lie without a disclaimer and find
>what you have done nothing more than an April Fool's joke.

That's likely a private matter between Aaron and myself.

You have the Associated Press to take to task as well, for their annual feed
of bogus stories. And on April 2nd, the newspapers write a followup on how
many calls they got by their hoaxes.

I give my audience credit for being able to determine whether I'm joking
without using a smiley face a the end of every sentence, of spray painting
JUST KIDDING at the end of a paragraph. I don't test my writing to make sure
it can be read by 8th graders.

If this hits Reuters, Variety, the New York Post, Hollywood Reporter, USA
Today, etc., TVBarn and Zen get credited for having fun on April Fools.

If you want to slam me on your site as a master manipulator, go ahead. I
don't think it happens to make you look very good at any point in the whole
affair.

[Craig Karlberg]

It sounds like this guy from TVBarn wants to discredit the Professor in such a way as to humiliate him to death regarding the Dick Clark story two years ago.  That leads to the old saying "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me".

Speaking of Clark, he was reportedly accused of age discrimmination according to the creator of Lingo.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'Mar 2 2004, 03:20 AM\'] It sounds like this guy from TVBarn wants to discredit the Professor in such a way as to humiliate him to death regarding the Dick Clark story two years ago.  That leads to the old saying "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me". [/quote]
 "This guy from TV Barn" has been a contributor to this forum in it's various forms a whole damn lot longer than you have, so I would suggest not drawing conclusions if you don't know the whole story. This was all offered of his own free will to clarify my own comments, and we should be thankful he posted them. I for one find them immensely entertaining.

And from the looks of it, as usual, my impression is that the Perfesser did a fine job of discrediting himself.

Tom: Thanks for the insight. Please accept my apologies if I misrepresented you in any way. I see now that the Perfesser wasn't a "target" for your prank, it's just fortunate happenstance that he fell for it.

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'Mar 2 2004, 05:20 AM\']Speaking of Clark, he was reportedly accused of age discrimmination according to the creator of Lingo.[/quote]
On another thread--and it seems to me that the folks at IDTV created "Lingo," not Ralph Andrews--he only had the North American license for it.

[inturnaround]

Good stuff. I would humbly suggest that this is Archive-worthy...Tom's posts, not mine.

[Brandon Brooks]

It sounds like this guy from TVBarn wants to discredit the Professor in such a way as to humiliate him to death regarding the Dick Clark story two years ago. That leads to the old saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

You haven't the foggiest idea of what you're talking about.  Comment on what you know.

Speaking of Clark, he was reportedly accused of age discrimmination according to the creator of Lingo.

Woolery left Wheel.

Brandon Brooks

[GS Warehouse]

[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Mar 2 2004, 05:20 PM\'] Woolery left Wheel. [/quote]
 Breaking news: Uday and Qusay Hussein are still dead.

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Mar 2 2004, 09:22 PM\'][quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Mar 2 2004, 05:20 PM\'] Woolery left Wheel. [/quote]
Breaking news: Uday and Qusay Hussein are still dead.[/quote]
Or in the words of Keith Olbermann, "Uday, Qusay, ed-day."

ObGameShow:  Talk about your family pair!  Now that's a Blockbuster!  (ducking)

[GS Warehouse]

[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Mar 3 2004, 03:02 PM\'] [quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Mar 2 2004, 09:22 PM\']Breaking news: Uday and Qusay Hussein are still dead.[/quote]
Or in the words of Keith Olbermann, "Uday, Qusay, ed-day."

ObGameShow:  Talk about your family pair!  Now that's a Blockbuster!  (ducking) [/quote]
 [throws blocks at uncamark]

[tomalhe]

[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'Mar 2 2004, 05:20 AM\'] It sounds like this guy from TVBarn wants to discredit the Professor in such a way as to humiliate him to death regarding the Dick Clark story two years ago.  That leads to the old saying "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me".

Speaking of Clark, he was reportedly accused of age discrimmination according to the creator of Lingo. [/quote]
 The intentions of the guy from TV Barn are to play down any sort of undue folk hero status that seemed to have been conferred up on him, intentional or imagined.

The guy from TV Barn did nothing to Mr. Beverly, Important Journalism Professor, except repeatedly tell the truth, in an attempt to help him.

Mr. Beverly brought any humiliation upon himself. He'd have suspended any student who was caught doing anything he did that day. Told he'd screwed up, he insisted he couldn't be wrong, because there's no way the actual author of a ridiculously simple ruse (which could be proved false by numerous items he'd "written himself") could know the information given to someone as important and "trusted" as he is. And the only way he was fooled is because everyone hates him, and it's a legitimate conspiracy. (Not that he might have more issues than Rosie Magazine did.)

Any entrapment was imagined.