When in doubt, do a story ripping TV news.
The latest Shepherd Express packs a column that pretty much disembowels local news--the piece by Dennis Shook can be had online:
In the interest of full disclosure, I work in a building with a TV station down the hall. I know many of the folks who work there, on-air and off. Some even share time with us each morning.
Are they perfect? No. Nor am I, or anyone else who ever sat at a keyboard and tried to tell someone else's story. We strive to get it right, and fell worse than you can imagine when we don't.
I even agree with some of Dennis Shook's observations, but I also understand that TV news, sad to say, is just like "American Idol", "House" and "Grey's Anatomy" in that it's success is measured ratings period to ratings period. That's the business. Deal.
Shook brings up one of the biggest, most consistently raised beefs about television news: the way it's reporters stake out victims, witnesses, and loved ones for reaction pieces on a terrible event that's just occurred in their lives. The "how do you feel" video that is often cited as the work of the lazy reporter...or, worse yet, the critics say, the interview with the relative of someone who's just lost a loved on.
Why, then, is it okay for newspaper reporters to do those same stories?
I'll tell you: you don't see the process in action.
Would we even know that the man shot at a local gas station a few weeks ago was, indeed, a much-loved and respected Waukesha area boxing coach had a reporter not asked some questions of those who knew him best?
Did anyone complain about pestering grieving relatives and friends when the story--lush with reaction and even some pictures--ran in the local paper a day or so later?
No, because the tears don't show up on newsprint, the way they do on videotape.
No, because the pain in a voice doesn't come through in a quote that's read in black and white.
The electronic media capture the face, record the voice and pump the emotion right into your living room. Yes, it's hard to watch or hear. You're in on the process as it's being done--the paper doesn't let you in on that. It can't.
The hardest assignment any reporter ever gets is the "reaction" piece--knocking on that door or picking up the phone to call someone affected by tragedy. Yet, it's part of the story--whether it's in print or on the tube--to put a "face" on those we cover. To let the world know that the guy dead at the gas station is more than just another faceless murder victim--that he had a name, a job, a life, and that his death created a void. It's how readers and viewers connect.
And, don't forget, the grieving have a right to say "no" when the phone rings and the cameras show up.
Our print brethren are in competition for eyes, too. Pick up a Milwaukee Journal or Sentinel from 20 years ago, and compare it to the one that landed on your doorstep this morning. See any difference?
Milwaukee Magazine does some pretty fine work--the most recent edition packed a compelling piece on home improvement magnate John Mennard, but you'd barely know the story was within the pages of an edition swaddled with a cover touting "25 New Restaurants." "Best Of's" catch eyes. A picture of the "Save Big Money" man probably wouldn't.
The marriage of journalism and commerce is an uncomfortable one, to say the least. In a perfect world, television news wouldn't be rated and it would run strictly as a community service.
You know what would happen then?
No television news, because there'd be no way to pay for it.
There are electronic journalistic atrocities, yes, and there are trends that make some cringe. The quest for big numbers is no justification for sloppy journalism, sensationalism or lack of conscience.
Sadly, the numbers seem to show that more and more of us are liking the skeevier side of life on the tube, the flash and the flare and the "what would Jack Bauer do" kind of stuff that gets branded as "the most local coverage."
As easy as it is to criticize, the viewers sometimes get the news they want--or at least, accept.
1 comment:
Gene:
Largely, I agree with you and Mr. Shook. I recently moved to Minneapolis from Milwaukee, and I'm stunned by the quality leap in the local news...Especially when I come home to visit family, and catch something from Milwaukee again. Fox6 in particular has goofy, posturing, wild-voiced talking heads who are painfully unprofessional to watch.
The one part where I disagree with him is on his assessment of John Mercure and the pedophile sting operations. There's a good reason for this. My wife and I are contributing staffers for Perverted-justice.com, the watchdog organization that parters with TMJ4 (as well as Dateline NBC) for these sting operations. In fact, before Bob left, you guys had us in for a memorable Hollywood Hotdish...The first I remember where no celebrity news was read, because Bob felt that our message was too important.
I was lucky enough to work closely with John on every one of the stings TMJ4 did before I left town. He's nothing short of a visionary. That style of sting, repeated in dozens of local markets, adopted for VERY high ratings and cultural impact by Dateline NBC, and controversially ripped off by "America's Most Wanted" (who botched their piece VERY badly by deciding to go ahead when we refused to work with them out of respect for our relationship with Dateline, but had nowhere near the tools and experience we have). The whole ball of wax started with him. His idea. Without John, there'd be no Chris Hansen and "To Catch a Predator". He's VERY well-thought of at P.J.com. And he did it for all the right reasons. He's got young daughters, as I'm sure you know. He constantly, throughout shooting these pieces, kept saying, "Let's bag these scumbags." Never once, not once, did I here him rub his hands together and giggle about ratings. He tried to get the cops involved from the BEGINNING...But they didn't come on board until after Dateline. John is a man of real integrity, and he's motivated by parental concern and public safety.
Therefore...Shook's assessment angers me. Haughtily snifing and saying "they should leave this to the cops" is a criticism our site has heard for years. However. Because of us, people are now aware in a way they weren't before how big a problem online solicitation is. Because of us, Orrin Hatch intoduced federal legislation to prosecute sex offenders. Because of us, thousands of parents know to monitor their kids' online activities. We have nearly 200 legal convictions based on our work, and ZERO acquittals or dismissals. ZERO. And we have dozens of cases in the legal pipe at any one time. We hold the first, second, third, fourth, and FIFTH place records nationally for most predators arrested in a single sting operation, the highest total being 51 men. 51 men in Riverside CA who will now not be able to victimize real kids.
And it all started with John.
So, I'm sure it's understandable that I get a bit testy when I hear someone say, "Hmph! They should leave it to the cops." Police organizations at the local state AND federal levels are practically banging down our door trying to work with us because we get results, we never lose in court, we gather and disseminate evidence at a level even federal authorities raise their eyebrows at, and most importantly, we keep kids safe by intercepting the predators that try yo get to them by getting to the predator first.
In any case, glad to see you're soldiering on. I've always been a fan.
Post a Comment