Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Everybody Doesn’t Like Something . . .

by Paul Giacobbe

Terrence McCarthy of South Kingstown who, I suspect, is going to provide fodder for a lot of these blog postings, emails that he was troubled when an NBC10 anchor commented “That is an amazing story,” at the end of a recent report.  He likens the remark to the frequent comment by anchors that “this is (or that was) interesting.“
If a story weren’t interesting, he suggests, it wouldn’t have been chosen for the limited time available on a nightly news broadcast.  Why is it, he writes, necessary to reinforce – or to try and convince a viewer –  that a story is interesting?

I agree, but as I told Mr. McCarthy, a running critique of the NBC10 news shows is not the function of the Viewers Voice/ombudsman.  The ombudsman position was created more than ten years ago to provide an independent avenue of redress for viewers who feel a story lacked fairness, accuracy or balance.  My role, as I understand it, is not to be a critic of the news shows, except when they impact on fairness, accuracy and balance issues.  The people who put together the news shows each day have a lot more experience and expertise in day to day news operations; they deal with issues and problems that many of us don’t, or can’t fully understand.

That having been said, however, it doesn’t mean that the contributors to this blog can’t express their opinions about the quality of the newscasts or about any other aspect of the varied NBC10 news shows.  I encourage viewers to comment on what they don’t like about a particular story, or a news show.  There is no other Providence television station that actually gives viewers the space to complain about their news product.

While perhaps outside the ombudsman function, there are some things that I, just like any other viewer, am occasionally troubled by.

I don’t like a story that contains unattributed references, even the most innocent.  When a reporter says that a person was, for example, “too upset to speak,” he or she can’t possibly know that.  If the person said  they were too upset to speak, then that’s the way it ought be reported.

I don’t like it when a reporter tries to “sell” a story by attempting to make it more dramatic than the who, what, where, when and why suggest it is.

I don’t like a story labeled as an investigative report when it’s nothing more than a really good consumer story, or simply a station exclusive.  The investigative reporting label is unnecessarily cheapened when it’s put on stories that don’t contain a significant element of investigation.  By definition, any story that can be assembled in a day or two doesn’t meet those criteria.

I don’t like it when I see words, especially names, misspelled on graphics which accompany a story.  It makes me concerned about the care that went into the rest of the story.

Well, that was liberating.  What don’t YOU like?

While NBC10 provides the space for this blog, the opinions are mine alone.  (Shouldn’t that be obvious by now?) – Paul Giacobbe

Thursday, November 15, 2007

An Ugly Story

Paul Giacobbe

          There were several reports recently concerning the arrest of a Central Falls councilman on sexual assault charges.  The councilman was arrested after police say they found him, and a 15 year old boy, in the councilman’s car parked under the Henderson Bridge in Providence.

The NBC10 story on the arrest indicated that police observed the councilman’s pants below his knees, and his genitals exposed.

Helen, a viewer from South Kingstown, was upset that the story as it related to the councilman’s private parts was so descriptive.  It was not, she said, an appropriate description to be used at a time when young children might be present.

I disagreed.  There is no question the story could have been told without the specific mention of the councilman’s private parts.  For example, the same message might have been conveyed by saying that the councilman’s pants and underwear were below his knees, or that he was seen by police naked below the waist.  But it was the underlying allegations that made this story ugly, and using the word “genitals” couldn’t make those charges any more, or less, distasteful.  We don’t like hearing about incidents involving the sexual abuse of children, not because they’re announced at dinnertime, but because we don’t want to hear them at all.

But while we don’t like to hear about these things, we need to know when a person entrusted with our government and our children is alleged to have abused that trust. And in telling that story, except in unusual circumstances, reporters and news organizations should make all the facts known as clearly as possible, even if doing so offends a small percentage of viewers.

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

 

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Stories About People Who Die

Paul Giacobbe

When people die unexpectedly, or tragically, it’s frequently news.  Fires, war deaths, auto accidents, and even the occasional public suicide, are all legitimate areas of public interest.  How reporters and news organizations should cover those deaths, however, isn’t as clear an issue.

In reporting the recent auto accident deaths of two Chariho High School teenagers, the reporter interviewed one victim’s grandmother who, at the time of the interview was clearly distraught.  She said a few things about her grandson, but nothing that added any information to the news story.

Terrence McCarthy of South Kingstown,  who identified himself as a psychiatric counselor and former newspaper reporter, emailed his concerns about the car death story, and stories in general where a victim’s family members are asked about the death of a loved one, especially so soon after the event.

“The decent thing to do is leave these people alone.  To grieve, mourn,” McCarthy wrote. “Do what they must to start the process of healing.  Sticking a mike in their faces is like sticking a gun to their heads.  It robs them of their dignity.”

In the early 1970’s Journal reporters, including me at the time, were often required to go to the homes of Vietnam War victims to obtain from the family a photo of the deceased and talk with the family.  It was one of the most unpleasant tasks, but I do not recall a single instance when I was not well received by the family.  I came to believe that the process of speaking to a stranger – even a reporter – about the deceased family member was cathartic and, to some extent, part of the grieving process.

Mr. McCarthy disagreed.  He wrote that grief counseling is often done badly even by professionals, and reporters shouldn’t be encouraged to assume that role.

“The people they wish to interview are fragile, vulnerable,”  he wrote.  “Why do (family members) stand outside their homes and welcome reporters’ interviews?  Their judgment is far from good at that point in the grieving process.”

I don’t like most interviews with a victim’s family, or even friends, either, but for a different reason.  In most cases, the interview doesn’t add anything relevant to the story.  I want to know more about the who, what when, where and why of the event that caused the deaths.  In the web site version of the Chariho students’ death story, for example, no mention was made of the time of the crash, except that it was at night, and there was nothing about where the teenagers were going to or coming from.

Interviews with family evoke a predictable response.  A friend saying the deceased was kind, loving, or popular doesn’t tell me what a news story ought to; it’s simply a way for a reporter to show he was there, or a way to break up a factual recitation with an interview.  It may make good TV, but it often isn’t good reporting.