Sunday, December 16, 2007

Gridlock . . . or 30 Rock

by Paul Giacobbe

The heck with hundreds of Providence schoolchildren stranded on buses, the interminable commutes and interstates-as-parking-lots, to some viewers the preemption of seven minutes of 30 Rock was Thursday night’s most significant crisis.

A 30 Rock fan was upset that NBC10 had robbed him “of a half hour of joy” because he was unable to watch 30 Rock in its entirety, and also because the storm announcements which ran on-screen throughout the evening shrunk the 30 Rock viewing area.

“I consider TV news to be obnoxious and simple but this is not typically a problem for me because I’m not required to watch it,” the 30 Rock fan wrote, but by keeping storm announcements on the screen “you required me to watch it, which was quite frustrating.”

I am, I’ll admit, not a 30 Rock fan but if I was I’d sacrifice a little inconvenience to provide frequent updates for those people who had loved ones tied up in traffic, kids on school buses, or who needed a constant visual reminder NOT to go out.

Several viewers felt that NBC10 reporters did not ask the tough questions of state and Providence officials.  Why weren’t school closings more coordinated?  Why weren’t businesses asked to stagger closings?  Why weren’t police directing traffic, since much of the gridlock was caused by people creeping into, and blocking, intersections.

Bill Hudson wrote:  “I was amazed that no one challenged (Mayor Cicilline) about the city’s response to the situation.  The softball questions .  .  . (that) allowed him to cite irrelevant statistics about the number of snow plows . . . failed to get at the reality of what was happening .  .  . No one thought to ask him about what the city and the police department were doing to relieve what was the main problem – the gridlock on the city’s streets.”

Terrence McCarthy wrote to suggest that it was inappropriate and not objective for the reporter who was stuck in Thursday’s gridlock to announce, on Friday night’s news broadcast, that “this is a BIG story” and to characterize the previous night’s traffic mess as “outrageous.”  He further injected himself into the story, the viewer wrote, by mentioning during an interview with the mayor that “he (the reporter) is a parent.”

Mr. McCarthy also asked the question that, if asked by others, has certainly not been prominently reported:  What would happen if there was a terror attack, or warning, that triggered an attempted mass exodus from the city.  Would once again all the schools and businesses dismiss at the same time?

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Wait a Minute

by Paul Giacobbe

Most of the time the complaints are like this:  With five weathermen, and all that sophisticated equipment, why can’t anyone tell me for sure if it’s going to rain within the next 24 hours?  Well, it’s not, as any of the weather folk would likely say, an exact science, and whether one’s using a VIPIR or a gut feeling that comes from watching New England weather for 30 years, Mother Nature has a way of occasionally making even the best look silly.

Nevertheless, the weather reports generate a fair amount of Viewer Voice complaints even though they don’t fall within the fairness, accuracy and balance criteria.  (Accuracy, maybe, but I think we’re talking a different kind of accuracy when it comes to news reporting and weather forecasting.)

John D’Onofrio of Coventry recently emailed a typical complaint:

Since when did the daily weather report become a science lesson.  Even worse, why does the weather report have to be in two parts.  Most people want to hear the weather, they don’t want to be teased with a 3 minute overview (which by they way, never actually gives the weather).
I realize that this is an attempt to keep viewers tuned in so you can sell more advertising, but I think it may actually have the opposite effect.  Most people can get their weather instantly by tuning to channel 800 or 126 on Cox Cable.  In our house we constantly get frustrated by the 10-15 minutes of weather we have to listen to, just to hear the five day forecast.  We just change the channel.
Please, reevaluate this practice.  I realize that Channel 10 needs all of the advertising revenue it can get, but there must be a better way to keep viewers tuned in.

Another viewer called in with a complaint about the way the temperatures are displayed around the state.  Does it make a difference, he asked, that it was 36 degrees in Newport, 34 in Warwick and 33 at the Harmony Hill School?

There are a significant number of viewers who watch their local news only for the weather.  It’s hard to believe, I know, that there are those that care more about precipitation than politics, more about moving fronts than movie stars.  For those people, the news department has determined it’s important to have a weather segment in both the first and second 15 minute segment of the news program.  For those of us who just want to know if we need a raincoat or an overcoat, just sit back, be patient and wait:  Like the New England weather, the view on the screen will change in a minute.

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.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Who DO you trust??

Paul Giacobbe

          In its purest sense, the Viewers’ Voice/ombudsman program at NBC10 is designed to give the public a chance to be heard when they believe that an NBC10 news story is unfair, lacks balance or is inaccurate.  It is at its best when it provides an opportunity for persons who believe they have injured by a story to respond.

But the program has evolved, particularly with this blog, to provide viewers with the opportunity to express an opinion about things they simply don’t like about the news programs.  It is an extension of this remarkable, unique television experiment, now in its 10th year, to give air time and website space to news consumers critical of the product.

It’s become clear that many of the things viewers don’t like about a news show are related to the pressures of the business side of the news shows. Just like the prime time entertainment shows, the news shows are expected to earn money.  The more people that watch, the more advertisers pay for commercials.  The more advertisers pay, the more the station has to spend (theoretically, anyway) on reporters, editors and the news product.

But the business side of the news appears to more and more frequently clash with traditional journalistic principles.  The incursion, sometimes, is across a razor thin line, recognizable only to purists; other times, it is glaringly obvious.

Peg, a viewer, emails that she doesn’t like the NBC10 frequent reference to “the team you trust,” any more than she likes the competition’s “news you can count on.“  She notes, significantly I think, that not only are faceless, off camera announcers using the phrase, but also the news anchors themselves.

I agree with Peg and several others who have written about the use of the slogan.  It make me a little squeamish to hear a reporter, in effect, endorsing his or her own work; it’s a little like a commercial within a news story.

The issue may be in one’s definition of a reporter.  Is an anchor who reads stories prepared by others, or assembles facts gathered by others, or introduces a report done by another, a reporter or an announcer?  A reporter wouldn’t do a commercial, or endorse a product, but anchors routinely will promote a network’s entertainment programming, for example.  Are they putting their own credibility at stake when they refer, for example, to a program as “a hit,” when, in fact, it may not be?

I don’t, even for a moment, believe that a reporter or anchor is less able to objectively report the news because he or she appears to endorse the station’s programming.  But sometimes, as Peg’s email suggests, there is a measure of discomfort arising from the perception of reporter/anchor as pitchman.

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

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

By Any Other Name . . .

by Paul Giacobbe

Sometimes a really good question doesn’t have an answer, it just spawns more questions.  Such an issue arose as the result of an email received last week from Jeff in Riverside, who objected to a reporter’s description in a news story of an injured man seeking workers’ compensation benefits as an “undocumented worker.”

The worker, Jeff wrote, is an illegal alien, and referring to him as an “undocumented worker” is “politically correct but shades the story away from the fact that the worker is an illegal.”

The NBC10 news department follows the Associated Press stylebook, which suggests the term “illegal immigrant.”  The reporter referred to the injured man as an undocumented worker, said NBC10 News Director Betty Jo Cugini, because that’s how he was described in the matter before the Workers Compensation Court

I asked other members of the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO) http://www.newsombudsmen.org, comprised primarily of newspaper ombudsmen, if their organizations had a policy with regard to unattributed references to such residents/workers.

USA Today ombudsman Brent Jones says the USA Today style guide says the preferred term for foreign nationals who have illegally entered the USA is illegal immigrants, but the terms illegal aliens and illegals are also accepted, as is undocumented worker, when applicable.

Interestingly, however, he says the style guide warns to “take care not to identify individuals as any of the above unless it is known with certainty that their presence in this country has been ruled illegal by (the appropriate authority.)”

The Washington Post, writes Ombudsman Deborah Howell, says that the term “undocumented,” when used to describe illegal immigrants, “is a euphemism that obscures an important fact – that they are in this country illegally.  In general, use illegal immigrant (but not illegal alien. The word alien is repugnant to some people.)  Terms such as undocumented worker may be used for the sake of variety . . .  (but) do not use illegal as a noun, as in Jiminez is an illegal.”

The Houston Chronicle also discourages the use of the word “alien,” which they say is a pejorative to immigrants.  They don’t use the word “illegals” as a noun.  The Chronicle’s ombudsman, James Campbell, also referenced the view of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, which advises against the use of the word “illegals” and “alien.”

With regard to the term “illegal,” the NAHJ suggests that it too is inappropriate since, they say, under current U.S. law being an undocumented immigrant is not a crime, but a civil violation.  In addition, says the NAHJ, about 40 percent of undocumented people living in the U.S. did not enter illegally, but have simply overstayed their visas.

The USA Today stylebook admonition of characterizing someone as a lawbreaker without appropriate attribution or proof, as well as the NAHJ position regarding the use of the word “illegal,” was also addressed in the response of Dr. Edward Wasserman, a Knight Professor of Journalism Ethics at Washington and Lee University, and an ONO associate member.

Wasserman notes that while many of these immigrants may be here illegally, “the determination that someone’s presence is ‘illegal’ is a matter for a criminal or administrative tribunal to decide.”

“I don’t see why ‘undocumented’ doesn’t say enough,” wrote Wasserman, “and doesn’t lump a largely inoffensive population in with muggers, rapists and CEOs.”

Using the term “illegal aliens” or “illegal immigrants,” says Wasserman, calls attention to the law breaking aspects of their behavior, rather than, for instance, “highlighting their desperation, or their presence as willing workers, or the ineptitude of our political leadership to figure out a way to accommodate both the supply and the demand that they represent.”

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

In the Eye of the Beholder

Paul Giacobbe

         
Recently a viewer emailed her concern about the coverage of a murder in front of the el Tiburon in Providence.  The story related how a local man was shot in front of the bar and featured an interview with the man’s cousin, who had set up a sidewalk memorial for the dead man.  The cousin then called the murderers punks and challenged them to try and kill him, also.

The viewer thought that broadcasting the man’s challenge was inappropriate and likely to incite more violence.  She was right.

But when I saw the report the night it aired, it didn’t immediately strike me as wrong.  I thought of it as a good, day-after story and an interesting look at the culture in which killings result from minor or perceived insults or transgressions.  The viewer saw the other side of the story, the danger of permitting the cousin to issue his challenge.  I didn’t. 

The episode was a reminder of how differently people view the same news story.  I get a lot of emails and telephone calls.  Many of them are from clearly intelligent, articulate people who are so focused or invested in a cause or philosophy that they appear unable to see or understand that there may be another side to the issue.  They invariably complain about any story – even a story that by any objective standard is balanced – that gives even the slightest voice to the position opposing their own, or that does not fully and in detail explain all of the points favoring their position.

What is frequently the most frustrating aspect of this type of complaint is dealing with the complainant’s firmly held belief that the failure of the story to cover his or her position adequately is not due to inadvertence or neglect – or simply bad journalism – but some sort of bias or conspiracy by the reporter and/or the station.

I do think that a reporter with a bias can skew the outcome of what on its face is a balanced story.  For example, do interviews with advocates from each side but choose the most articulate for the position you favor, and the least capable representing the other point of view. But I don’t think that such things happen nearly as often as many viewers think they do, and I believe it is even more unusual in local television news.

The people who report your local news generally don’t know what they’re going to cover until they arrive at work.  They then have a few hours to gather facts, conduct interviews, condense those facts and interviews into a 90 second report and coordinate the audio and video in time for the evening news show.  Even if so inclined, that doesn’t leave much time to conspire to slant the facts of a story.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

From the Emailbag

Paul Giacobbe

Some random thoughts from viewers over the past several weeks . . .

***

      A West Greenwich man suggests that there is too great a concern with “political correctness” in the occasional descriptions of crime suspects given in the course of a news story.  If the police say they are looking for “a man in his twenties with short dark hair and a mustache,“ shouldn’t the news report indicate whether he’s black, white or Asian?  Frequently, the caller says, a racial description is missing, to the detriment of the intent of the story; that is, to provide as complete a description as possible.

***

      Frequently no one is happy with stories that relate to illegal immigrants.  The recent stories about the arrest of a number of workers at a Fall River factory brought complaints from viewers who either felt the stories were slanted in favor of the illegals, or from viewers who felt the stories did not adequately explain the plight of the foreign workers.  Of the complaints, it is clearly an emotional issue for some and a financial issue for others.  Reporters have a limited time to tell a story and each story appears to include the basis position of each side but does not—and cannot—include all of the points that each side feels are important, and that’s what appears to upset many viewers: That the issue they felt was the most important was not included.

***

Margaret emails her concern that a recent series about obesity used illustrative footage of people who were obese.  While the video did not show faces, it did show the lower body of people in public.  Writes Margaret:

“I think it’s terrible and insulting how the camera is just placed on people going about their own business and before you know it Channel 10 is taking pictures of these obese people . . . It’s bad enough that these people have to know it’s them when they watch the news.”

        While viewers may recognize their body type in these videos (and, perhaps, find that embarrassing) it’s unlikely that they would recognize themselves or anyone they know.  The particular footage Margaret refers to was, the reporter says, obtained from a source that provides video material.  It probably was taken in another state.  It is, the reporter says, the same footage used almost every time the station does a weight related report.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Out, damned spot!

Paul Giacobbe

      It wasn’t Lady MacBeth, but George Scheck, who emailed:

      I have two things that annoy me greatly. First, your station isn’t alone
in doing this but having the station logo appear on the lower right of
the screen all during the news report just drives me crazy. I can’t
count the number of action shots or sport shots where the action ends
right behind the logo. Don’t any of you people notice that?

George Scheck 
 

      First of all, Mr. Scheck is fortunate that there are only two things that annoy him greatly.  He does, however, raise issues which are an occasional source of complaints.

      Those ubiquitous logos in the lower right corner of the screen are annoying.  I find them distracting, but they are really offensive on sports programming, where they frequently block out a score, statistic or some other information that seems important at the time.

      Betty-Jo Cugini, the NBC10 news director, says the logo that runs during the news show (“the bug,” she says it’s called) is meant to be informational, displaying the time and temperature.  Because they know it can block out material, she says, the news programming is formatted with a “bug safe zone,” a corner of the screen which should be free of visuals the bug might cover.

      Another reason that NBC10 (and most other broadcasters) uses the bug is to protect the material it airs from being misused.  It has become so easy to copy and rebroadcast programming on sites like YouTube,  that it is important to be able to identify video that may have been copied.

      As to the “coming up next” issue, I suspect it’s done so that you won’t change the channel.  A lot of people watch the news primarily for the weather report and station executives want to keep you watching as long as possible. I think “coming up next” means “in the next segment,” not necessarily the very next item.  There are mini weather reports during the news program, as well as the full weather report which usually runs at the same time every show, so most people who are only interested in the weather know what time to tune in or pay attention.

Monday, August 06, 2007

A Viewer Writes About Plagiarism and Attribution

Paul Giacobbe

      A viewer has a concern about the manner in which a recent story was presented on the 11 p.m. news:

      On 7/31/07 Patrice Wood did a voice-over of a CNN interview with a female friend of one of the Connecticut home invaders.  The original interviewer was almost completely edited out.  Wood’s voice-over was almost identical to the original narrative.
      At best the source should have been attributed.  At worst it was flagrant plagiarism.  To say I’m disappointed in WJAR and Patrice Wood is an understatement.  I wonder how often this happens.
Barbara Anderson

      Ms. Anderson’s email was referred to Chris Lanni, the executive producer of that night’s 11 p.m. broadcast:

      Thank you for your concern regarding the CNN story Patrice Wood voiced over Tuesday evening.  We appreciate your point of view and admit this might be considered a gray area.

Chris Lanni,  Executive Producer

Ms. Anderson’s letter does raise an interesting question, but I’m not convinced that the issue is one of plagiarism, which I think of as the misappropriation of someone else’s unique words or ideas.  News stories are, by their nature, a recitation of facts.  In this case, NBC10, as well as many others, paid the news service reporter to reuse and rebroadcast that reporter’s description of certain events.

Ms. Anderson’s remarks about attribution is probably more of a concern. While it is not a common practice and likely would be awkward when using news service material, by failing to attribute ANY factual representation, a reporter adopts those facts as his or her own and takes the ultimate responsibility for their accuracy. A reporter, then, gambles his or her reputation on the accuracy of the original provider of the facts. Because of that, I can’t imagine the circumstances where a reporter or anchor would not independently verify the facts of each story he or she reads on the air.

      NBC10 provides the space for this blog, but the opinions here are mine alone.—P.G.

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

Oscar the Cat

Paul Giacobbe

(Revised from a Previous Post)

An email regarding the recent story about Oscar, the Steere House cat who is purportedly able to predict imminent death:

I find it very reprehensible that a professional person as Gene Valicenti would use the term,“grim reaper” as a nomen for the cat at the Steere House who has the innate ability to sense when a dementia patient is in the dying process. The dying process is a natural process of life and not one to be mocked at with an off handed,crude remark from a so-called professional reporter/anchor person.
This is not the first time Gene has been glib and insensitive about real life issues of death and dying as well as other human frailties that affect us.I have no idea why he was voted as a ‘best anchor man’. He does not deserve that acclaim for his continued insensitivity and brashness.
Sincerely,
Father John J.Rainone
Director
Department of Pastoral Care
St. Joseph Health Care Services

    As, I suspect, I will frequently point out in this blog, the Viewers’ Voice is designed to address viewer concerns of fairness, accuracy and balance in news stories.  In that role I have tried to avoid issues which are outside my “fairness, accuracy and balance” responsibilities.  However, I can’t imagine that the station officials expected the folks who participate in this blog to not dip into other areas, including issues such as this. On the other hand, while NBC10 provides this space,

    Gene has a particular style which viewers either like, or they don’t.  It is a choppy, sometimes witty, conversational style that is sometimes offensive to viewers.  The term “grim reaper” seems to be universally defined as “the personification of death,“ a cloaked figure carrying a scythe. The story suggested that Oscar sensed impending death, not that he caused death or even that he brought death with him. 

    The style, however, works for Gene.  When it spills over to others, however, it sometimes doesn’t work.  In a recent introduction to a story about former Mayor Cianci being released from prison, I winced when I heard Patrice say that Cianci was getting “out of the pen.“  My first thought was that she had inadvertently read Gene’s copy.  It was disconcerting, almost like hearing Patrice say a dirty word.  It didn’t fit what we’ve all come to know as Patrice’s style.  Not only was it an outdated term—I haven’t heard “pen” since the old Cagney movies—but it was inaccurate.  “Pen” is short for penitentiary, and Cianci was not in a federal penitentiary, a particular class of facilities.

Monday, July 30, 2007

Cianci’s Return

Paul Giacobbe

    The two hour Cianci special of last Thursday night, and the frenzied coverage— “he had lunch on the Hill” and “Omigod, he’s not wearing his toupee” – has passed with not nearly as much NBC10 viewer reaction (read that, “backlash”)  as expected.  Two emails came into the Viewers’ Voice email:

    I cannot agree with the decision to give this ex-con who disgraced and dishonored the office of mayor and the public trust another platform (Channel 10) on which to glorify and justify himself.
    Is this responsible journalism?  Or is it journalism for sensationalism and the profit alone?

and . . .

    I am tired of listening about “Citizen Cianci” and his freedom.  The man was convicted of a federal crime yet you feel the need to sensationalize his freedom and follow him around and report his every move.  The man did do good things in the city, but that was in the past.  Do you plan to report the freedom and future of all convicted federal criminals?

  The newsroom said it received three calls Thursday night, two of which were supportive of the decision to run the special and one that was not.

  I expected a more active response to the station’s decision to air the special and to the coverage of the former mayor’s release from penal oversight, but I was not bothered by the lack of reaction.  Cianci is an important part of this state’s history.  His return after an extended absence – whatever the reason for that absence – is certainly worth noting.

  The first emailer above asks whether the coverage “is journalism for sensationalism and the profit alone.”  Many people, whether they are supporters or not, are interested in the mayor. Running a two hour special, or limited reporting on the mayor’s movements in his first few days of freedom, is naturally based on a profit motivated decision that viewers are interested and, therefore, will watch.  That’s not wrong, that’s the basis of commercial television.

  Cianci, his return to Providence, public life and his expected return to talk radio, are potentially compelling stories. Hopefully, future coverage will be based not on his luncheon plans or hairstyle but rather on the impact, if any, of his return to Providence and Rhode Island politics.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

A Tough Start

by Paul Giacobbe

    Last Friday the station broadcast an ombudsman report that was critical—or, at least, I thought it was critical—of the decision of NBC10 and other news organizations to identify a Narragansett man who was charged with raping a woman 32 years ago, when both were age 16.  The charge was brought by a woman who said she had repressed the memory of the attack for those 32 years. After the man was indicted, the attorney general said he did not believe he could successfully prosecute, and dropped the charges. (The ombudsman report can be viewed on the Viewer’s Voice page on this website.)

  That report generated this email:

    I just watched your lame excuse for an apology to the man who was accused of something he may not even have done and it made me sick. Not only do you cast the blame on everyone else involved with this case but you seem to hide behind others. No shame on the attorney generals office for doing what the law tells him but SHAME ON PEOPLE LIKE YOU who should have just admitted it was wrong to give this mans name. Unfortunately you are like most other news people, report to be “the first” to break a big story and blame it on everyone else if you’re wrong. I am not a perfect person, far from it but I can go to sleep without having to worry about smearing someones name. You on the other hand are scum. I hope you are wrongly accused of something that you haven’t done and it ruins your already pitiful career. Channel 10 went way over the line in this case and instead of just apologizing, you choose to hide. I will no longer watch the trash you and your station promote.

    Other than an email address, the email was unsigned.  Either I wasn’t clear in the ombudsman report or the writer of the email just didn’t get it.  Not only wasn’t NBC10 “blaming” someone else, they were paying

and giving me the air time to do it.  Anyway, welcome to the Viewer’s Voice blog.

Friday, July 20, 2007

Welcome to the Viewer’s Voice Blog

by Paul Giacobbe

The Viewer’s Voice, almost 10 years old now,  enters the 21st century with the introduction of this blog. I’ll still review complaints about fairness, accuracy and balance in news reports and, when appropriate, reply directly or, if the issue warrants, respond with an on-air report.  In the past there have been some issues that have been important to viewers but which I didn’t see as significant enough to warrant an on-air response.  For those issues, there is now the blog.  It’s not exactly wide open—I’ll review submissions before they’re posted because the thought of some of the stuff I’ve gotten in the past going directly on the blog freaks me out a bit.  But almost anything will generally be OK.  This could be both entertaining and fun or it could be NBC10’s worst nightmare. Let’s see.