Anybody contacted?

[janetcatbird]

Hey guys, I hate to steal from other people but this poster on another board is not a member over here. Has anyone heard about this?

"Hey guys, I was just wondering if anyone else received this email. I did but I didn't want to call back for fear it might be some kind of weird hoax or something. Let me know...Jenn

'Hi there,

I?m a reporter for The New York Times, writing a story about fan reactions to the recent vote on Law & Order: Criminal Intent. I?d love to arrange a telephone interview at your earliest convenience. My deadline for this story is tomorrow, and it would be great if we could talk sometime today ? the sooner the better ? to hear your thoughts about the episode, the voting, and the responses to ?Great Barrier? on the message boards. Could you please call me in Los Angeles (******edited****** cell), or send a number where I might call you? Thanks very much!

Michael Joseph Gross '


Techguy, mind if I steal your post just so it's available? (If this is a problem I apologize and won't do it again.)

"No, I haven't been contacted. Michael Joseph Gross is a legitimate reporter for The New York Times as he co-authored the following "Great Barrier" article:
She's a Killer, and Her Life Is in Your Hands
By DAVID CARR AND MICHAEL JOSEPH GROSS (NYT)

Still, I'm curious too about whether anyone else got a similar e-mail."

And here's my response:
"No, I didn't get it--but then I have my email hidden at both message boards I'm a part of (I'm paranoid like that). If anyone does feel like doing this, of course, feel free to share my thoughts as a fellow member!
Catbird "


Lord, I can only imagine what people over here would have to say!

[Sirenna]

Hmm, sounds fishy to me. He could have posted the request on the board rather than e-mailed it. Better yet, he could have just READ the reactions to the vote on the thread.

I'd be careful about giving him your telephone number.

[Techguy]

janetcatbird said:

Techguy, mind if I steal your post just so it's available? (If this is a problem I apologize and won't do it again.)

I have no objections, Janetcatbird. In fact, I came over here to see if the topic was brought up, which it has, so I would have copied and pasted my reply here as well.

What I didn't say on the other site, but will here (I'll go back and amend my post accordingly), just because Michael Joseph Gross is a legitimate NYT reporter doesn't mean the person claiming to be him IS the real deal. And the manner in which the so-called MJG contacted the poster is highly suspicious, to say the least.

So I'd not only be wary of phoning this MJG person, I wouldn't send an e-mail reply either as there may be a virus or other Internet baddie lurking somewhere. I read somewhere that there are Internet phone billing scams attached to some e-mail messages, so the suggestion here is: CAVEAT EMPTOR!

[trisha]

Lol, you guys ;D Did you notice that we got a new member today with the handle MJGross?

I can see the subheading already, "Law and Order fans are a suspicious group"

Heh, didn't Rene Balcer explain us well when he said part of the appeal of the show was the fear of becoming a victim and the hope for justice?

Do us justice MJGross

[Sirenna]

A little suspicion never hurt anybody and it probably saved a few of them.

BTW, I only fear becoming a sucker.

;D

[janetcatbird]

Well, according to Techguy and the poster on the other board Observer talked to the guy (as did this poster, though she only gave him a cell-phone number). According to them the article comes out Tuesday, I guess either me or Techguy will keep an eye out and post it here if available.

Catbird

[Techguy]

Both Observer and MJG25 contacted me via IM about the survey. I only responded to Observer because my wife had concerns about phoning or e-mailing a perfect stranger with little or no time to check out his credentials.

MJG, if you are who you claim to be, I admit I am cautious, I feel I have to be careful about such situations. But if you want to know my opinions regarding the Nicole vote or any other CI matter, feel free to read them on this board and quote them if you wish.

I understand Observer did respond to MJG, so we'll have to rely on her to post here about the outcome of the survey.

[trisha]

I don't mind being quoted, and Sirenna all but begged for it the other day

[Patcat]

Well, trusting soul I am, I called him, and had an interesting conversation. I certainly think he's legit.

Patcat

[Sirenna]

trisha said:

I don't mind being quoted, and Sirenna all but begged for it the other day

I did say that, didn't I? Be careful what you wish for.

I'm looking forward to reading the article. Please post it for us!

[Patcat]

The article is in today's NYT at http:nytimes.com/2004/10/26/arts/television/26law.html

I am quoted, correctly, although it was part of a statement on my fears that the vote would obscure the show's general high quality. And I am 3 years younger than the age mentioned (G), but that was at a confusing point, so I don't blame the reporter.

I'm in the NEW YORK TIMES, and it's not in connection with an arrest or scandal (G).

Patcat

[Observer2]

Well, I was a bit disappointed in the online version of the article. I thought he was going to talk some about the later reactions, after people found out that the vote was a way to at least have a chance of getting Balcer’s preferred ending. Of course, the way articles are structured and edited, there may have been some of that in later paragraphs that were cut. I’ll be interested to see if the print version is any longer than the online version.

Of course, there may not be any of that in the story at all. He seemed a bit puzzled by my focus on the fact that the story was being affected. He said he would have expected my reaction to the vote to be focused on either a kind of ‘Don’t make me choose, I want to just sit here and be entertained’ response, or else a kind of ‘hey, cool, *I* get to decide, *I* get to have some power over this’ reaction. He was surprised that my reactions, when he asked about the vote, focused on something else entirely. He seemed to have a hard time accepting that the integrity of the story, or the importance of the character arc, or the intent of the writer, would matter all that much to a “fan.”

To be fair, he did end with a quote that ends, “...What's the point of discussing the characters if they don't stay true to what they might do, whether we like it or not?” so I guess he did register some of what some of us were saying.

But from his general expectations of ‘fans,’ he seems to have spent too much time at fan conventions, and not enough time reading this kind of board.

Now for the good news – the information I got *from* the reporter.

His contact at NBC sent him to this board. That means at least some people at NBC don’t only look at the official board – and the article confirms that the Universal board is the official board. If you follow the “www.wolffilms.com/criminalintent” link they give, it takes you to our old stomping grounds at Universal.

But at least someone at NBC is also sampling this board. It was kind of nice, actually, the way I found that out. He said his contact at NBC told him he should try to talk to Observer2, so I guess someone there likes my writing. I wonder if it’s our old friend who used to post at Universal? In any case, Mr. Gross contacted me through the PM system on this board, not just my email that’s listed on my Universal profile. So I asked him, and he said the contact told him he could find me here. So someone at NBC checks out this board as well as the Universal board.

That doesn’t mean we should abandon that board entirely... it’s still a place new fans often end up. But it’s nice to know that NBC is also checking out some different kinds of sites, getting a more balanced sense of the range of Criminal Intent viewers.

[Patcat]

Having a little experience as a reporter many years ago, I can tell you that the final version of this article has had several hands on it.

From my discussion with Mr. Grossman, I also learned that he had found me from this board, and I was flattered, I must confess, to discover that someone from NBC had directed him to this board and to me.

He seemed surprised when I said Nicole's living or dying wouldn't affect my appreciation of or watching the show, but he also seemed to understand my comment that I found episodes like WANT more typical of LOCI at its best,

Patcat

[Techguy]

Thanks to Patcat and Observer for their follow-up on the outcome of the survey. I'm also interested in how the print version of the article compares to the online version. Please keep us posted.

[Criminal Mastermind]

Hey, Techguy's not the only one who values his privacy For those who do not have the online subscription ...


October 26, 2004
Vote on Plot Raises Ire of 'Law & Order' Fans
By MICHAEL JOSEPH GROSS

fter NBC announced that viewers of "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" could vote online to decide the fate of a recurring character, the show's Internet fan message boards got rowdy. On the show's official message board, bloodlust was rampant ("it's time to do her in!!!!"); and on an unofficial fan forum, fans were consternated ("Criminal Intent is neither 'Survivor' nor some soap opera").

NBC had shown two different endings of the Oct. 17 episode of "Law and Order: Criminal Intent," one on the East Coast and the other on the West Coast. In the East Coast version, the character, a murderer named Nicole Wallace, got away from the series hero, detective Robert Goren, played by Vincent D'Onofrio. In the other version, she was killed. The online results were announced, and the winning ending was shown on the Oct. 24 broadcast; 53 percent of voters said that Nicole, played by Olivia d'Abo, should survive.

"The vote wasn't the biggest thing that ever happened on the show, but it was the biggest thing that ever happened on the boards," said Pat Ward, a 49-year-old library worker at Butler University in Indianapolis whose nickname at the unofficial fan site www.criminal-intent.us is "patcat." (In a telephone interview, Ms. Ward explained that the alias honors her two feline pets.)

According to the founder of that forum, who declined to be identified by any name but "Criminal Mastermind," membership rose by 14 percent in the week following NBC's announcement of the vote. The volume of postings jumped 31 percent.

Criminal-intent.us even conducted its own poll in advance of the NBC vote. The discussion string, titled "Law & Order: Tribal Counsel," borrowed from the language of "Survivor," and its outcome was the opposite of the official vote on NBC. On the message board, 68 percent voted to kill the Wallace character; 31 percent voted to let her live. But much, and perhaps the majority, of the discussion on the boards was not so much about the question at stake in the vote, as about the significance of the vote itself.

Initially, many participants condemned the electoral innovation as a publicity stunt.

Jennifer Bart, 28, who teaches music at a public high school in Phoenix (and spends about seven hours a week on the official "Criminal Intent" message board at www.wolffilms.com/criminalintent), said by telephone, "I wasn't really a fan of the whole voting idea. That a show of this caliber would resort to a reality-TV gimmick just blew me away."

Some of the most devoted fans were alarmed that merely casual viewers would have a say in the future of the show. "Not to be undemocratic, but should those people really be voting?" wrote a fan calling herself Nikkigreen.

Others said they wished that the creators of "Criminal Intent" would not allow themselves to be distracted by interactive possibilities.

Sirenna on criminal-intent.us wrote: "I personally hate, yes, hate that the audience is influencing the writing. It's not dumbing down the show that I fear, since most people who watch it welcome the more complicated storylines. It's the quick-fix mentality behind the whole thing. What's the point of discussing the characters if they don't stay true to what they might do, whether we like it or not?"