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

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

It’s Scholastic Magazine, for Goodness Sake!!!

by Paul Giacobbe

Elections, and the reporting associated with elections, are a more than occasional source of complaints to NBC10.  Experience has suggested that as a candidacy becomes more troubled, that candidate’s supporters are more frequently likely to blame the news media for those troubles.

This week, NBC10 aired at 11 p.m. a national story about a poll taken by Scholastic Magazine.  The poll, which the magazine admitted was unscientific, surveyed 250,000 school children who, according to the poll, favored Barack Obama over John McCain for president by 57% to 39%.

A viewer, who identified herself as a veteran supporting Senator McCain, emailed this:

I just heard while listening to Monday nights 11:00 p.m. news about a story . . . about a poll of young kids who, if they could, would vote for a certain candidate (Obama) and that over 50% of them said they would?!!  How biased is that?  So, do you think that all of us adults are so naive to believe that smut report of yours and think that will change our minds if some of us are McCain supporters? 

Do you REALLY think they REALLY know the REAL Obama?  Why don’t you go LOOK for REAL stories behind this maniac Senator for once!  Or are you too “AFRAID” that you’ll be labeled “racist” by his party if you go investigate this man’s livid past!  STOP BEING BIASED!  I just won’t watch you anymore!

This was the story, reported by WNBC reporter Carol Anne Riddell:
Anchor local: If you’re hungry for predictions on who will win the presidential race—You might try asking kids.

Anchor local: The poll is not based on a scientifically designed sample—instead it’s based on teachers who have their classes participate and kids who individually choose to take part.
.

I’m generally sympathetic to the concerns of viewers, since that’s why I’m here.  But I can’t understand how anyone could consider that story “smut,” or interpret it as an attempt by NBC10, or the station and reporter that produced the story, to influence voters.  It’s Scholastic Magazine, not the Democratic National Committee.

Viewers might not like the results of the polls taken by the Washington Post or NBC News, but we announce them anyway.  And yes, those polls are generally of registered voters, but they are polls nevertheless.  Reporting the results of a poll, whatever those results are, do not indicate a bias.

In fairness to the viewer who emailed, in gathering materials for this story I communicated with a veteran reporter at the station who indicated that she too was troubled that the story appeared to be one sided.
I disagree with her as I do with the viewer.  It was a poll and barring any suggestion that the polling was rigged, it’s a cute, relevant news story that demonstrates efforts to acquaint young people with the election process.
. .
This space is provided by NBC10, but the opinions here are mine alone – Paul Giacobbe

Friday, September 12, 2008

Unpopular Question

by Paul Giacobbe

          The NBC10 news staff did not escape the national controversy over the propriety of questioning vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s family obligations.  Shortly after she was announced as the Republican choice, Governor Carcieri was asked about her candidacy while he was at the Republican National Convention.

The question which raised the ire of several viewers was asked during a live interview with Carcieri on the 5:30 p.m. news show.  It was the last question, having been preceded by several questions which gave Carcieri the opportunity to praise the selection of Governor Palin.

“If you were hiring her for a position when you ran Cookson, wouldn’t you wonder whether (she) was up to the job, whether (she) could balance family and responsibilities?”  the reporter asked.

Viewer Maureen Walsh, who said she worked in human resources, said she “takes great exception” to the question.  As a human resources person, she said, those kind of questions can’t be asked of prospective employees and for the reporter to ask was “idiotic and insulting.”

The reporter says he believes the question was fair, “considering the enormous responsibilities of the vice-presidency, not to mention the presidency.”  While the governor responded that he would never ask a prospective employee such a question, the reporter said, “wouldn’t he wonder?,” especially in the larger context of the vice-presidency.

Reporters ask questions.  The best reporters frequently ask the unpopular questions.  Imagine if the governor had responded, ‘You know, I don’t know how she’s going to be able to handle all that responsibility.’ 

The issue is not whether family obligations should be a factor in electing a presidential ticket, but whether there’s

in a candidate’s life likely to distract a president, man or woman, from his or her responsibilities.

The governor himself, early in the same interview, in response to a question about Governor Palin’s qualifications, said “There’s nothing wrong with asking questions.  Just report on it and move on.”  That’s what this reporter did.

The suggestion that certain questions are out of bounds ignores an essential element of news reporting.  This not someone being hired as a data processor; this is someone who will be the vice-president.  Voters can’t generally ask questions of candidates.  The ballot decision rests on public statements, debates and questions, usually from reporters.

In addition, Governor Palin’s past statements and actions have, according to some, made the tough questions about her family situation more appropriate.

Debra Haffner, a Unitarian minister and sex educator from Westport, Connecticut, is quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying she thinks Palin has invited such scrutiny.  “When you keep proudly saying ‘I’m a hockey mom of five’ . . . you open your own parenting practice up to consideration.”

In 2004, according to the same LA Times article, Palin herself told a newspaper she decided not to run for the U.S. Senate because her son opposed it.

“How could I be the team mom if I was a U.S. senator?” she asked.

Some suggest that such questions would not be asked of a man.  In 2007, when John Edwards continued to pursue the Democratic presidential nomination, questions arose about whether a man with three children, including two still in school, and who was confronting the illness of a spouse, could meet the demands of the presidency.

Additionally, if a male candidate had five young children, including a 17 year old pregnant daughter and a special needs infant, and he was not asked if that would be a distraction, then shame on all those who failed to ask the question.

In the world of partisan politics, reporters have a difficult job.  If history has taught us anything, it’s that the worst questions are the ones not asked.
. .

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

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Sleight-of-hand

by Paul Giacobbe

Were it not for the ongoing issue of immigrant workers who have entered this country in violation of certain immigration regulations, and sometimes in violation of the law, I’d be concerned that no one was watching the news at all.  I vowed after a recent posting to avoid the issue, if possible, but a recent email from Anthony Fascitelli, compels me to return once again, albeit with a different focus.

Almost all who write to me about “illegal” immigration coverage do so to complain that the station’s coverage fails to emphasize what these viewers feel is the terrible burden the immigrant workers put on the state’s resources and that they are, in fact, here in violation of our laws.  NBC10 does not, they complain, emphasize that enough in its reports.

Mr. Fascitelli writes to suggest the opposite:  That in a recent news story NBC10 exaggerated “the scope and effect of illegal immigration in the state.”

This reinforces my belief that if both sides complain, coverage is as balanced as it can get.

(Actually, the story wasn’t so recent, but Mr. Fascitelli says he complained in December, when the story ran, but that I never responded.  He writes again now, Mr.  Fascitelli says, in light of the recent NBC10 apology as a result of the tourism story (see previous posting.)

“On one hand,” Mr. Fascitelli writes, “you have a newly hired reporter falsifying facts about restaurants in the area, while the station makes a big to-do about apologizing.”

“On the other hand,” he says, “you have an established reporter (who did the immigration story he objects to) exaggerating the scope and effects of illegal immigration in the state and you and your handlers say nothing.” 

In fact, Mr. Fascitelli suggests, the station’s apology in connection with the tourism stories was simply an attempt to distract viewers from other, more important issues.

“How insulting to your viewers to engage in this sleight-of-hand, distracting us from your gross errors by groveling over your minor ones,” he wrote.

The story Mr. Fascitelli didn’t like involved the coverage of a proposal by two General Assembly members which included some statistics, which Mr. Fascitelli maintained were inaccurate, and a comment by one of the General Assembly members that “radicals” were trying to establish Rhode Island as a sanctuary state.

Reporters relay to viewers what they see and hear, including statements made by public officials.  They have an obligation to present opposing positions, but sometimes that’s not always possible to do in the same story.  With respect to a complicated, ongoing issue, the judgment as to whether coverage is fair, accurate and balanced must be viewed over a period of time, not in light of a single story. 

Many viewers complained after coverage of the New Bedford factory raids, for example, that the stories emphasized the hardships for the families of the workers taken into custody.  The stories, they said, did not reflect the burdens illegal immigrant workers put on our system.  Mr. Fascitelli’s complaint was the opposite:  That the December story

the burdens on the system.

Coverage of a political campaign must be viewed over the course of many months, not as the result of a single story.  So it is with issues as complex as immigration.
. .

My handlers at NBC10 provide this space, but the opinions are mine alone. Really.—Paul Giacobbe

Thursday, July 17, 2008

The Tourism Story

by Paul Giacobbe

The news department recently ran a two part story which centered on the manner in which Rhode Island tourism centers handle inquiries from potential visitors. A portion of that story mentioned the Blackstone Valley Tourism Council.  Robert Billington, the council president, questioned the accuracy of certain statements attributed to one of his employees, and that complaint initiated a review.

The following letter to Mr. Billington summarizes the results of that review.  A condensed version of the findings was reported during one or more of the station’s newscasts
. .
.

July 16, 2008

Robert Billington, President
Blackstone Valley Tourism Council
175 Main Street
Pawtucket, RI 02860

Dear Mr. Billington:

I have reviewed your complaint regarding certain aspects of a two part story recently aired on several NBC10 news shows.  Those stories attributed certain statements to a Blackstone Valley Tourism Council representative, and you indicated that you believed those statements were misrepresented in the news report.

In the course of reviewing the story I also spoke with Melissa Withers, the spokesman for the state Economic Development Corporation, which oversees certain tourism related activities.  She indicated her concerns that portions of the NBC10 report that related to the state’s use of a Missouri “call center” were misleading.

In the course of my review I was provided by Ms. Withers with email exchanges between the reporter and Ms. Withers, written materials regarding the contract between the state and the call center, and recordings of the calls from NBC10 to the Missouri call center.  I also listened to the NBC10 recording of the call with the BVTC tourism agent and spoke with the reporter who prepared and reported the news report.

The two part story suggested that local restaurants (Federal Hill was specifically mentioned) cannot rely on the Rhode Island Tourism Division for support and that representatives of the tourism division’s 800 number could not answer basic questions.  The story said that the tourism help line was located in Missouri, and that many of the call-takers there had never been in Rhode Island.

The story also said that when the reporter called a local 800 number – the Blackstone Valley Tourism Council – and asked where someone could find a good Italian meal, the call center representative there recommended the Olive Garden in South Attleboro, Massachusetts, and Vinny T’s, also in Massachusetts.

The reporter said, “Despite the fact there are nearly 40 restaurants on Federal Hill that could fit the bill, NBC10 was not guided in that direction.”

In preparing the report, the reporter made a number of calls to the Missouri call center, including a half dozen recorded in preparation for the story.

In one of the very first calls the reporter is told by the person at the call center that the center only distributes guides, that they are located in Missouri, and that any specific questions will be referred to one of the in-state tourism offices.  Despite being put on notice that the call center people were not able to answer questions, the reporter made at least four more calls with predictable results:  The people didn’t know the answers to questions about quahogs, directions, restaurants and the Pawsox.

Before the story aired, the reporter knew, both from information she had gathered from her telephone calls to the call center, and from materials and information provided to her by the EDC, that the 800 number was for ordering pamphlets only, and that the Missouri operators were not trained, or paid, to handle state specific questions.  Although in some instances the operators did attempt to answer questions, they clearly appeared to do so only to be helpful, or after much prodding.

Although the EDC says the 800 number is only for travel guide distribution, the number appears in virtually every web site that relates to tourism information and a caller could reasonably believe that information, and not simply literature, was available through that 800 number.

The EDC indicated in information provided after the stories ran that operators at the call center did not “follow protocol” by attempting to answer state specific questions, and that the call center distributes less than ten percent of the travel guides mailed out each year. The EDC says calls are routed from the Missouri center to one of the seven state tourism offices located in Rhode Island based on the nature of the inquiry.

The reporter did indicate that the call center is not equipped to answer questions, and the station did include comments from the EDC after the stories aired, but the disclosures were heavily overshadowed by the manner in which the story was both promoted and reported.

One call, concerning Italian food, made its way to the BVTC.  It is this call that provided the most unflattering, negative image of the tourism program.

The BVTC worker was asked about Waterfire, and South County beaches.  He was also asked about where one might find good Italian food.

The BVTC worker’s first response was, “Federal Hill.”  He said there are a number of locations there with a variety of menus and pricing.

Then he was asked, “Where would you go for Italian food in RI?” The BVTC representative said, with a slight chuckle, “I like Olive Garden.”  In that same context he then mentioned Vinny T’s, but quickly added that it was in Massachusetts.

The BVTC representative did initially guide the caller to Federal Hill, contrary to what was reported.  The BVTC representative did not recommend the Olive Garden in Massachusetts or Vinny T’s in Massachusetts, contrary to what was reported.  The representative did not specify a location for the Olive Garden and his mention of Olive Garden and Vinny T’s was in (an apparently forthright) response to a question about where he goes, not necessarily where he would recommend.

Based upon the materials reviewed, the story as aired was not an accurate representation of the facts gathered by the reporter.  The station’s own review of the circumstances of this story has resulted in a correction and apology, both of which are necessary and appropriate.

Very truly yours,

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

Thursday, June 19, 2008

You Must Remember This .  .  .

by Paul Giacobbe

It has become, in newsrooms across the country, simply known as “the kiss:”  a generic reference to the question of whether stories of gay marriage should be illustrated with photos or videos of same sex couples kissing. The issue surfaced once again here when an NBC10 viewer objected to video of two men kissing as part of a recent morning news show story about California’s legalization of gay marriage.

“It has occurred to me before that every story about a gay marriage includes similar scenes,” wrote Bill Corcoran of Johnston.  “Yet I can’t remember the last time Channel 10 showed a heterosexual couple kissing.”

“Why,” wrote Mr. Corcoran, “would the news department insist on adding those clips to the story knowing that a good portion of their viewing audience is offended by such scenes?  Also, young children may be watching the program and I’m sure it has made many a parent uncomfortable.”

In 2004, when Oregon sanctioned same sex marriages, the Portland Oregonian was confronted with the issue of how to illustrate the stories about the more than 400 couples married in a single day.

Randy Cox, the newspaper’s senior editor for visuals, was quoted then in an article written by a staffer at the Poynter Institute, a center for journalism education, as indicating that the kissing issue was the hardest of the decisions.

“Same sex kissing is a powerful image,” Cox said.  He noted that it evokes a reaction that further exacerbates an already heated debate.

Just this week, with the legalization of the marriages in California, Poynter weighed in again, noting that while some newsrooms have policies which discourage photos or videos of same sex kissing, others feel the kissing captures the climactic moment of a wedding.

Interestingly, Poynter says, some advocates of gay marriage dislike the kissing photos, saying that they have become a cliché that turns people away from the story, while others argue that when newsrooms refuse to show same sex kissing they “give in to dehumanizing forces.”

Given the extent of the debate over the use of images of same sex kissing, it’s clear that Mr. Corcoran, our Johnston viewer, is not alone in his discomfort.  It seems equally clear that absent a story about a specific couple being married, which might include video of that couple expressing their affection, there’s no compelling reason to show same sex kissing.

Television needs pictures, but the video used in the recent NBC10 story was generic footage, not specific to the story.  The video could have been couples at a ceremony, walking together or interacting in any of the many other ways that same sex marriages are frequently illustrated.  Insistence on using same sex kissing video when it’s not specifically relevant to a story can also be seen as advocating a particular position similar, for example, to using images of fetuses each time an abortion story is aired.

Viewers are NBC10’s customers.  There’s no rational reason to offend any of those customers by using video offensive to them when there are so many other images that are equally effective and much less polarizing.

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

Postscript—If the headline puzzles you, ask someone over 50.