"The media gripe I have is the rush to judgment and the sensationalist piece - it really does seem like the reporters on some stations have insulated themselves so much from feeling that they appear disappointed if the death count goes down."
It reminds me of a news producer I worked with who often read her Bible. Once, on a very slow news night, she looked up from the Bible to the newsroom scanner, and said: "We really need a lead [story] tonight. I hope we get a good house fire or [car] crash."
Then she went right back to reading -- as if that was the most normal thing in the world to say.
I'm not making excuses, but let me try to explain -- based on my experience covering breaking news -- how this happens:
When a big story happens, there's a HUGE adrenaline rush in the newsroom. In an instant people are running around, grabbing gear, running out the door, working the phones, making flight arrangements, dialing up satellites, sending out live trucks, desperately looking for information, and running to the studio to report it. Your sense of horror about the event quickly falls on the back burner in the massive effort to cover the story. And get it on the air. And get it first. And get it right. Because that's what creates loyal viewers... and ratings... which draw advertisers... who pay your check.
At first, you're so involved in the logistics of doing your job that there's little time to think about -- or feel -- anything else.
The sensationalism, I think, comes from an insatiable demand for 24-7 news. Whether that's truly fueled by viewers, or the media, is a valid question. But the fact is, when you're reporting on the scene of breaking news, the producer at the station (with the News Director breathing down his/her neck to beat the competition) comes to you live over and over wanting "new" information when, often, there is none. So any small tidbit becomes larger than life.
For instance, if you see a diver come out of the water shaking his head, reporters may say:
- "Rescuers have "apparently" become discouraged, wondering if they'll ever find all the victims" - leading to speculation about whether the death toll is rising. So the producer calls in an expert to talk about the psychological effects.
or,
- "Rescuers "appear" frustrated, realizing this is a much bigger job than they can handle." That can open a whole debate about whether the county has enough divers, and whether the mayor's doing enough to get help in this crisis. So another reporter is assigned to do a package on how the city has cut funds for rescue services.
All this from a guy shaking his head. Maybe he was just wet and shaking off water.
It's not responsible and certainly not an excuse. I'm just trying to explain how these things happen.
Then, once you're out there, you see the network guys arrive and think: "I'd love to do THAT job one day!" So you focus on your on-air presence and delivery, hoping some News Director or agent will see you on a satellite feed and pull you out of Smalltown, Alabama (no offense - I lived there!) into a bigger market. That motivates you get the best elements for your story, so you can "stand out." That prompts you to rudely stick a microphone in the face of a grieving mother and ask: "What are you thinking as divers search for your missing son's body?" -- then get her answer on TV as soon as possible.
As someone who's had to do those interviews, let me say this: MOST reporters hate doing it. It is, however, part of our job to show what victims' families are going through. I've found two things to be true. First, there are respectful and disrespectful ways to approach families in sensitive situations like this. Second, some people WANT to be on TV when they're grieving. Some find it cathartic. Some want to get their loved one's story out there, so they're not remembered as just a statistic. For those people, we give ample opportunity. For those who want privacy, we should respect it.
Hope that gives you some insight.
News Mom T
No comments:
Post a Comment