Saturday, March 06, 2010

Sins of the Son

by Paul Giacobbe

After a recent story about the arrest of several Providence Police officers accused of narcotics related offenses, a viewer writes:

“I am writing about (a) report tonight about the Providence police officers who were arrested. During that report (the reporter) said: ‘Jameson Hassett, 24, the son of former Providence police officer James Hassett, was arrested on a wiretap charge.  James Hassett was at the home of former Mayor Vincent “Buddy” Cianci Jr. when Cianci assaulted his wife’s lover in the early 1980s.‘
“I suppose it is somewhat relevant that the accused is the son of a former policeman,“ the viewer wrote, “but I don’t see the need to mention an incident that his father was involved in nearly 30 years ago. It seemed like a cheap shot at the elder Hassett as well as the former mayor.“

There’s no question that the father’s involvement in the Cianci drama years ago is unrelated to the issues which now face his son. But, as this blog has frequently said before, a news story should not, absent compelling circumstances, leave viewers with questions and certainly the first question anyone with a recollection of Providence history would ask is whether there’s a connection between THIS Hassett and THAT Hassett.

The relationship having been established, however, for the sake of historical perspective, there does not appear to be a need to more extensively revist the father’s role in those events of so many years ago

NBC10 provides the space for this blog, but the opinions are mine alone.—Paul Giacobbe

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Kickboxing . . and Retracking (Revisited)

by Paul Giacobbe

A viewer wrote about a recent story touting the benefits of kickboxing as a women’s exercise regimen.  It was the target of some of the exercising ladies that concerned the viewer.

“I feel compelled to write concerning a spot on the 6pm news on Sunday, February 14.  The story was about women attending a kick boxing class.  Several of the women interviewed mentioned that they used pictures of former spouses or boyfriends applied to padded targets or punching bags as a form of motivation.  I firmly believe that broadcasting this was completely irresponsible journalism.  It gives the impression that the station condones domestic violence. “

I have no doubt that this was an oversight by the staff and completely unintentional.  The fact remains however that it was broadcast and WJAR staff made light of a serious social problem.  In view of this I believe the station should make a public statement making acknowledging the oversight.“

Chris Lanni, a news department manager, responded that while he understands and appreciates the viewer’s concern, “It is important to note that this was a story about using motivators to improve (one’s) exercise routine, not about self defense or domestic violence.”

The viewer certainly is correct in suggesting that if the story had been about a man’s kickboxing class, it would have been significantly less likely that a reporter or editor would have permitted references to kicking or hitting a woman.  There had to be a better way to convey the point about the importance of “motivators” without suggesting harm to a significant other.

* * * * * * * * *

Several years ago a viewer complained about a story that was rebroadcast locally using copy and video obtained from a news service. http://www2.turnto10.com/jar/viewers_voice/a_viewer_writes_about_plagiarism_and_attribution/62/
The issue surfaced again just this past week.  NBC10 sent a reporter to cover the Vancouver Olympics, and on the first night there the reporter did a story which, to one viewer, seemed familiar.

I watched (the same piece I saw on NBC10) four days earlier on the NBC Nightly News.  There were no disclaimers and the NBC10 report did not attribute either the video or any other portion of the report to the original source, the viewer wrote.
“Now I know in the TV business, the networks feed video to stations all the time, but after the public watched this very same report and then four days later watched the exact same report with (the local reporter’s) voice on it is absurd.“

The issue is similar to the one addressed in 2007, but not exactly.  In 2007, the reporter took a video service story, to which the station subscribes, and read the copy which was prepared for that purpose. 
In the recent matter, the “retrack” was of a previously aired network story, and retracks are usually verbatim recitations of the original, according to Lanni.

Using video footage and interviews provided by the network is not as difficult an issue as one reporter taking the words of another reporter and passing them off as his own.  It is as troubling a practice now as it was in 2007.
.

This space is provided by NBC10, but the opinions are mine alone. – Paul Giacobbe

Friday, January 01, 2010

Something for Everyone

by Paul Giacobbe

There are a variety of newscast styles and formats and news reporter and anchor styles are at least equally varied.  While the format of the news programs is generally not within the NBC10 Viewers’ Voice “fairness, accuracy and balance” guidelines, a recent viewer email did raise an interesting issue.  Both the viewer’s comments and the news department response are worth sharing.

Sara B. O’Leary of South Dartmouth emailed her concerns about what she described as the use of “slang” in the delivery of a recent 6 p.m. newscast.

“I am a loyal Channel 10 viewer, but I was most disappointed with the delivery of the 6:00 newscast last night . . .  In the course of this one program, the announcer stated that two suspects in a recent crime could not be identified because they were just ‘kids’.  Were the terms ‘minors’ or ‘juveniles’ deemed too sophisticated for your audience?  Later, he announced that two ‘guys had knocked over a bank’.  Did these ‘guys’ run into the bank with a bulldozer and actually knock it down?  He started another story by saying, ‘Get this…..’.” 

“Finally,” Ms. O’Leary wrote, “(the anchor) indicated that ‘two grand’ had been stolen.  I could understand this use of slang if I am standing by the water cooler at work and discussing the events of the day with my co-workers, but I don’t expect it from a journalist in a nightly newscast.  It appears to me that this ‘dumbing down’ of the delivery of the events of the day is intended to capture and keep my attention (I am not a child) and to make the anchor seem more ‘chummy’ (I don’t look to the anchor for friendship, but for information).  John Chancellor and Walter Cronkite must be turning over in their graves.  I certainly considered turning the channel.”

Anyone who has watched any of the NBC10 news programs knows there is a difference in delivery styles among the four principal anchors – Frank Coletta in the morning and Patrice Wood, Gene Valicenti and Dan Jaehnig in the afternoon and evening.  I asked Chris Lanni, a newsroom manager, whether there was an overall policy regarding the use of casual or less formal language, or if the content of each anchor’s remarks is tailored to their individual styles.

“There is no Media General policy regarding writing style,” Lanni responded,  “Copy,“ he said, “is written differently for different anchors.  Gene and Dan’s style is different from, say, Patrice or Frank Coletta’s.”
“Copy is generally written to fit their individual styles, especially in solo anchored newscasts,” since “it’s more difficult to coordinate writing styles during dual anchor newscasts”, Lanni said. “We have four main anchors.  Two would be considered ‘edgy’ in provincial TV markets and two might be considered more traditional.”

“There is,“ Lanni said, “A little something for everyone, by design.”

NBC10 provides the space for this blog, but the opinions expressed here—as well as the choices of subject matter—are mine alone.—Paul Giacobbe

Friday, December 18, 2009

West Warwick Blues

by Paul Giacobbe

The I-Team earlier this week reported on the allegations of a West Warwick woman that police broke into her home last Friday night and assaulted her.  The town’s manager, James Thomas, and the police chief, Colonel Paul Villa complained that the story unfairly mischaracterized the actions of the police.

Prior to the newscast the station ran a tease saying that police “raid” a local house but “find only a BB gun.”

The woman, in video taken on Wednesday, appeared distraught, and was curled up on a bed and occasionally weeping.  She told the I-Team that she and her boyfriend were asleep in a second floor bedroom when police broke down a first floor door into her home, and also the interior door to her bedroom, and then she was “thrown on the floor, beaten, bruised.”  She described the police actions as a “raid.”  Three officers, she said, dragged her out of bed, onto the floor, and beat her.  She claimed she has bruises, and a sprained hand.  In response to the reporter’s inquiry, she said she was never told what she was charged with, or read her (Miranda) rights.  She said she was in handcuffs for over an hour before being released without being charged with a crime.

The report quoted police as saying they were called to the house around midnight as the result of an assault; that when they arrived there were about a dozen young people around the house and that the alleged assailant ran into the house.

Chief Villa, on camera, indicated that police received a report from one of the people outside the house, who said he had been in the house earlier and had seen a 9 mm handgun.  The reporter said the chief said that when his officers broke into the couple’s bedroom they had not yet found the gun, and only after a further search of the house did they find the gun, which tuned out to be a pellet pistol.

In addition, the chief is quoted as saying, before his officers went in they received another call at the station from a neighbor, indicating screams were coming from inside the house.

The report said the chief wanted to make sure his officers acted properly.  The chief again appears on camera saying that people’s rights “are taken very seriously,” and the report concludes with the reporter indicating that police were undertaking an internal investigation.

Colonel Villa said that the report did not fully give the police side of the story and that of the ten to twelve minutes of taped interview, only two short segments were used.  He said the report didn’t indicate that the victim of the assault had facial lacerations, that police learned there was underage drinking going on inside and that police made numerous attempts over several minutes to get someone to respond to the knocks on the door.  He said the police dispatcher made attempts to find contact phone numbers for the occupants of the building.

Colonel Villa said that police initially called the fire department to use a “jamb spreader” to minimize damage in opening the door, but that the firemen were pulled back when the bystander outside told police about seeing the gun inside.

When police entered and the man and woman inside didn’t respond to knocks on the bedroom door, police broke through that also, Villa said.  Both the man and woman, he said, were handcuffed because the gun had not yet been found.  Villa said the woman told them that the only persons who were supposed to be in the house was her daughter and her daughter’s boyfriend, but the chief said neither the daughter nor her boyfriend were not one among the half dozen or so young people in the house’s basement.  The woman, he said, was “oblivious” to the six unauthorized people in the house. The daughter was eventually located, Villa said, hiding in the attic with her boyfriend.

Villa said the woman and her boyfriend were uncuffed when the pistol was eventually found, and police had determined she resided at that address.  He said, contrary to what the woman claimed, she was not cuffed for anywhere near an hour.

Villa said the initial complaint to him about the incident came from the victim’s boyfriend, who did not mention that the woman was hurt but only that he was suffering from the effects of the incident.

The reporter said he fit as much of the chief’s remarks into the story as time allowed, and felt that the essential elements of the police side of the story were included. Two segments of the chief’s comments, on camera, were used.  He said he asked for a copy of the report of the incident, but was denied.  He said that might have helped him with additional details.

To the extent Chief Villa believes the story did not fully explain the circumstances of the incident, then perhaps the additional detail provided here is helpful, but the police were not treated unfairly in the story that aired.

The essential elements of the police side of the story were reported:  That police were called to investigate an assault; that the victim said the assailant was inside the house; that a bystander said he’d seen a gun in the house; that police knew there were a number of people in the house yet no one was responding to their knocks; that there was a call from a neighbor who heard screams from the house; that they broke down the doors after getting no response; that when they broke into the locked bedroom they had not yet located the pistol.

It isn’t unusual that people interviewed for a story feel that the full extent of their remarks were not reported.  This report was 2 minutes and 19 seconds and there’s only so much that can be fit into that, or any, TV news account.  The police side of the story consumed just about half of that time, and the anchor introduction to the story mentioned not only the woman’s allegations, but also that police “tell a different story.”

While generally fair and balanced, the report did raise some issues.

The tease to the story used the word “raid” and said police found “only a BB gun.”  The word “raid” and then “only” suggests a planned event seeking something more sinister than was found.  The facts of the story indicate that police made the entrance to the house because of the assault and underage drinking and that the possible presence of the gun only meant they entered, and conducted themselves, more cautiously.

The on-air question by the reporter about whether the woman was arrested, or read Miranda rights, suggested that either of those things is a prerequisite to being handcuffed, or is required after police forcibly enter a residence.  Neither is the case.

Most troubling is the video of the alleged victim.  There is no indication why, a full four days after the event, the woman appears so acutely distressed.  Lacking some explanation from her – post trauma stress or medication, for example – the video itself unexplainably elevates the seriousness of the woman’s allegations to a different level.

NBC10 provides the space for these remarks, but the opinions are mine alone -Paul Giacobbe

Friday, December 04, 2009

A Past Conviction . . . A Present Tragedy

by Paul Giacobbe

  Last week’s story about the West Warwick quahauger missing and presumed drowned generated an unusually high number of complaints, primarily in the form of telephone calls, which have become – secondary to emails – the less preferred method of communicating displeasure with NBC10 stories. Although many of the complaints came from callers who identified themselves as friends of the missing man, and several from the same phone, there were nevertheless a significant number of people unhappy about the way the news department handled the story.

In addition to the report about the man being missing, there was a separate story about how he had been convicted, some ten years ago, of a sex related crime and was, at that time, the first person subject to community notification under Rhode Island’s then-new Megans law.  The story was done by a separate reporter, went into some detail about the 1999 conviction, and utilized video taken at that time.

Viewers who called to complain used words like, “despicable,””repulsive,” “appalled” and “disgusting.”  Almost all said they believed that revisiting the ten year old crime of a man – apparently trouble free since that time – when he apparently was the victim of a tragic accident, was insensitive and inappropriate.

Chris Lanni, an NBC10 newsroom manager, said the decision to review the man’s past was not reached without some discussion:

We spent a great deal of time discussing this issue before our report aired.  Obviously, our ultimate decision was to not censor or hold back information from our viewers.  Unfortunately, Mr. Kidd was the first registered sex offender in Rhode Island under the then-new Megan’s Law and therefore a newsworthy figure.  His troubled past was widely reported at the time and his name is familiar to many.  I certainly understand that our decision would be considered insensitive to the family, an impact we attempted to buffer by talking to neighbors about how he’d turned his life around.  Unfortunately, we had the choice of either seeming insensitive or purposely omitting facts.  It was a difficult call and a situation in which there was no way to please everyone.

To an extent, Lanni is right. Although the mention of the man’s past may be painful to his family and friends, the purpose of news is to inform, and viewers should not be left wondering, ‘Where have I heard that name before?” or “Is that the same man I remember from 10 years ago?”

But in this case, the extensive review of the man’s past was too much.  It didn’t require a full, separate story to remind viewers who might have recognized the man’s name.  The legitimate news purpose of full disclosure did not call for a full revisit of a 10 year old conviction.

NBC10 provides the space for this blog, but the opinions here are mine alone—Paul Giacobbe

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Mistakes . . . and a Wedding Giveaway

by Paul Giacobbe

News reporting generates the occasional mistake.  Television reporters are asked to take sometimes complex issues and condense them into 90 seconds.  Generally the best post-error course of action is to acknowledge the mistake, do a correction when possible, and move on.

Earlier this month a viewer complained that facts in a story about the court struggle between the state administration and the state employee unions* were wrong.  The story, which ran during the 11 p.m. news, said that the planned furloughs of certain state workers would save 68 million dollars.  In fact, as the viewer pointed out, the layoffs would save less than a third of that amount, and were a part of a larger plan to fill the 68 million dollar budget shortfall.

The viewer complained that he immediately called the newsroom to tell them of the error, but that no correction was made during that same news show, nor at any other time. 

The reporter said that, upon review of the story “we realized it may have been confusing if not misleading.  So we changed it for the morning news.”

The story as aired was neither misleading nor confusing.  It was clear, and it was wrong.  The morning reporter and/or producer got it right, as have others who reported on the story both before and after the error was made.

It may not be reasonable, however, to suggest that the story should have been corrected during the same newscast, based on the viewer’s call.  Changing the flow of an ongoing newscast, absent truly compelling developments, can be awkward, even if it is clear, at that time, that the viewer is correct.  There is no reason, however, that the story could not have been corrected during the following night’s 11 p.m. news.

*********************

A viewer emailed to complain about the station’s lack of coverage of gay and lesbian issues, and as part of that complaint objected to the station’s refusal to accept her and her partner’s application for the station’s “wedding giveaway” contest.

“Relationships are relationships regardless of the gender of the people in them,” she wrote.  “To define a relationship as one man and one woman for the purposes of your contest is, quite frankly, a disgrace.”

A news department manager responded that, as a Rhode Island based station, the NBC10 rules for the wedding giveaway must comport with existing state laws, particularly since the wedding giveaway includes a marriage license.  If Rhode Island law changes to permit same sex marriages, he wrote, the station will accept entries from same sex couples.

NBC10 provides this space, but the opinions are mine alone – Paul Giacobbe

*To the extent that it may be pertinent to the opinions expressed here, this blogger occasionally represents state employee unions in the course of a law practice. – P.G.

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Where’s Michael Vick?

by Paul Giacobbe

As many traditional media organizations are learning, the news consumer is no longer content to wait for the morning newspaper to hit the porch, or for the evening television news. Blogs, tweets and text messages have made anyone with even modest technological abilities a “reporter” and a news cycle is measured no longer in days or hours, but in minutes.

Recently an NBC10 sports reporter, citing a Miami Herald online column (which appears to itself have been influenced by a sports blog), reported that former Atlanta quarterback Michael Vick was practicing with the Patriots that day.  The information was wrong, and more reliable sources had been reporting throughout the day that Vick was at a bankruptcy hearing in Virginia.  Late in the day, and before the NBC10 report aired, the Patriots confirmed that Vick was not with the team.

Roger from Tiverton emailed his concerns about the report:

I am both appalled and disappointed in WJAR for allowing . . . a completely unsubstantiated report on this evening’s newscast regarding disgraced former Atlanta quarterback Michael Vick allegedly working out with the New England Patriots.

It appears that (the) “reporting” consisted of nothing but parroting the rants of some out-of-town ‘blog’ nor did (the reporter) even bother to contact the primary source (New England Patriots) for confirmation. Just a cursory glance at the newswire photos should have convinced (the reporter) that thes ‘breaking news’ story needed a much more thorough vetting before broadcasting it.

At the end of the report the reporter indicated that Vick’s presence in Foxboro was “a rumor,” but I don’t think that helped. There’s a difference, I think, between attributing to a blog or online source a rumor that, for example, Vick and his agent were in discussions with the Patriots, or that the Patriots were interested in Vick.  In this case, however, the report was that Vick was actually at the Patriots’ workout, despite the availability of credible evidence that Vick was NOT there,  and that evidence seemed substantiated by a number of online sources prior to the airing of the 6 p.m. report.  There was no indication that the reporter had made an attempt to contact the Patriots to check the Miami Herald story.

Viewers remember where they heard a story, not where it originated.  A news organization risks damaging its credibility by attributing a story to a blog, or another group’s website, without making some effort to confirm.  It’s not enough to attribute a story to someone else, especially another news organization, especially when the ability to verify was just 30 miles away.

NBC10 provides this space, but the opinions are mine alone. – Paul Giacobbe.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Disturbing Images

by Paul Giacobbe

Viewer James McGrath was critical of the station’s coverage, earlier this week, of an accident in North Providence in which an apparently unlicensed tree cutter was trapped in a tree and badly injured by a falling limb.

“I think the photographers and editorial staff were less than professional in their lack of discretion in showing the video of the injured man suspended in the tree,” wrote Mr. McGrath . “I think this type of reporting unnecessarily deprives the victim of his privacy, and dignity, and those involved should be ashamed.”

The video accompanying the story showed the injured man dangling from the tree, his leg trapped and rescuers from the fire department and two local tree companies working to free him.  The man’s legs were broken, with one at an apparently awkward angle, but the video did not show that.  The main’s face, displaying obvious pain, could be seen briefly.

NBC10’s Chris Lanni, who oversaw the production of the story, said there were discussions about use of the video, which he described as “uncomfortable but not graphic.”  He said the decision was made to use the video, but not the audio, on which the mans screams of pain and pleas for help could be heard.  The audio was not as essential to the story as the video, he said, which highlighted the importance of homeowners hiring properly trained and equipped contractors.

Scrolling back through previous posts, viewers will recognize that this is not an unusual issue.  There is sometimes a difficult line between personal privacy (or good taste) and the duties of a news organization to convey information.  This was a very public drama played out in front of scores of people, and with police, fire, and various rescuers involved. More importantly, the images clearly showed the dangers of attempting difficult and dangerous work without the proper training, manpower or equipment.

Television is, as we’ve frequently noted here, a visual medium and its value, both competitively and in the public interest, is to use pictures effectively.  Witnessing the video of the accident was, as Lanni suggests, uncomfortable but not graphic and the greater good was likely served by its use.

The video and story are at http://www.turnto10.com/jar/news/local/article/crews_trying_to_rescue_man_from_tree/14337/

NBC10 provides the space for these comments, but the opinions are mine alone – Paul Giacobbe

Monday, May 18, 2009

Tough Times

by Paul Giacobbe

One of the great strengths of television news is the familiarity that develops between the viewer and the reporters, anchors and weathermen. The on-air folks become, to some extent, part of the viewer’s extended family, in the room at breakfast and in the early evening. A disruption in this relationship, for whatever reason, can be disconcerting.

The difficult economic conditions are blamed for cutbacks in news operations throughout the country.  Big city newspapers are in bankruptcy as the trickle down effect of business closings puts pressure on advertising revenues.

NBC10 has not escaped the pain of staff reductions, and the effect of the recent cutbacks has not been more evident than with the lack of a weekend reporter to cover the shooting Sunday of a North Kingstown police officer.  A photographer was able to capture video sufficient to give viewers a sense of that day’s drama, but the breaking news of (what we now know was) a hit and run death and a policeman being shot with his own weapon required the on site talents of both a reporter and photographer.

Viewers have noticed and commented on the changes.  Those that have called and emailed through the Viewers’ Voice program (and that likely represents only a small portion of those who have contacted NBC10 in other ways) say they’re not pleased.  Most simply miss the weather guy they’ve come to regard as part of their routine (see the first paragraph, above) while others have noted changes with the news product itself.

The sentencing of a woman who ran a real estate title company, and who embezzled $1.3 million dollars was not reported, complained viewer Rod Carri, and Judi Scott of Wakefield said the coverage of the vote to replace the URI president was “skimpy.”

Whether out of habit or preference, it’s hard to change the TV news viewing routines of most people, but that loyalty is not without limits.

This space is provided by NBC10, but the opinions are mine alone. – Paul Giacobbe

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Mr. Obama???

by Paul Giacobbe

Is it disrespectful for news reporters to refer to the President of the United States as “Mister Obama”?  One NBC10 viewer (and apparently a lot of other people) believe it is.

“I was surprised – and EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED –  that (in a recent report) the NEW President was referred to as “MR.” Obama instead of “PRESIDENT” Obama – a title that he has deserved because he is indeed the President of this country,” emailed Katherine Tobin.  “I have often heard news broadcasters refer to President Bush as Mr. Bush – and I felt it was disrespectful – and thought it came from society’s opinion that President Bush was a very big disappointment.  BUT – when I hear an educated journalist refer to the President of the United States as “MR. Obama”  I have to wonder if the broadcasters and news editors have lost sight of what showing respect is all about.  Whether a person has voted for a candidate for President or not – I find it extremely disrespectful that news broadcasters refer to an important individual in such a cavalier manner.  How can we expect our young people to show respect to adults and others in important positions when those who bring us the news don’t.”

Ms. Tobin is not alone in her concern.  Both newspapers and broadcasters have responded to news consumer complaints and inquiries about the manner in which the president is referred to in news reports.

Alicia Shepard, the ombudsman for National Public Radio, recently responded on line to a similar complaint from an NPR listener who thought that President Bush was referred to as ‘President Bush” while the new president is being referred to as “Mr. Obama.”
“NPR has used Mister as the alternative term of respect on second (and subsequent) reference to the President of the United States for decades. I personally have been Washington editor for three presidents and we have done it consistently through this time. Just as consistent have been the letters, phone calls and emails from people who do not believe what I just said. They insist we always called the previous president ‘President So and So’ on every reference and that our alleged failure to do so with the current president indicates disrespect.

It is difficult to convince people their memories are faulty, and even transcripts sometimes do not convince them. One nice thing about the digital age is that people can actually go on line, call up actual audio from earlier this month, or last month, and hear us saying Mr. Bush, which we did every day.“  http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/01/mr_obama_mormons_and_susan_sta_1.html

The New York Times, NBC News and the Associated Press appear to follow this same format, using “President Obama” in the first reference in a story and “Mr. Obama” in subsequent references.

Interestingly, the Washington Post appears to make first reference as “President Obama” and subsequent references simply “Obama.”  This is not unique to presidential references, but to others as well, using a title in the first reference and a last name only in subsequent references.

Chris Lanni, the assistant news director at NBC10, says the station does not follow specific written guidelines with respect to presidential references, but says “it is generally understood that on first reference we use his title along with his name.  We then use variations, depending on how many times he’s mentioned in a single script, in an effort to avoid repetition (The President, Mr. Obama and, for military stories, Command in Chief, etc.).  Using “Mister” is not meant as a sign of disrespect and is in fact common practice in newsrooms across the country.“ Lanni makes reference to the CBS News website which explains that network’s policy of using “Mister” in subsequent references to the president.  http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4772225.shtml

It can be, as Ms. Tobin suggests, somewhat disconcerting to hear the President of the United States referred to simply as a “mister,” but it is more important that whatever a news organization’s policy it be applied uniformly and consistently so that each succeeding president is referred to similarly by each reporter within that organization.
. .
NBC10 provides the space for this blog, but the opinions are mine alone – Paul Giacobbe.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Just the Facts

by Paul Giacobbe

There are opportunities that exist in television news, not available to the print media, to use video and audio to cleverly enhance an appropriate story.  Reports about children or puppies, giant pumpkins or unusual events can often be made more entertaining, or emotionally appealing, with creative use of sometimes unrelated music or video footage.

But in difficult economic times, a story about the struggle between a community seeking to balance a budget, and its employees trying to feed, clothe and house their families, is not an appropriate vehicle for attempts at cleverness. 

A recent report about the results of a court hearing between the East Providence School Committee and the union representing its teachers was illustrated with frequent images of two wrestlers grappling on a gymnasium mat.  The reporter referred to the struggle between the school committee and the union as a “match,.” and said the teachers were “wrestling with a pay cut” and that a court decision might leave the city “financially pinned.”

Viewer Claire McWilliams, the parent of an East Providence fifth grader, emailed after the story:

(NBC10’s)  report of the court ruling on the E. Providence teacher’s pay cut was just plain demeaning and salacious.  Using images of wrestlers writhing on a gym floor as an analogy to what is going on with the teachers and the school committee not once but three times (including the trailer at the beginning of the newscast) smacked of the same sensational bullshit that keeps me from watching channel 12 or 6.  I thought channel 10 was above that kind of thing, but I guess not.  Too bad.  I’ll get my new elsewhere from now on thank you. 

Sometimes news is just news, and not entertainment.  Serious stories, including those about the economic conflict between employer and employee, should not be the vehicle for misplaced and clumsy attempts to be witty.

NBC10 provides the space for these comments, but the opinions are mine alone— Paul Giacobbe

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Speaking Ill

by Paul Giacobbe

The news department reported last week on the death of a man whose body was found under a bridge in Providence.  The story reported that the man was apparently homeless, and had a criminal record.  Viewer Geoffrey M. DiCenso did not believe the man’s criminal record was relevant to the story.

I just finished watching a news story about the cause of death of the man who was found under an overpass last week.  At the end of the story of the medical examiner’s report on the cause of his death, the reporter stated that the man was known at Crossroads, and “…he had a long criminal record”. I would like to know why, when reporting about the tragedy of a human being who froze to death because he had nowhere to go in this, the richest country in the world, was it necessary to report he had a criminal record?  Does that make his death less tragic?  Does that make him less important?  Less of a human being?  The poor bastard froze to death, alone under an overpass.  It’s bad enough he died in such an undignified and lonely way – you had to take away the rest of his dignity and have the last word on his life be that he had a criminal record.  Why do you have to have the last thing said about his life such a negative?  Why not end the story with “how and why can this happen in this country – why wasn’t he someplace warm and safe?
You people seem to be trying to keep up with Channels 11 and 12 and report sensationalistic news.  I think Doug White would be highly disappointed with this kind of reporting.  I know I am. Shame on you Channel 10.

The NBC10 assistant news director responded:

This was a follow-up to a story we had reported a few days earlier when the man’s body was first found and before he had been identified.  In the original story we reported that he “was a transient known to police” and made reference to that fact that it had been very cold that night.  This implied, without confirming, that he had died of exposure and homicide was not suspected.  The follow-up story confirmed that murder was not the cause, clarified the actual cause of death (heart disease) and explained further why he was known to police (criminal record);  all information we did not have in the earlier story.  It was not meant to be a condemnation of the man’s life, nor should it have been a commentary on homelessness.

Reporting on a death of this type presents an interesting dilemma: How to relate as much relevant information as possible when all information is not available (or able to be reported)?  Facts initially available, according to the assistant news director, were that a body was found and the cause of death was not known at the time of the first report.  Viewers ought to know, for example, that the deceased was not someone in a $1000 suit who had been murdered, but that the man was likely someone who had died of natural causes. 
.
The fact that the man was homeless, or had a criminal record, was not relevant to the story of his death, except that it was necessary, in this case, to explain as much about him as possible before his identity and cause of death were reportable. Were all the facts know initially, the natural causes death of a person—homeless or not— would not likely have been a story at all.
. .
NBC10 provides the spaced for this blog, but the opinions are mine alone. – Paul Giacobbe 

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Foie Gras

by Paul Giacobbe

Several viewers didn’t think there was much class displayed in the Johnson & Wales Cooking with Class segment that aired last week, and which featured a recipe for Foie Gras Toast Sauternes Gelee.  Fur, veal and foie gras, it seems, have something in common.

“I am very disappointed that your station would support Foie Gras,” wrote Elizabeth Castigliego. “If you only knew how much pain and suffering these birds endured for your eating pleasure. I am so upset, I am not sure I will watch your show anymore. To me, your episode today on Cooking with Class showed NO CLASS.”
Ms. Castigliego included with her email a video produced by the Humane Society of the United States. http://www.hsus.org/video_clips/foie_gras_.html

Foie gras, according to Wikipedia, is produced through the force feeding of geese, a procedure known as gavage.  The Humane Society website depicts the geese being force fed with a metal tube inserted into their throats.

Cindy Benevides also emailed about the cooking segment, and included the same link to the Humane Society.:

“I am very surprised that you would support Foie Gras in your cooking.  Maybe you don’t
know how much suffering goes into the production of this “delicacy”?  There
is a LOT of pan and suffering endured by the birds for this.  I hope you
will have more class in the future and not encourage items that are produced
out of such misery for any animal.”

In response to the viewer complaints a spokesman for Johnson & Wales offered the following:

“Johnson & Wales University offers its apologies to any viewers offended by the use of foie gras in a recent “Cooking with Class” segment.  We will not be using foie gras again in any future “Cooking with Class” episodes.”
The Wikipedia site, for more information about foie gras, is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras
. .

NBC10 provides the space for this blog, but any opinions are mine alone. – Paul Giacobbe.

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Spam

by Paul Giacobbe

“Spam,“  I recall my father, a World War II vet, saying “is ham that flunked it’s physical.”

For one viewer, the on-air comments of the 5 p.m. news team, following a story about the resurgence in popularity of the Hormel meat-in-a-can (ham, pork, sugar, salt, water, potato starch and “just a hint” of sodium nitrate, according to the website, http://www.spam.com), flunked the test of journalistic good taste.

The banter between the anchors and weatherman at the end of the Spam story was, according to the viewer, insensitive.

After the story:

Anchor #1:  “That’s what Gary had for breakfast today.”

Anchor #2:  “. . . Thanksgiving with a big old Spam.”

Anchor #1. “I guess it’s cheap though, I don’t know.”

Anchor #2.  “It’s tasty too.  I don’t know, I’ve never had one.”

Only the one viewer complained, but in keeping with this space’s attempt to present as much viewer input as possible, here’s what she said:

“It’s obvious that some people eat it,” the viewer said, and in this economy, with so many people homeless, such comments are “inappropriate.”

“There are some people who buy it because they can’t afford meat,” the viewer said, “and these kinds of comments from people with six figure incomes are not funny.”

As has occasionally been noted, many of the complaints which find their way here result from the casual, unscripted chat among anchors and reporters.  Segues and time fillers can be live television minefields, sprinkled with the occasional faux pas and the thankfully rare career killer.

But, Spam?? Even the company appears to make fun of itself with the kitschy website and the invitation to join the Spam fan club.  Notwithstanding that the bi-generational anchor team insisted they had never had Spam, it is an American institution, and we always poke fun at our institutions.  This viewer thought that the butt (considering where the Spam probably comes from there is, I swear, no pun intended) of the banter was the people who eat the Spam.  I’m not so sure.

In any case, now that the elections over there has to be something in the news that annoys us.
. .
NBC10 provides the space for this blog, but the opinions are mine alone. – Paul Giacobbe

Friday, November 21, 2008

Between the cup and the lip . . .

by Paul Giacobbe

A telephone call from an upset viewer a few weeks ago reminded me that there remains a disconnect of sorts between the people in the newsroom who go out and gather the news, and write their stories, and the people who write both the copy which promotes the stories and introduces the stories.

Mary Small was upset about a story relating to the discovery of the body of a teenage girl who had died in a field at an abandoned airport after wandering away from her friends at what was apparently a drinking party.  She was upset, Ms. Small said, not only by the story but because the story’s promotion, or “tease,” did not accurately represent the story.

Preprogram teases and anchor introductions to stories are frequently not written by the reporter who did the story.  As a result, occasionally the introductory material is in conflict with the actual story.

With Ms. Small’s complaint still in mind, I listened earlier this week to an anchor indicating at the start of the newscast that a lien had been placed on the home of an Attleboro woman as the result of a one cent tax bill.  While the idea of a person being sent a bill for one cent in these days of computer generated billing wasn’t all that surprising, the suggestion that a municipality had actually filed a lien for one cent did attract my interest.

But the story itself said nothing about a lien.  Only that the woman had been sent a threatening letter about her overdue tax bill.  The newsroom later confirmed that there was no information that a lien had been filed. (Unpaid taxes, whether overdue or not, are an automatic “lien” on real estate in most states, including Massachusetts and Rhode Island.  The story tease suggested that some action beyond this automatic lien had been taken as a result of the overdue one cent.)

Things move quickly in a newsroom heading towards a deadline.  But there should be some way to insure that viewer confidence in the news product is not eroded by misleading or inaccurate teases or introductions.
. .
NBC10 provides the space for this blog, but the opinions are mine alone – Paul Giacobbe