The station posted the following message on its Facebook page:

TO OUR READERS & FOLLOWERS: We heard you. Wednesday night, we made a poor judgment call in posting a story about Charles Ramsey’s criminal record and how he’s since reformed. While the story was factually sound, the timing of it and publication of such information was not in good taste, and we regret it. Your comments prompted us to quickly remove the story from our website and Facebook page, but we know we can’t erase what we’ve already done. Ramsey is a hero for his actions, and we recognize that. Thank you so much for your feedback.

I opined about this HUGE misstep a few days ago. I talked about the disconnect between the public and media.

Why in the world WEWS thought that this information Ramsey’s was at all relevant and that the public had ANY interest in hearing it is beyond me.

This was more than poor judgement. If such a mistake happened in the public sector, I am sure reporters, producers and other management at that station would be doing stories about how someone should be fired.

But this isn’t the public sector. Or even a regular business.

It’s a news outlet.

And WEWS wants viewers to accept an apology and it should all go away.

I will say this: It is smart that WEWS apologized. It is smart that WEWS admitted it was wrong.

But I would like to know what action station management is taking to make sure something like this doesn’t happen again.

True enough no one died with this mistake. But someone’s reputation was harmed. And I am in the reputation business.

Charles Ramsey was being hailed a hero and then, boom, you have WEWS reporting Ramsey’s history which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the story.

The story was planned and executed and the fact that no one had the judgement to stop it is quite frankly scary.

And if that newsroom operates like a runaway train–that may be even worse.

Either way it’s bad.

What happened is so far off the mark and out of bounds I get madder ever thinking about it. I am a former reporter and anchor. I worked in TV 20 years. I know intimately what I am talking about.

The station may have apologized. But WEWS has not addressed how it plans to fix the editorial issues which clearly exist there. And until the station does, WEWS is one news story away from doing this again.

Sure would love to hear what you think. You can do so below…

It isn’t the “National Enquirer” (no offense to the “National Enquirer”) reporting this. It’s the Associated Press. Yes, the AP.

If you aren’t aware, the AP is one of those rare journalism outfits that reports only things that it can be really sourced. It goes above and beyond in sourcing stuff. If the media outlet cannot confirm what it needs to, it will pass on the story. Its standards are that high. (Unfortunately the same can’t be said for all news outlets.)

Officials at three publishing houses told the Hollywood Reporter they have been “contacted about a planned memior by Collins, the first active player in any of four major U.S. professional sports leagues to come out as gay,” the paper wrote.

The publishers told the Hollywood Reporter “on condition of anonymity” that “Collins was working on the book with Sports Illustrated‘s Franz Lidz, to whom he broke the news that he was gay, and was being represented by Kristine Dahl of International Creative Management.”

That’s a lot of detail.

But via his Twitter account, Jason Collins said the reports are not true.

He tweeted: , “I have no current plans to write any books. Sorry to disappoint my literary loving fans.”

In a statement, Jason Collins’ agent, Arn Tellem, also denied the claim: “As you can imagine, we’ve been inundated with all kinds of requests and various opportunities, but as of now have not had any discussions on behalf of Jason regarding a potential book deal because Jason has yet to decide if he wants to write a book.”

Hmmm.

I have to be honest with you. I am inclined to believe that Jason Collins IS shopping a book. His tweet was flaky in that technically he may not be lying. It was a Clintonesque-a-la-Monica-Lewinsky type of response.

Technically, if you disect what he said, Jason Collins’ tweet could mean that he has not set aside time to begin writing a book. It does not mean that he is not shopping a book or has any long-term plans to write a book.

But he knows what news outlets are reporting and he knows his answer will lead people astray, so he is comfortably in that grey area of lying from where I sit. And lying is something I always tell clients never to do.

As for the agent: That agent may not have had any discussions about a book deal him. It may be one of Jason Collins’ other reps that have. But if someone on Jason Collins’ team is shopping a book, that too is borderline lying.

So if the reports are true, why would he or his reps go out of their way to mislead?

Why not just fess up… or simply not respond?

Good rhetorical question you ask!

He and his reps may feel that shopping a book makes it seem like that he had alterior motives when he came out of the closet… that it wasn’t about helping other players make the transition or show today’s youth that it’s okay, but that it was about making money.

Some might say that. That is true. But would that really be the prevailing wisdom?

And, wow, what a shallow perspective that would be. In my calculation, it is not likely that MOST people would feel that way.

Why not spin the story that Jason Collins understands his place in history as the first professional athlete to reveal he is gay and there is understandably a lot of interest in his story. So he wants to share his story in hopes of making a difference.

He can even give some of the money to charity–or create a foundation of his own.

There are many other paths he could take, too.

But why would Jason Collins choose to lie or mislead? That is the worst option and just plain unnecessary.

If Jason Collins feels like his family and the world could handle the truth about his sexual orientation, then how about giving them enough credit to understand why he might want to write a book and why a company would be interested in paying money to publish it.

That’s my thoughts. What do you think? Sound off below!

Unless you are a bartender, under mostly any circumstance doing an interview at a bar is a mistake.

It’s a huge problem if your name is Rob Morrison. Morrison, in case you are not following the story, is accused of trying to choke his wife. He’s reported to be involved with a string of domestic abuse allegations. It seems apparent that he has anger management problems. And there are reports of drinking problems, too.

So why in the world would the now former WCBS news anchor agree to an interview at a bar with a New York Postreporter?

Former WCBS news anchor Rob Morrison, before his arrest and after.

That venue only gives the appearance that he is drinking his problems away and that he, in fact, has a drinking problem.

That interview took place just hours after Morrison resigned his lucrative anchor job.

Even if he did not pre-arrange the interview and the reporter found him there, Morrison should have at least taken the interview outside or asked that the reporter leave that element out of the story.

EXCERPT FROM THE POST:

As he sat with The Post yesterday, the handsome, longtime local newsman blamed Ashley, a “CBS Money” anchor, for allegedly striking the first blow during an argument early Sunday morning after they watched “Mystic Pizza.”

He said Ashley, a petite, 115-pound blonde, bashed him in the face with a remote control — giving him a bloody nose and lip.

The 180-pound former Marine suggested she has abused him for years, and he denied choking her with both hands on the couch, as she told cops. When asked about the noticeable red marks on her neck indicated in the police report, he said, “What marks?”

Morrison denied ever threatening to harm their 7-year-old son, Jack, even though in a police report Ashley’s brother said Morrison warned that “he would shoot their son in front of her and then shoot her” if she ever left him.

Don’t even get me started on the fact that during the interview Morrison blamed his wife. Even if that’s true, or even if she is as much to blame, failing to take responsibility for your own behavior never plays well in the court of public opinion.

Rob Morrison clearly has a tough road ahead of him both personally and professionally.

If he avoids jail time, his judgement will need some major improving before he even begins to embark on a campaign to regain his life and career.

Burger King has more than 500 stores in the U.K.  New tests show that despite what Burger King publicly said for a couple weeks, the flat-out denials were simply false.

“It… raises serious questions about whether the food company, which sells around one million burgers a week in the U.K., has any good idea about what goes into its products,” writes the U.K. Mail. “These guarantees were incorrect in a revelation that threatens to destroy the trust of customers.”

So how big of a problem is this for BK? I don’t think Burger King is dead meat PR wise, but the company has a very serious problem on its hands.

The meat in question came from a supplier. Had BK not denied for so long and simply said it didn’t know for sure but is investigating, the situation would be bad enough.

Burger King could’ve blamed a lot of the horsemeat scandal on its beef supplier and explained that the company, too, was a victim.

Burger King could then have come up with a safety strategy so the public would be assured something like this would ever happen again.

But Burger King didn’t do that. And now Burger King, in addition to dealing with public backlash over selling the meat, is facing allegations that it orchestrated a cover-up to give it time to find a new meat supplier.

Burger King needs to get a hold of this crisis and project to the public that what has happened is unacceptable, even if eating horsemeat is not life threatening.

Because the company has made so many mistakes handling the situation so far, it has monumental work ahead to restore public confidence.

If Burger King thinks this is a minor issue that can be fixed simply with a new meat supplier, forget it. That ship sailed once BK flatly denied that it was involved when the company clearly knew that such a guarantee could not be given.

Though this scandal broke in the U.K. and Ireland, here’s another equally big problem for BK: The scandal will ripple across the pond to the U.S.

What the company has done so far has been grossly inadequate. If the company does not want long term damage, it needs to begin taking smart action now.

Lance Armstrong former major sponsor: Discovery. OWN is a joint venture between Discovery and OWN.

I love Oprah just like the next person. She does a great interview. But in some respects it’s mind-boggling as to why Lance Armstrong would choose Oprah and her fledging network, OWN, to launch a blockbuster media spin campaign.

So it made me wonder, why Oprah Winfrey?

OWN is a joint venture between Oprah Winfrey and Discovery Networks.

Guess who was one of Lance Armstrong’s biggest sponsors as he competed in the Tour de France? You guessed it: Discovery Channel. He was a member of the U.S. Postal Service/Discovery team between 1998 and 2005.

Is it just coincidental that Lance Armstrong would grant a HUGE interview to Oprah, co-owned by Discovery Networks, just as he begins to face big lawsuits from sponsors and others affected by his at that time alleged doping?

According to MediaBistro, around 3.2 million viewers watched the first part of the Lance Armstrong interview last night, and 1.1 million more tuned in for an encore presentation that followed. OWN averaged a “mere 330,000 viewers in prime time last year,” USA Today reported.

So… did Discovery lean on Lance Armstrong and push him into an interview to avoid a costly, lengthy lawsuit which most assuredly would come with huge damages for Armstrong?

Discovery knew the numbers Lance Armstrong could pull in for them. And considering the ratings OWN has been able to get on its own, it needed a big “get” like this from Lance Armstrong.

Plus this interview proves that Oprah and OWN can get the viewers and get the coverage.

This one interview put Oprah back into the big leagues. Overnight it changed the public’s perception of Oprah and the network.

Oprah is back. Her network is on its way. Everyone is talking about Oprah and OWN. This one interview easily produced tens of millions of dollars in positive PR.

In real money, how much is that worth? Is it worth agreeing not to pursue a multi-million dollar suit against Lance Armstrong if he did his first sit down with the original queen of talk?

The more I think about it, the pieces fit too well for this to be a coincidence.

Perhaps there was no quid-pro-quo deal going on here and this is just Lance Armstrong’s good-faith effort to avoid a costly lawsuit because he helped the network pull in big numbers.

So, was the cyclist’s back against the wall? Was this a win-win situation so he can still keep much of his estimated $125-million fortune accrued through cheating and lying?

There’s enough here for the media to start asking some questions. We all know more has been made of a lot less.

It’s only a matter of time before others start asking these same questions. My advice to Discovery is this: Prepare. And if possible pre-empt. They need to have their answers ready before the you-know-what-storm begins.

Discovery should remember that reporters love to discover things.

What do you think? Please opine below or on Twitter @GlennSelig.

Larry King, though he interviewed news makers, was not a hard core journalist. He is a talk show host.

But Savannah Guthrie of “Today” and NBC’s Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd are very real and very working. Both are influential journalists who also have been tapped for guest-starring roles on “1600 Penn.”

Am I the only one bothered by this… that real journalists covering some of the biggest issues facing the world today are appearing in a fictional comedy about the White House and the President of the United States (POTUS)?

I have nothing against the show. Really not. In fact I am rooting for it. Josh Gad, one of the stars and co-creator of the program, is the brother of good friends of my wife and mine.

“1600 Penn” also stars Bill Pullman as President Gilchrist (who played the president in Independence Day) and Jenna Elfman as the First Lady.

Also, full disclosure, I like NBC and want to see the network do well.

I totally understand why “1600 Penn” would want real journalists on the show. It makes fiction look real, it makes headlines, it can often be funny. I get it.

It is not unprecedented. Katie Couric and Paula Zahn had guest spots on the hit CBS show “Murphy Brown” that starred Candice Bergen as a fictional news show host.

1600 PENN -- Season: Pilot -- Pictured: (l-r) Martha MacIsaac as Becca, Amara Miller as Marigold, Benjamin Stockham as Xander, Bill Pullman as Dale, Josh Gad as Skip, Jenna Elfman as Emily, Andre Holland as Marshall Malloy -- (Photo by: Chris Haston/NBC)

Any appearance by a real news person on “1600 Penn” is built-in promotion for the program. Every time of these newscasters is on, you know each will talk about it on their respective shows. The more talk about the show, the more viewers. And ratings is the name of the game.

“1600 Penn” producers are smart.

(Watch a preview clip of “1600 Penn”)

I also see why the news division may want its news people, particularly someone like Savannah Guthrie, who took over as ”Today” show anchor when the network was getting less-than-flattering press for how it handled the departure of Ann Curry, to guest on the show. It could help further endear her to the public. And that can’t hurt a morning program that is trying to catch up to rival ”Good Morning America” on ABC that became the number one morning show after 20 years in second place.

It’s smart PR, right?

I think not.

On the surface, the opportunity would seem to present the  quintessential win-win.

But at what cost?

Doesn’t any appearance further erode the credibility of news people? News folk are supposed to be above the fray. They are supposed to be a news division that is separate from entertainment.

That slippery slope is sloping… and sloping.

No wonder the news business has an image problem. And as a former journalist, I don’t find that funny. I’d love to know what you think. Comment below or engage me on Twitter: @glennselig.

“1600 Penn” premieres Thursday, Jan. 10 at 9:30/8:30c on NBC.

Bob Costas generally offers opinions that are popular with the public. He’s been the sports commentator version of a populist politician, expressing positions that the vast majority of the public typically agree with.

Not this time when Bob Costas fired off his mouth on gun control.

Bob Costas used his halftime segment on NBC’s “Sunday Night Football” to talk gun control following the murder-suicide of Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher. Belcher shot and killed Kasandra Perkins, his girlfriend and mother of his child, multiple times and then killed himself.

Here’s what Bob Costas said in a segment that lasted 90 seconds:

“You knew it was coming. In the aftermath of the nearly unfathomable events in Kansas City, that most mindless of sports clichés was heard yet again, ‘Something like this really puts it all in perspective.’ Well if so, that sort of perspective has a very short shelf life since we will inevitably hear about the perspective we have supposedly again regained the next time ugly reality intrudes upon our games. Please. Those who need tragedies to continually recalibrate their sense of proportion about sports, would seem to have little hope of ever truly achieving perspective.

“You want some actual perspective on this? Well a bit of it comes from the Kansas City-based writer Jason Whitlock, with whom I do not always agree but who today, said it so well that we may as well just quote or paraphrase from the end of his article. “Our current gun culture,” Whitlock wrote, “ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead. Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions, and its possible connection to football, will be analyzed. Who knows? But here is what I believe, If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOi7If0zW9s

(View a clip of Bob Costas on gun control: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOi7If0zW9s)

The Christian Science Monitor writes an article published today asking the rhetorical question: ”Bob Costas advocates gun control during half time show. Did he cross a line?”

Yes, he sure did. People tuned in to watch a game, not to hear Bob Costas talk about gun control.

Plus it is up for debate whether this tragedy should lead even to a debate on gun control. In some people’s minds that would be a non-sequitur. Perhaps the talk should be about head injuries and not gun control.

The question at hand is not whether people agree with Bob Costas and his position on gun control. Clearly may do. But the issue is whether it was appropriate for him to do so in the context of a football halftime show.

In my analysis, it was a mistake for Bob Costas to speak out on air. It is simply irresponsible for him to use his sports pulpit to get on a soap box about gun control on NBC’s dime.

If he felt that strongly then he could’ve offered his comments on his personal time.

He’s entitled to his opinion. But he should offer it on his own time when the public has the chance to listen or tune him out and then agree or disagree.

Those watching NBC Sunday night did not get that option.

NBC has every right to be angry for the boatload of negative publicity that it may receive as a result of Bob Costas commenting on such a hot button topic on their time.

I believe even people who may agree with Bob Costas and his position on gun control think that this was NOT the time and place to offer that opinion.

Bob Costas gun control comments were out of bounds because it’s not only about what you say but when you say it.

The Stacey Dash Tweet was well under 140 characters, but boy did ‘Clueless’ star Stacey Dash cause an uproar.

‘Clueless’ star Stacey Dash appeared on CNN’s ‘Piers Morgan’ and said she was “shocked and saddened” by the response from her Tweet.

Here’s what happened.

On Sunday ‘Clueless’ star Stacey Dash Tweeted: “Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future.”

Not only did the Tweet generate lots of feedback from the public, she also got a not-so-nice response from fellow actor Samuel L. Jackson: “”Wait, did Stacey Dash really endorse Romney today?! REALLY????! Is she CRA………..??!”

GOP Vice President candidate Paul Ryan thanked ‘Clueless’ star Stacey Dash for her support.

Wow.

Now there’s the Twitter hashtag over the incident: #ISupportStaceyDash.

But should anyone really be suprised about the uproar?

Hollywood is filled with a bunch of liberal-leaning actors. So Stacey Dash is an anomaley. Of course her support is going to cause problems. She is way different in her political leanings than her colleagues.

Twitter or Facebook or social media in general are an electronic form of speaking your mind.

If Stacey Dash spoke up at a party and announced her support for Mitt Romney there she would’ve gotten the same reaction.

Then again, she may have thought about speaking up in that context and decided that saying that at a party in that company about a divisive presidential election would be a mistake and instead decide to play it safe and keep her mouth closed.

Whether it’s a Hollywood star, a CEO of a fast food restaurant that specializes in chicken, there’s a lesson: Know the risks about talking politics–whether it’s on the news, in person or on Twitter (or any social media.)

When you’re a star you are in a popularity contest. You also have power and influence. And speaking your mind when it comes to politics can cost you when it’s unpopular in your crowd.

I’m not saying that entertainers or anyone should shut up and never speak your mind. What I am saying is that they should be smart enough and aware enough that there may be consequences for opining.

It looks bad to posture that you’re smart enough to state an opinion but so clueless that you don’t realize that your words could cause a firestorm.

You know how all those smart wives remind their husbands that the house they’re going to dinner are staunch democrats and not to comment about President Obama?

When it comes to a divisive topic like gay marriage, Chick-fil-A’s president should know better than to chime in with his opinion.

Where was his filter? Did he lack one internally? Did his people ever advise him not to make a boneheaded move like speak publically about gay marriage?

My guess is this and I believe I am right: Everyone in his inner circle knew exactly how he felt about gay marriage. People with such strong opinions don’t hide them that well. And I am certain he spoke up about this before in other settings when media were not involved.

So what happened when he would speak up in meetings or intimate cocktail parties opining about gay marriage and how horrific it is and how wrong the country is for accepting it? Did anyone close to Dan Cathy say, ‘Hey Dan. I know you feel strongly and in this crowd it might be fine to say that, but don’t ever say that publicly! It would be really bad.”

My guess is no–no one said that. Perhaps they were afraid to say that. Sometimes people are afraid of telling powerful rich people that they can’t do something.

But isn’t that what advisers should be doing? Is it easy, no.

There’s a way to do it. There’s an art to it. But it has to be done.

If you don’t do it, it is only a matter of time before that bomb goes off.

I am not suggesting for a second that Dan Cathy be duplicitous. He should not do one thing and say another. He should not lie.

But he also should know when to say that he has his personal opinions but it’s not a good idea to speak out because he knows others have different opinions and he wants to be respectful of those other opinions and that’s why he keeps opinions to himself.

Refusing to jump into a toxic debate is a good business decision and he should have been smarter than to take the bait.

Dan Cathy has ignited the tinder box and now gay rights advocates see Chick-fil-A and its president as poster children of what’s wrong with America. The two are now the enemy.

You see how this is terrible for business?

Dan Cathy not only has risked upsetting all gay people and their families, but also his employees, who might very well have differing opinions.

It was indeed a stupid move on his part to jump into a debate that not only has stirred up trouble but one he knew or should have know he could not and would not win.

At the end of the day, we all have opinions. Dan Cathy may have strong opinions. But he should know when to express those opinions and should be wise enough to know that coming out publicly against gay marriage and condemning anyone who believes otherwise would be a huge mistake.

The pushback has been fierce and ferocious.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino is promising to block Chick-fil-A from bringing a store to Boston just steps from the famed Freedom Trail.

“If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies,” Menino told the Boston Herald newspaper.

So what does he and the company need to do now?

There is no easy answer.

But the first step in my opinion is to protect Chick-fil-A the brand and immediate separate Dan Cathy, the individual with a strong opinion, from the Chick-fil-A the company, an entity that is not a person or has any feelings whatsoever.

The public and the media are lumping the two together when we all know that corporations are legally and figuratively two separate entities.

Chick-fil-A needs to start there. Protect the brand.

If not, some of the public may indeed stop eating more chicken at Chick-fil-A.

“As I watched, I was anticipating a crash,” Los Angeles City Councilman Dennis Zine, a former veteran police officer told ABC News. “It was chaos. Total willful disregard for people on the roadway.”

When police caught up with him, Bieber said he was being chased by paparazzi. All Bieber got was a ticket. And the paparazzo pursuing Bieber may be charged criminally, according to a report in L.A. Times.

Though this incident is clearly a detour from music, Bieber is getting a positive bump from the negative press.

So why is that? Why are some celebrities like Teflon and nothing sticks?

Justin Bieber and his fast luxury sports car.

It may seem that way. And in some cases it is that way and the reasons why varies.

But I think in this case it has more to do with the incident.

Here’s what I mean: If, God forbid, someone were hurt in this ordeal–Bieber, a bystander, or both–the dynamic would change dramatically.

Some might still sympathize with Bieber because way back in people’s minds is Princess Diana and how she died while being chased by a paparazzo.

If Bieber were speeding because he thought he was hot stuff or under the influence and someone got hurt, then he’d be in trouble.

Context is important. In this case I can think there are many people who believe the paparazzi take it too far. And in the case of celebrities, almost all of them, the public wants to believe they did nothing wrong because, well, we “celebrate” them.

Which brings us back to this City Councilman who stepped forward to speak his mind.

Smart move? I’d say it won’t be a popular move.

In fact, I’d bet his political stock takes a hit because: He’s from L.A. complaining about a pop star and he’s complaining about a popular pop star who was chased by a paparazzo. I think in this one Bieber has most of the public on his side.

Sure the public believes it is wrong to drive that fast. And sure they know it is unsafe to drive that fast for any reason. But they also believe that someone stalking you, even if that person is a photographer, is also wrong.

They will be somewhat conflicted and because Bieber is a celebrity they will be sympathetic to Bieber and give him the benefit of the doubt.

Only if someone were hurt would this dynamic change. And thank goodness no one was hurt.

The City Councilman might have been better served by qualifying his argument. He should have said it was wrong for a paparazzo to pursue Bieber like that. But it is equally bad for Justin Beiber to drive that fast and someone could have been killed. He could have added had Beiber slowed down, the paparazzo would have, too and as a former police officer that would have been all the things he would examined as he considered whether he would recommend that the D.A. press charges or arrest him.

What do you think? Add your comments below…