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 anything 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 exaggerated 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.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

The Vanishing Ombudsman

by Paul Giacobbe

A pilot friend once told me that flying an airplane was hours and hours of boredom interspersed by moments of stark terror.  To a less dramatic extent, the ombudsman job is a little like that.

There are frequent complaints, comments and inquiries, but sometimes months can pass without a substantive challenge to the NBC10 “Viewers’ Voice” goal of insuring fairness, accuracy and balance.  Some of the complaints are interesting, but not the substance of great journalistic principles.  For example:

• “Stop saying the bear is still loose.  The bear has always been loose.”
• “There’s too much chit-chat and not enough news.”
• “How come there’s not more NASCAR news?”

The extent to which a story will arouse viewers is unpredictable.  There were, for example, never more calls or emails than the day when Chef Terranova, explaining the proper method of preparing baked stuffed lobster and oblivious as to the chain of events he was about to unleash, slit the still wriggling crustacean from stem to stern..

But the Viewers’ Voice program is at its best when it addresses a complaint where a viewer feels that a person or an issue has been unfairly or inaccurately portrayed in a news story.  That happened earlier this month when the governor of Rhode Island felt he had been unfairly treated by a story and a reporter.  Complaints also come from people not so high profile, and in those cases the viewer has as great an opportunity to have his grievance independently reviewed as did the governor.

That’s why it’s distressing to read that the ranks of ombudsmen in America are thinning, and quickly. Newspaper ombudsmen are more common than in the electronic media, and ombudsmen utilized by local broadcasters, such as NBC10, are truly rare.  Until a few months ago there were no others, but recently Gazette Communications in Iowa, which operates a local TV station as well as daily newspapers, has added an ombudsman.  There are about 35 U.S. newspaper ombudsmen, primarily in the big city newspapers, and significantly fewer than there were when the NBC10 Viewers’ Voice program started 11 years ago.

A very few ombudsmen, such as those at the New York Times, The Washington Post, National Public Radio (and NBC10), are hired from outside the organization and have little actual newsroom contact.  But most newspaper ombudsmen are full time employees who generally are reporters or editors who have rotated into the job for a fixed period of time – and that’s where the problem arises.

A current article in the American Journalism Review notes the “reassignment” of ombudsmen at the Baltimore Sun and Minneapolis Star Tribune to editorial duties, and recently the ombudsmen jobs at the Orlando Sentinel and the Dallas-Fort Worth Times were either eliminated or left to remain vacant.  In all those cases the reason given was economic—in tight financial times the money may better be spent on a reporter.  The ombudsmen are seen as luxuries, to be utilized when times are good but abandoned at the first sign of fiscal distress.

Alex Tilitz, the author of the American Journalism Review article notes:  “No amount of outside scrutiny can build credibility as well as a news outlet’s own efforts to confront its mistakes.”

We are in a time of ever increasing distrust in the media and it’s shortsighted to conclude that the public interest will be less served with an ombudsman than with an extra story out of the state house, or off the police blotter.

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

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Illegal Immigrants (Revisited)

by Paul Giacobbe

It’s become clear that there are few contemporary issues that evoke stronger emotions than the problems associated with people from other countries who come to America in violation of immigration rules.

I discussed this issue here a little more than six months ago in response to a viewer who complained that a reporter used the term “undocumented worker” when that phrase, the viewer wrote, “shades the story away from the fact that the worker is an illegal.” The NBC10 news director said at that time that “undocumented worker” was used because that’s the phrase the court used in describing the worker who was the subject of that story, but that the station generally followed the Associated Press stylebook which suggests the term “illegal immigrant.”

Last month, however, NBC10 reported on raids conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and, in that story, avoided using the word “illegal” to reference persons rounded up by ICE.  Again, viewers objected. 

“The story seemed to lead one to believe that the government is anti-immigration,” one viewer said.  “The raids were conducted to capture ILLEGAL (viewer’s emphasis) immigrants.”

In responding to the viewer’s complaint the reporter said she didn’t use the word “illegal” in her story for several reasons, including complexities in the way ICE statistics refer to the different classes of deportees, the ambiguity of the word “illegal” as it may pertain to those who came into the country legitimately but overstayed their visas, and that the use of the word “illegal” is not looked upon with favor by some organized minority journalists.

There is some consensus, but not unanimity, among media organizations with respect to the way illegal immigrants are described, as evidenced by a recent, informal survey of members of the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO), of which I’m a member.

The New York Times uses “illegal immigrant,” and specifically avoids both “illegal alien,” and “undocumented immigrant.” The Washington Post, on the other hand, says either “illegal immigrant” or “undocumented immigrant” is acceptable. The San Francisco Chronicle favors the phrases “undocumented immigrants, illegal immigrants and, in context, undocumented workers.”

In San Diego, which is close to the Mexican border, the ombudsman there says she is frequently lobbied by readers who prefer the term “illegal alien.” The San Diego Union-Tribune, however, does not use “alien” to refer to migrants, immigrants or others who are not US citizens, but prefers more specific reference, such as Canadian, Mexican or Honduran, for example.  Undocumented immigrant and illegal immigrant are acceptable under Union-Tribune guidelines, the ombudsman there says, but “illegal immigrant” should be used only when it can be established that the person is a foreigner staying in the US illegally.

The viewers who objected to the recent NBC10 story raise a valid point: Virtually all news organizations have adopted specific standards to avoid the confusion that results from different reporters using different terms to describe the same class of people.  Especially with such an emotional issue, NBC10 reporters should follow fixed guidelines, and not be permitted to make individual decisions based upon their own personal standards of appropriateness.

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

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

What Exactly is a Liberal?

by Paul Giacobbe

Almost all the Viewers’ Voice complaints and comments come by either email or on the Viewers’ Voice recorded telephone line.  Almost no one writes letters any more.  With some exception, there’s a pattern:  Those that don’t want to engage in any discussion, or risk a dialogue with someone who doesn’t agree with them, use the telephone (almost always from a blocked number) while others who are comfortable in their opinions and comments use email, which provides me with an opportunity to explore with them more fully their comments or complaints.

Recently there was a telephone call from an anonymous viewer who objected to the fact that (he said) none of the NBC10 stories about disgraced New York Governor Eliot Spitzer mentioned that Spitzer is a Democrat. 

“If Spitzer was a Republican you would have mentioned that over and over again,” the viewer said.  “It’s just another example of how the liberal media distorts the news.”

I get that a lot, the suggestion that “the media” is liberal, but I’m not sure exactly what that means. Does it mean all media organizations are liberal, or does it refer only to certain newspapers and television stations and networks?  And what, exactly, does “liberal” mean, in the context of local news reporting?  The way most viewers who use it when they email me, the word is a pejorative, as if it is an affliction rather than a political or social philosophy.

Did the viewer who telephoned believe that there was a group discussion, involving all the station’s editors and producers, or a memo, suggesting not to identify Spitzer as a Democrat?  Or that NBC had sent a directive to its affiliates not to embarrass the Democrat Party by mentioning Spitzer’s political affiliation?

Are there print and television reporters and editors who would likely be labeled as Liberal were their political philosophy known, and does that philosophy sometimes leak into their work?  Probably.  But there are also those who likely would be similarly labeled as Conservatives.

(Not long ago, in fact, there was a viewer complaint, which generated an on-air Viewers’ Voice ombudsman report, that an NBC10 reporter, upset with a news service report critical of President Bush, characterized that story as a product of the liberal media. Viewers complained that the remarks were biased, but no one complained that the reporter exhibited a Conservative bias.)

There are at least a half dozen separately produced NBC10 news shows each day, not all of which I record or monitor, and if none of the reports on Spitzer, in any of those shows, identified him as a Democrat, then an important fact was omitted, and that was wrong.  But I’d like to be able to ask the caller who complained how he makes the jump between that omission and labeling an entire local news staff as “liberal.”

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

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

Thursday, January 17, 2008

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

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

More on Hugo . . . and Me.

by Paul Giacobbe

Shortly before Christmas a viewer wrote to express his concerns about a report involving Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.  The story was about the sale of discounted heating oil by Venezuela to a US charitable organization. The reporter, in the course of the story, referred to the Venezuelan president as “Hugo the US hater.”

The viewer wrote that he felt that was an unnecessary editorial comment.  The reporter responded directly to the viewer.  A portion of that response follows:

I have received no other complaints regarding the CITGO story, but wanted to personally respond to your concerns in the sincere belief that the comments of every viewer are important. I believe the Chavez story was fair, accurate and balanced.

In his commercial, Mr. Kennedy refers to “…heating oil at 40% off from our friends at Venezuela and Citgo”.  All of today’s reporting (see Boston Globe, Reuters, etc.) frames the story in the context of our sour relations with Venezuela, and the controversy over Mr. Kennedy’s acceptance of the gift.

Further, a review of a number of recent, and not so recent, news articles concerning Hugo Chavez consistently refer to his “Anti-American rhetoric”. (References to several articles omitted.)
In other articles readily available on the web, Chavez rails against US imperialism, corporate greed, foreign policy, and President Bush in particular.I believe it was fair to refer to Chavez as a US hater, though some might be more comfortable in referring him as a ‘US policy’ or ‘administration hater’.  It was my choice of language, not a direct quote.

It would be unfair of me to offer an opinion on the gift of oil, or Mr. Kennedy’s motivation in accepting it.

What some see an editorial slant, others might view as getting to the heart of the matter. I know that style and tone can affect a viewer’s reaction to a story.  I’m mindful of that, and will keep your concerns in mind should the story come up again. I hope you’ll keep watching.

I did not completely agree with the reporter and did an on-air response saying so.  I agreed with the viewer that the use of the words “Hugo the US hater” constituted both an editorial comment and were an inappropriately demeaning way for an unbiased reporter to refer to a foreign head of state.

I reproduce that reporter’s email to the viewer here for a couple of reasons:  First, because he took the time to provide a detailed and reasoned response to the viewer and that’s something, I suspect, most viewers wouldn’t expect, and because this blog provides the opportunity to provide more information – in this case the reporter’s response – than does the time allotted for an on-air report.  But I revisit the issue here also because a viewer objected to my on-air report.  (Which raises the interesting question:  To whom do you complain when you don’t think the ombudsman has been fair?)

Alan A. called to say he was offended at the attempt at political correctness suggested in the ombudsman report.  He said that it is true that Chavez hates the US and has said so.  He said he felt that the ombudsman report was an attempt to be politically correct at the expense of the truth.

In my discussion with Alan I used an analogy:  If an American were traveling in another country and we heard a reporter refer to our president as “Georgie the Iraqi Baby Killer,” we’d likely feel that reporter was biased, and not telling the full truth, even though most of that reporter’s viewers might feel the statement was true.  Further, the word “hate” involves someone’s state of mind, and no one but Chavez knows what’s in his own mind. 
He may say he hates the US and, if so reported, that would have been appropriate. But suggesting he hates the US based upon his public statements and policies was, for me, too close to an editorial opinion.

Monday, December 24, 2007

There’s Someone at the Door

Paul Giacobbe

There are few issues as troubling as those which arise when a reporter, seeking an interview, appears unannounced at the home of a news subject.  In a previous blog posting there was a discussion about the ethical and sensitivity problems that are associated with visits to the homes of crime or accident victims, or their families.

Recently, a viewer complained that an NBC10 reporter, seeking an interview, went to the home of fired state EMA director Robert Warren on the night Mr. Warren was terminated from his job as a result of the problems following the midday snowstorm and resulting traffic gridlock.

“I feel the reporter going to his home was outrageous,” the viewer wrote. “Mr. Warren was then a private citizen who must have been very embarrassed by his very public firing.  This must have been a difficult, unfortunate day for him and his family and I feel the journalist was way out of line intruding on them at their home.”

Television is a visual medium.  To reporters, that’s both an advantage and a burden. Telling a news consumer what an interviewee said is OK, but letting them see and hear for themselves is at the heart of what television news does.  A television reporter can’t do that with a phone call; he has to be there, cameraman and microphone in tow.

I’m generally uncomfortable with video that shows a reporter walking unannounced to the porch of a news subject’s home, camera rolling, and asking the unsuspecting person who opens the door for an interview.  In many cases, especially when the news subject or a family member refuses the interview, the video serves no other purpose than to show that the reporter was there.  It is, essentially, marketing; it conveys no useful information.

But, as lawyers sometimes say, “Bad cases make bad law.” For those who favor the position that it is wrong for a reporter to show up unannounced at the home of a news subject, as did the NBC10 reporter who sought to interview the fired EMT director, the Warren example is a “bad case.”

Warren was a public employee, and relatively highly paid.  He had consented to an extensive radio interview the day he was fired.  He was fired under circumstances that many people, including Mr. Warren himself, may have felt were unfair.  It was not unreasonable that a prudent reporter (or news director) would want not only to ask Mr. Warren some questions, but provide Mr. Warren the opportunity to tell his story.  A newspaper reporter can do that with a phone call; a television reporter needs the pictures.

Additionally, although it happened after the viewer wrote in defense of Mr. Warren’s privacy, Warren gave a lengthy interview to a newspaper reporter.  Had the NBC10 reporter not gone to Mr. Warren’s home, that reporter would have wondered whether he missed the opportunity for that interview.

Cameras-rolling “ambush interviews,” which sometimes include jamming a microphone under the face of an unsuspecting news subject who opens up the door, are not an appropriate newsgathering technique.  But that wasn’t the case here, and Mr. Warren’s voluntary radio and (subsequent) newspaper statements, suggest that appearing at his home and requesting an interview was simply good reporting.

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

Thursday, December 20, 2007

I Know It When I Hear It

by Paul Giacobbe

Tom, a RISD student who admits a bias when it comes to stories about art, emailed that he thought that this week’s story about the sound installation of bird noises at the Kent County Courthouse helped reinforce a stereotype that art, especially abstract or installation art, “is either for a narrow audience or a waste of public funds.”

The story, by I-Team reporter Jim Taricani, said that the state had paid $106,000 for the installation of a sound system that replayed bird sounds, recorded by a California artist at the Norman Bird Sanctuary, along the walkway between the courthouse and an adjacent parking garage.

“I just felt like this story helped perpetuate the idea of ‘we don’t get it, so it must be a waste’ in regard to the art,” Tom wrote.  .  .  “I just feel that not understanding something (especially something of incredible subjective determination) is not an adequate reason for a sweeping condemnation or critique.”

Taricani, who admitted to a little tongue-in-cheek aspect to the report, said the story arose from more than one courthouse employee who complained about the sound.  He said he never criticized either the art or the artist, but instead raised the question about the cost of the project. 

Tom agreed the $100,000 cost was a valid issue, and would have preferred the money to be spent on the work of local artists But he said he was concerned that “modern art is discredited on the basis that it looks like something anybody can do,” and, as a result, “it’s not worth spending money on.”

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?