Smart Family Hires Entertainment Lawyer

What were you saying? I know it's fee based.

Makes me think of the story when Elvis, seeing Mel Torme singing on TV put a bullet through it.

No, the burden of proof is not on the family, because they've already stated their reasons. You're saying it's something other than what they're saying, so the burden is on you. Of course, if you'd rather just call me names than defend your position, that's fine.

And the Smarts have said that any money from the movie/book will go to childrens recovery foundations.

I think the Mitchells were obsessed with Germs (re:veils)

Yesterdays news, just as I said..

I would do the very same thing in their case and I will bet you a million dollars they donate every single cent to a missing children's organization.

Sorry, but I'd take that bet in a New York minute...

Im just frustrated that the Smart family will make moves to exclude all of the assault evidence in court and then sell the story to the media.

Still, if your daughter had been going to a homeless center alone recently, wouldn't you tell police that?

This is the first time I've heard of that.

I've been following the Iraq war very closely, and I have not followed the Elizabeth story for a while.

Would you be kind enough to post a link to such information, or at least, give me a hint where I can find it?

Thanks

That's fine, nothing wrong with living the principles of one's church.

APRIL 07, 2003
Smart Piece Stirs Firewall Debate
Reporters Wanted Parker Column Killed

By Dave Astor

NEW YORK -- Columnist Kathleen Parker received 2,000 e-mails -- 95% of them positive -- after criticizing the father of Utah kidnap victim Elizabeth Smart.

But Parker also angered some Salt Lake Tribune staffers. Eight of them signed a letter asking the paper's editorial page editor not to publish the column, setting up a situation where the wall between a newsroom and the opinion section came under debate.

Parker, of The Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel and Tribune Media Services, said in her column that Ed Smart had every right to appear before the media while his daughter was missing. But after Elizabeth was found, continued Parker, he should have moved out of the spotlight.

"This guy couldn't stay away from the cameras," Parker wrote. "I kept thinking, what's he auditioning for? Phil Donahue's empty chair? A second career as a talking head supporting the Amber Alert? Next time a child is abducted, look for Ed Smart to be warming the seat opposite Larry King.

"Smart may be a perfectly lovely guy under normal circumstances, but when he's in front of a camera, he becomes abnormal. Unlovely. An imitative man performing as he imagines a man should act under such circumstances. How else to explain his tearless whimpering impression of a man grateful for a miracle?"

Salt Lake Tribune reporter Linda Fantin saw a faxed version of the column and was angered by what she considered an "attack on a man who had suffered enough." She composed a short letter to Tribune Editorial Page Editor Vern Anderson, and got seven fellow staffers to sign it (several others declined). Fantin wrote in the letter that the column was "completely inappropriate for publication" in the Smarts' hometown newspaper, and added: "After what the Smart family has gone through, they -- and the community that rallied around them -- should not be subjected to the 'unlovely' comments of a half-cocked columnist."

Anderson said he had already decided not to run the column -- which he described as "mean-spirited and in poor taste" -- a day before receiving Fantin's letter.

E&P Online asked Anderson, Parker, and others involved in the situation whether or not the letter -- mostly signed by reporters, plus an executive news editor -- was an overstepping of bounds.

Anderson said the eight signers were "free to do what they wanted to do" (indeed, Fantin told E&P Online she wasn't reprimanded). He did add: "I think the letter was somewhat ill-advised. But, from my perspective, it was no different than readers calling in to say, 'Don't run the column.'" It was, said Anderson, eight other people offering their opinion.

Fantin said she can understand the reasons (including the perception Salt Lake Tribune reporters were trying to protect a source) why some people felt her letter wasn't a good idea. But Fantin doesn't regret her effort. She noted that if an editorial writer tried to advise her what to do as a reporter, "I wouldn't be offended, but wouldn't let it influence me."

Peg McEntee, the executive news editor who signed the letter, said: "I was in complete agreement with Linda. I thought the column was a personal attack on Ed Smart." She did add: "I had second thoughts about signing my name, but didn't want to take it back. Under normal circumstances there should be a wall [between the newsroom and editorial page], but this was so egregious."

Parker said: "Am I surprised that reporters took it upon themselves to protect a legitimate news subject? Do I think that some may have become emotionally involved with the story? Do I think that our new culture of sensitivity is manifest? I think these questions answer themselves."

She emphasized that the Salt Lake Tribune had every right not to run her column, but defended the piece. "Everywhere I went, people were talking about Smart's odd behavior. I merely cast a light on that phenomenon," said Parker, noting that many of the e-mails she received contained comments such as: "Thank you so much for saying what I was thinking. I was afraid I was the only one."

Did Parker ever receive 2,000 responses to a column before? "I think that's the most positive e-mail I've ever received," she replied. "Most people don't take time to write in agreement." Among the e-mailers, said Parker, were journalists writing to "express disappointment in what some are viewing as censorship."

Nearly 300 papers run Parker, and the Salt Lake Tribune will remain one of them despite the Smart column. "She has a lot of fans in our readership," said Anderson.

Parker did the Smart piece just before the start of the Iraq war. "I would not have written it after the fighting began," she said. "It would have seemed frivolous and inappropriate."

Source: Editor & Publisher Online - http://www.mediainfo.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1858771

Yesterdays news, just as I said..

I have not followe the Elizabeth story for a while, so I'm far behind.

You're right, the articles were published during the weekend.

Elizabeth went jogging TWO times before her abduction. She was excited to start running, it was something very different than what she had ever done in her life, she had signed up for the East High School track team, and was in training. She took Mary Katherine with her both times (it isn't wise to go jogging alone). After the abduction, the police took Mary Katherine over the jogging routes to see if anything would help her memory.

I did read somewhere that the proceeds from the photos are being donated to a childrens foundation. I'm trying to find the source. BRB.

What do you mean by a Mormon freak show?

The title of this opus should be "The Family Who Fooled Everybody".

Here's the Parker column referenced in post 151:

Curtain call: It's time for Ed Smart to exit the stage
By Kathleen Parker
ORLANDO SENTINEL

We know not to speak ill of the dead or to criticize people in mourning. But what about those kissed by Fate and hugged by the gods? Do we get to talk about them? I know of no applicable rule, but it seems to me that ecstatically happy people - especially those on the receiving end of miracles - are fair game. Which brings us to the very possibly weird Smart family.

I've hesitated until now to say anything for all the right reasons - regard for people's vulnerability under duress, respect for personal space and deep concern about the inevitable e-mail backlash from the vicariously offended. But after several days of watching Ed Smart's gratuitous emotional dervishes before television cameras, I've concluded that he has forfeited his right to privacy. Moreover, everywhere I go, Ed Smart is the talk. People comment in stage whispers about their discomfort with his melodramatic displays, then confess to feeling guilty for uttering a critical thought.

"Criticizing Ed Smart is like attacking Jesus," as one friend put it.

Why is that? Why do people feel like they're watching something they shouldn't - something inappropriate - then feel bad about being attentive to their instincts? That gut reaction of wanting to avert one's eyes - or reach for the shotgun - when Smart is on TV is in fact useful information.

There really is something wrong with this picture. Unwittingly, Smart has become not a spokesman for abducted children as he might have wished, but a human metaphor for the weirdness of our times.

First, let's be clear. I'm not talking about Smart's television appearances while his daughter was missing. More is never enough when children disappear. The more you can keep a child's name and face in the media, the better. I'm talking about after Elizabeth was home, when any father would have been applauded for stepping up to the microphones and saying: "We're deeply grateful for everyone's prayers and support. Now we're going inside our house and ask that you leave us alone. We have a family to mend."

Instead, this guy couldn't stay away from the cameras. I kept thinking, what's he auditioning for? Phil Donahue's empty chair? Next time a child is abducted, look for Ed Smart to be warming the seat opposite Larry King. Smart may be a perfectly lovely guy under normal circumstances, but when he's in front of a camera, he becomes abnormal. Unlovely. An imitative man performing as he imagines a man should act under such circumstances. How else to explain his tearless whimpering impression of a man grateful for a miracle?

His worst performance may have been his recounting of Elizabeth's first harp recital upon returning home. Yes, it is reasonable to wonder what kind of family asks their daughter to perform the day she gets home from nine months of captivity with a bizarre man who abducted her at knifepoint and declared her his prophesied bride. Was the recital an attempt to recapture normalcy, or was it an illustration of the degree of denial that keeps psychotherapists in vacation homes and prophets rich in willing disciples?

"Well it's been nine months!" he gushed girlishly, trying to mimic his daughter's apology for her rusty performance. Then he lapsed into another episode of dry-duct glossolalia and gratitude for the miracle that brought his daughter home. Too bad, one reluctantly infers, that the parents of all those other missing children didn't say the right prayers.

The disease of our times summarized by Andy Warhol's prediction that everyone would experience 15 minutes of fame has become full-blown and epidemic. We are all celebrities now, actors strutting and fretting for the portable stage that materializes when we land a palatable tragedy.

In Smart's defense, he may have been trying to please his audience out of gratitude. "To give back something," as we like to say. To share. Perhaps this is what makes people feel guilty when they admit that Smart seems creepy. On the other hand, maybe what they feel isn't guilt at all, but shame for everyone's lost dignity. And embarrassment for the single sin that goes unforgiven in our media culture: Ed Smart is a lousy actor. source

There was no doubt in my mind.

I think that the media would try to portray Mormons as freaks. That's all. I was not insinuating any veracity to the portrayal, it would simply make for a more Hollywood type movie.

Finally a non-defensive answer.