Friday, February 29, 2008

Prince Harry’s WHERE???

by Paul Giacobbe

Anyone who’s read this blog/column in the past (and I’m sure there’s at least one or two of you out there) knows that I frequently remind viewers of the parameters of my responsibilities: Responding to viewer complaints about fairness, accuracy and balance in the NBC10 news programs.  Recently I received an email from Donald W. France Jr. of Warren, who wrote:

I read with interest the Internet news reports discussing Prince Harry. These articles state that CNN, NBC and the other major news outlets choose to willingly deceive the viewing public about Prince Harry’s deployment to Afghanistan.
Prince Harry chose to be a soldier.  Soldiers sometimes go to war.  Sadly, soldiers are sometimes killed. The point remains Prince Harry chose to be a soldier.
One can only wonder…..if “The Team you Trust” and its network were willing to lie about this matter, what else are they deceiving the viewing public about each and every day.  It makes one wonder if all those conspiracy theories about the news media being under the control of the military-industrial complex is not based in some fact.

The Prince Harry story seems somewhat afield from the “fairness, accuracy and balance” criteria as it applies to NBC10’s coverage of local news, but since Mr. France has dragged me into this . . .

The decision not to report the details of Prince Harry’s military deployment has been attributed almost exclusively to the British press and, although I have not specifically inquired, I think I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that the question of whether to rat out Prince Harry never came up in any NBC10 internal news department discussions.  Nevertheless, while I believe his conclusions overly harsh, Mr. France does raise an interesting issue:  Is it ever appropriate for a news organization to withhold information it believes may harm the public interest, or put one or more people in danger?

The answer is that news organizations do it frequently.

Several years ago robbers briefly held hostages in a fast food restaurant in New Bedford.  They fortuitously did it during a time period encompassed by the early evening news.  NBC10 and other TV stations were there and all, to some extent, complied with police wishes that they not broadcast live reports.  Police said they were concerned that the men inside the restaurant might view the reports and see details of police deployment outside the restaurant, or be somehow influenced by seeing themselves, and their situation, on television.

Sometimes public safety officials ask media outlets not to broadcast breaking news about a fire or other disaster, so that gawkers don’t show up and impede rescue efforts.

The withholding by news organizations of details of an event until after it has happened is not a lie, as Mr. France suggests, and is not significantly different than the decision to withhold the details of Prince Harry’s deployment until after his return.  There are numerous examples of news organizations, during wartime, withholding details of troop movements and deployments.  Reporters embedded with military units during the Gulf Wars did not disclose the locations of the units (and when Geraldo Rivera gave a hint of his unit’s location he was soundly chastised.)

Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, in Britain, recently explained the decision by the British press not to disclose that the prince was in a war zone. 

“Editors accepted a purely voluntary understanding with the Ministry of Defence that specifically stated that the blackout applied only to his military duties in Afghanistan and not to any of his other hobbies or activities, such as late night socialising.“

Once he returned, Satchwell wrote, the details of his deployment would be reported without interference from the military.

Many editors voiced concerns about this agreement, Satchwell wrote, “anxious that it might dilute their future credibility with the public. . . . The consensus was that . . .  it would be wrong to put him and his soldier colleagues at extra risk by publicising his deployment in advance.“

The decision to withhold such information is, of course, frequently difficult and almost never without some trepidation.  Some decisions, however, are easier than others.  All things considered, I suspect this was one of the easy ones.

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

Sunday, February 10, 2008

New at 11 . . .

by Paul Giacobbe

Publishers sell newspapers and broadcasters sell air time.  Newspapers charge advertisers based on the paper’s circulation and broadcasters, such as NBC10, base their rates on the number of viewers.

To that end, and like any other business, NBC10 advertises.  Some of those ads are in the form of “teases,” promotional ads that invite viewers to watch a story to be shown on a particular newscast and sometimes, to the consternation of viewers, only on the 11 p.m. newscast.

There’s a tease for the 11 p.m. news almost every day, but the most interesting stories often result in the most effective teases —and the most viewer complaints.  That includes last week’s story – teased for the 11 p.m. news – about ‘the one place you shouldn’t go if there’s a fire at the Providence Place Mall.  (It’s the parking garage.)

Brian Skeffington emailed this: ’ I have been frustrated by news story teasers aired around the 6 p.m. broadcast that mentioned some location in the Providence Place Mall that one should definitely not go during an emergency.  Details at 11. The problem is, I can’t watch at 11, and so I remain unaware of what may be important information that Channel 10 has and withholds from me and my family. The teaser has run on a couple of evenings, and yet I remain uninformed.  That’s not news reporting.  That’s merchandising.  Either you are providing valuable information, or you’re selling air time.  Make up your minds.
“I watch only channel 10 for my news. I enjoy all who sit in front of the camera. My complaint is what you call a teaser. Tonight at eleven is a segment on the Providence Place Mall. I have to be up every morning at 3:30 AM for work, and can not watch the late news. I think for something as important as safety at the Mall, or any other safety issue, should be on at 6:00,” writes Dennis.

Another viewer emailed: “For days Turn to 10 has been advertising a story regarding Providence Place Mall.  If it is such a serious problem, why wasn’t “the one place not to go” revealed instead of being used as a come-on?”

Chris Lanni, the NBC10 assistant news director responds:  It is no secret that some stories are placed in certain newscasts in hopes of increasing viewership.  Balancing the viewers’ interests with business interests is an unavoidable reality.  That said, this story was purposely placed in a (newscast) accessible to the largest majority of our viewers.  Most people are home and available in the evening.  Additionally, the story was highly promoted for several days so that anyone with an interest had the time and information needed to set a DVR or VCR.  Finally, we made the story available on turnto10.com the next day for those who weren’t able to watch it live or record it. 

I don’t like teases, but I’ve come to accept their inevitability.  But there are some stories that shouldn’t be teased, for the reasons expressed by Brian and the other two viewers.  Some time ago the news department teased a story about 911 being out of service in several northern RI communities, without identifying those communities. There was some discussion at that time, partially as a result of that story, that some public safety issues were inappropriate for teases.  The Providence Place Mall story appears to fall squarely within that category.

If there is a real danger, shouldn’t the information be provided at the earliest possible time?  If the danger isn’t so great, then is the story really worth two or three days of promotion? 

NBC10 provides the space for these comments (and yours) but the opinions are mine alone. – Paul Giacobbe

Monday, February 04, 2008

The URI Basketball Story

by Paul Giacobbe

An I-Team story last week about the compensation paid to URI basketball coach Jim Baron generated as many emails and phone calls as I’ve received in the recent past.  Viewers who called and wrote complained that the story was somewhere between unfair and a “hatchet job.”

The story related details of the URI coach’s compensation package in the context of what state leaders tell us is a looming fiscal crisis requiring the layoff of a considerable number of state workers and a cut in services.  The story noted that Baron’s compensation package is in excess of $600,000 and raised the question of whether a Division I basketball program was a luxury in difficult fiscal times.  The URI athletic director was given the opportunity to respond to that issue, and his remarks were included in the I-Team story.

Viewers who complained, and who universally identified themselves as URI basketball fans, students, alumni or employees, unanimously agreed that the program is worth the money, for a variety of reasons I’ll list later, and that the story was biased, and failed to accurately or completely explain the relationship between the university’s funding and the taxpayer’s pocket.

NBC10 pays me to be the “Viewers’ Voice,” and this posting will give voice to the complaints and opinions of those who called and wrote.  But I don’t, for the most part, agree with them.  It seems clear that college sports fans in general, and perhaps URI fans in particular, are rabidly dedicated and single minded in matters involving their teams.  They fail to realize, I suspect, that most people (taxpayers) are more concerned about their daily struggles than they are about the sports teams at URI, PC, Brown or Bryant.

While some viewers said the details of Baron’s salary are “common knowledge,” I follow the news pretty closely and while I knew he made a lot of money I didn’t know, for example, that he gets 20 percent of the gate on all home games and all of the net proceeds from one away game.  I thought it was interesting that in the past six years URI has funded $100,000 in travel for him to make recruiting trips to places like Paris, Germany, Latvia and Belgrade; that he gets bonuses for good team performance, a $5000 car allowance and an alumni financed $7000 a year membership at Quidnesset Country Club. 

Although I believe the story fairly raised a legitimate issue, and provided information for viewers, those who wrote didn’t agree.  This is a pretty complete summary, by category, of their issues with the I-Team story:

The story and the promos for the story, inaccurately said Baron has a losing URI and lifetime record.  I-Team reporter Jim Taricani said that the URI website with Baron’s history (http://gorhody.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/baron_jim00.html) lists the coach’s record at 293 wins and 297 losses lifetime, and his URI coaching record at 87 wins and 95 losses through the 2006-2007 season, and that was the source for the material used in the report.  According to viewers, if 2007-2008 games are included, Baron has a record both at URI and lifetime over the .500 mark.  Those viewers who objected have a valid argument:  The story should have attributed the figures used in the report to the URI website, or made clear that this season’s games were not included.

The I-Team story was a product of the station’s relationship with Providence College and an attempt to discredit this year’s URI successes. Brett, who identified himself as a URI student, wrote: “It is a shame that you are trying to ruin it for (URI) because your Friars are having a sub-par season.”

Assistant News Director Chris Lanni says “WJAR has forged relationships with hundreds of local organizations including PC and URI.”  He says the I-Team and the sports department are separate entities and that the sports department was unaware of the URI story and played no role in its conception or development.

The story failed to adequately disclose that taxpayers pay only a portion (about 18%) of the URI budget. The story didn’t make completely clear how much of the compensation and perks came directly from taxpayers.  Reporter Taricani responds that all of Baron’s base salary of $286,000 comes from tax dollars, and that his take from gate receipts, in effect, takes money away from the University.

Bruce from Warwick, a 1978 URI grad says the story failed to mention that money from the basketball program supports other non-revenue sports, but that doesn’t seem to be true.  URI Director of Athletics Thorr Bjorn, quoted in the I-Team story, says that the program doesn’t support itself, “but it certainly generates external revenue and it certainly generates positive exposure.”

The story failed to also explore the taxpayer funding of renovations to the Dunkin’ Donuts Center which, viewers said, principally benefited Providence College, a private school.

Lanni says that after reviewing the viewer complaints he thinks they may have a point, and the news department will look into funding for the Dunkin’ Donuts center and its use by PC and the Providence Bruins.  But, he says, that’s a different issue than Baron’s compensation and the costs of a Division I basketball program.

Anyone who works for government – even if only a portion of their pay comes from taxpayers – is subject to scrutiny, and that’s especially true when they’re the highest paid state employee.  There were flaws in the story, but it raised an important question, whether that small (but vocal) portion of taxpayers who are URI fans agree or not:  When funds are so scarce that workers are being laid off, and state services cut,  can a government afford the luxury of a Division I sports program?

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