THOUGHTS AT LARGE Newspaper Column 12-15-05
Note To Readers: This column details my recent interaction with the news department of a Cleveland TV station. The experience made me wonder - how often is this kind of tactic used while reporting other local stories?
"News for Sale"
c. 2005 Rod Ice
All rights reserved
A favorite subject for this writer is the regular dissemination of news by the commercial media. It is a topic full of anecdotes that might one day inspire writing projects. Having aggressive, talented reporters at work across America makes our nation truly unique. Our land is one of the few places on Earth where the government can be roundly criticized in public view, without any recriminations being taken.
Yet many readers, viewers, and listeners misunderstand the nature of news organizations. Nearly all papers, magazines, radio & television stations, and popular websites are funded by advertising dollars. They exist on a simple premise: sell product, and reap the rewards!
This system functions well to meet citizen needs for dependable fact dispersal. Yet it means that those who shepherd reporters are driven by the lure of ad money, circulation numbers, or ratings. One must ‘sell’ the output of reporters just like any other product. The work of promoting a regular news broadcast is no different than spinning a flashy, new comedy show. Sadly, sensationalism sells! Not many can resist the attraction of quick-strike journalism. Research and follow-up are left for bloggers and columnists to execute. In the real world, generating ‘more heat than light’ is a profitable enterprise.
As a freelance writer (and journalist) for the past 23 years, I have sometimes been embarrassed by the habits of those in my own profession. Recently, such emotions settled in my belly, as I ran afoul of a local television channel:
While serving one of my employers, I had to become instantly familiar with a situation involving local issues. As discussion about the event intensified during my workday, I discovered that the electronic media might be involved. This caused a grin because my own past (once an intern at a TV station in New York) meant that it was easy to imagine what might follow.
I tried to prepare mentally for an appearance by news cameras. Was it really possible that an urban powerhouse would invade the quiet of Geauga? The thought made me tremble. However, I silently reviewed details with the enthusiasm of a professional wordsmith. It became impossible to avoid speculation on the story. How would I tell the tale, if it was MY responsibility?
The moment of truth arrived at 10:50 PM. I was paged for a phone call, which happened to be someone from ‘Channel X’. I nearly laughed out loud because it was obvious that at such a late hour, he did not expect to find anyone from management on duty. (I guessed that he was hoping for some reckless observation from a junior associate.) He immediately asked about the incident, without any explanation of his intentions. My response was cordial, but professional. I told him that someone other than myself had taken care of this event. Also, that a member of the ownership team could provide ‘official’ analysis of the subject. But I was happy to offer three brief facts for his review: First, Those involved expressed confidence in our business, and a desire to continue their patronage; Second, Any sort of credible research would reveal that the event was not unusual or uncommon; Third, That all appropriate steps were taken immediately, exceeding those typically associated with our industry.
He was not happy with my response, and only then admitted that a report was going to appear on his channel. (A check of my watch revealed that it was about two minutes before air-time.) I gasped with complete surprise. Our conversation ended abruptly. My job duties fell by the wayside as I ran for a look at the broadcast!
While jogging to our television, I reviewed the evidence at hand. ‘Channel X’ had obviously prepared a complete report without ever contacting anyone from our group. The last-minute call was placed to cover this obvious disparity, and possibly stir up more confusion. It was likely that the inquisitor from Cleveland had not expected any clear answer to his inquiry. He probably hoped to set the stage for their sensational broadcast with an illusion of diligence. It constituted a ‘Tabloid Moment’ more worthy of Jerry Springer or Maury Povich than a local reporter.
The eventual Eleven O’clock feature was an entertaining bit of local ratings-hype. I cringed when the reporter stated in a matter-of-fact tone that "Management could not be reached for comment." His assertion was totally false. Just two minutes before, I had been engaged in polite talk with the station! Later, after my shift was over, I scanned the ‘Channel X’ website for further details. The story was repeated in e-form, with a new addition. In bold print, they had written: "Management Did Not Respond." I was astounded. It was another careless detour from the facts!
By now, my face had gone red with pique. The video blast was all too typical for a hungry, local news purveyor. Because everything in the information field is leveraged on being first – in depth reporting (like that of the heroic Edward R. Murrow) represents a forgotten concept. So the blitzkrieg tactics of ‘X’ were not surprising. Still, they certainly failed any test for media excellence.
The ‘Channel X’ story could easily have incorporated more research to broaden its usefulness. I imagined a more complete version: "Management assured us that action was taken immediately. Customer needs were met in a courteous and professional manner." Or, their feature might have stated: "Those involved expressed their confidence in the business." Perhaps even: "Research indicates this is not uncommon." Sadly, they made no effort to portray a second side of the story. It demonstrated the woeful state of electronic journalism.
* * * * *
Media bias added to mediocrity-for-profit = a kind of information gathering that America never knew in the golden age of news innovation.
* * * * *
It did not make me smile to behold such horseplay.
The result of this incident was predictable. After a day had passed, the incident was banished to yesterday. One side of the story was more than enough to earn ratings for the week. No further interest remained. I hoped that viewers were now busy watching segments about more serious concerns like GM layoffs, or the environmental health of Lake Erie. Still, my funk over the dubious reporting continued.
Sanity returned as I began to compose this column for The Maple Leaf. I wondered aloud in front of my computer: "What if…? What if I heard that the president of ‘Channel X’ was linked with a terrorist group? What if I penned a complete story for my paper, then called the station, just minutes before going to press, and spoke to a reporter? What if I then wrote that they were contacted, and would make no comment? Might anyone accuse me of artificially trying to make the poor fellow look evasive? Or guilty??"
Gentle readers, draw your own conclusion. And say a prayer for the immortal spirit of E. R. Murrow.
From: THE GEAUGA COUNTY MAPLE LEAF NEWSPAPER, Chardon, Ohio
"News for Sale"
c. 2005 Rod Ice
All rights reserved
A favorite subject for this writer is the regular dissemination of news by the commercial media. It is a topic full of anecdotes that might one day inspire writing projects. Having aggressive, talented reporters at work across America makes our nation truly unique. Our land is one of the few places on Earth where the government can be roundly criticized in public view, without any recriminations being taken.
Yet many readers, viewers, and listeners misunderstand the nature of news organizations. Nearly all papers, magazines, radio & television stations, and popular websites are funded by advertising dollars. They exist on a simple premise: sell product, and reap the rewards!
This system functions well to meet citizen needs for dependable fact dispersal. Yet it means that those who shepherd reporters are driven by the lure of ad money, circulation numbers, or ratings. One must ‘sell’ the output of reporters just like any other product. The work of promoting a regular news broadcast is no different than spinning a flashy, new comedy show. Sadly, sensationalism sells! Not many can resist the attraction of quick-strike journalism. Research and follow-up are left for bloggers and columnists to execute. In the real world, generating ‘more heat than light’ is a profitable enterprise.
As a freelance writer (and journalist) for the past 23 years, I have sometimes been embarrassed by the habits of those in my own profession. Recently, such emotions settled in my belly, as I ran afoul of a local television channel:
While serving one of my employers, I had to become instantly familiar with a situation involving local issues. As discussion about the event intensified during my workday, I discovered that the electronic media might be involved. This caused a grin because my own past (once an intern at a TV station in New York) meant that it was easy to imagine what might follow.
I tried to prepare mentally for an appearance by news cameras. Was it really possible that an urban powerhouse would invade the quiet of Geauga? The thought made me tremble. However, I silently reviewed details with the enthusiasm of a professional wordsmith. It became impossible to avoid speculation on the story. How would I tell the tale, if it was MY responsibility?
The moment of truth arrived at 10:50 PM. I was paged for a phone call, which happened to be someone from ‘Channel X’. I nearly laughed out loud because it was obvious that at such a late hour, he did not expect to find anyone from management on duty. (I guessed that he was hoping for some reckless observation from a junior associate.) He immediately asked about the incident, without any explanation of his intentions. My response was cordial, but professional. I told him that someone other than myself had taken care of this event. Also, that a member of the ownership team could provide ‘official’ analysis of the subject. But I was happy to offer three brief facts for his review: First, Those involved expressed confidence in our business, and a desire to continue their patronage; Second, Any sort of credible research would reveal that the event was not unusual or uncommon; Third, That all appropriate steps were taken immediately, exceeding those typically associated with our industry.
He was not happy with my response, and only then admitted that a report was going to appear on his channel. (A check of my watch revealed that it was about two minutes before air-time.) I gasped with complete surprise. Our conversation ended abruptly. My job duties fell by the wayside as I ran for a look at the broadcast!
While jogging to our television, I reviewed the evidence at hand. ‘Channel X’ had obviously prepared a complete report without ever contacting anyone from our group. The last-minute call was placed to cover this obvious disparity, and possibly stir up more confusion. It was likely that the inquisitor from Cleveland had not expected any clear answer to his inquiry. He probably hoped to set the stage for their sensational broadcast with an illusion of diligence. It constituted a ‘Tabloid Moment’ more worthy of Jerry Springer or Maury Povich than a local reporter.
The eventual Eleven O’clock feature was an entertaining bit of local ratings-hype. I cringed when the reporter stated in a matter-of-fact tone that "Management could not be reached for comment." His assertion was totally false. Just two minutes before, I had been engaged in polite talk with the station! Later, after my shift was over, I scanned the ‘Channel X’ website for further details. The story was repeated in e-form, with a new addition. In bold print, they had written: "Management Did Not Respond." I was astounded. It was another careless detour from the facts!
By now, my face had gone red with pique. The video blast was all too typical for a hungry, local news purveyor. Because everything in the information field is leveraged on being first – in depth reporting (like that of the heroic Edward R. Murrow) represents a forgotten concept. So the blitzkrieg tactics of ‘X’ were not surprising. Still, they certainly failed any test for media excellence.
The ‘Channel X’ story could easily have incorporated more research to broaden its usefulness. I imagined a more complete version: "Management assured us that action was taken immediately. Customer needs were met in a courteous and professional manner." Or, their feature might have stated: "Those involved expressed their confidence in the business." Perhaps even: "Research indicates this is not uncommon." Sadly, they made no effort to portray a second side of the story. It demonstrated the woeful state of electronic journalism.
* * * * *
Media bias added to mediocrity-for-profit = a kind of information gathering that America never knew in the golden age of news innovation.
* * * * *
It did not make me smile to behold such horseplay.
The result of this incident was predictable. After a day had passed, the incident was banished to yesterday. One side of the story was more than enough to earn ratings for the week. No further interest remained. I hoped that viewers were now busy watching segments about more serious concerns like GM layoffs, or the environmental health of Lake Erie. Still, my funk over the dubious reporting continued.
Sanity returned as I began to compose this column for The Maple Leaf. I wondered aloud in front of my computer: "What if…? What if I heard that the president of ‘Channel X’ was linked with a terrorist group? What if I penned a complete story for my paper, then called the station, just minutes before going to press, and spoke to a reporter? What if I then wrote that they were contacted, and would make no comment? Might anyone accuse me of artificially trying to make the poor fellow look evasive? Or guilty??"
Gentle readers, draw your own conclusion. And say a prayer for the immortal spirit of E. R. Murrow.
From: THE GEAUGA COUNTY MAPLE LEAF NEWSPAPER, Chardon, Ohio
posted by Rod Ice at 1:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home