Get It First . . . Get It Right

by Paul Giacobbe

We’ve all had deadlines in our lives, but most “deadlines” are flexible; allowing few more hours, or days to finish that school paper or work assignment.  There are few deadlines as absolute as those in TV news.  When 6 p.m. comes there are no extensions; a story is ready or it waits, and in a competitive business, waiting isn’t always the best alternative.

The pressure of deadlines sometimes results in a product that could have benefited by a just a little more time.  That happened recently with a story about Javona Peters, the young Rhode Island girl on life support who is at the center of a dispute between her parents.  Dad wants her to remain on the life sustaining machinery, mom does not.

Rhode Island Hospital, sensitive after recent incidents involving the neurosurgery department, complained that the first NBC10 story about Javona inappropriately suggested that the hospital played a greater role in the young girl’s situation.

According to the reports, as an infant Javona had a brain shunt implanted at a New York hospital.  Several months ago, and now a teenagaer, Javona went into RI Hospital to have some work done on the shunt.  After three surgical attempts, according to a Rhode Island Hospital representative, doctors there were unable to make the repairs/adjustment to the satisfaction of Javona’s mother.  The mother then took Javona to the original New York hospital, where the surgery resulted in Javona being put on life support.

With a rapidly approaching deadline and the inability of Rhode Island Hospital to provide any meaningful input as a result of holiday week staffing, privacy laws and the limited amount of time given the hospital to provide information, the 5 p.m. story about Ms. Peters’ situation did not make completely clear the role of Rhode Island Hospital.  The reporter indicated that the story started at Rhode Island Hospital (an unattributed opinion; some may suggest the story started when the shunt was inserted many years ago at the New York Hospital).  There was use of file footage that, in context, may have suggested a greater role for Rhode Island Hospital. 

After the first story aired, Rhode Island Hospital officials called the newsroom.  Some changes were made to the story by 6 p.m. and by 11 p.m. it appeared that everyone agreed that the story appropriately emphasized the important local aspects ot trhe story: A Rhode Island resident was at the center of a life support battle between her parents; the operation that put her on life support was performed at a New York hospital, the child’s mother blamed the New York hospital for her daughter’s condition, and the child was at the New York hospital because mother was not satisfied with three unsuccessful (but apparently not harmful) Rhode Island Hospital attempts to resolve Javona’s problem.

Although the first story contained the unsubstantiated opinion as to where the story began, it didn’t contain any apparent factual inaccuracies.  What the story needed was some rearranging and adjustments, which were made between the 5 p.m. report and 11 p.m.  The time restrictions don’t excuse the lack of balance in the first story, but provide a reason.  What’s significant in this case is that the news room did not stubbornly cling to the tenor of the first story, but listened to and responded quickly and fairly to the legitimate concerns of Rhode Island Hospital.

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