http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice en pmgia@aol.com Copyright 2008 2008-12-18T14:36:42-05:00 http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/foie_gras/ http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/foie_gras/#When:14:36:42Z 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. 2008-12-18T14:36:42-05:00 http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/spam/ http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/spam/#When:21:32:40Z “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 2008-12-03T21:32:40-05:00 http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/between_the_cup_and_the_lip/ http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/between_the_cup_and_the_lip/#When:15:49:00Z 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 2008-11-21T15:49:00-05:00 http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/its_scholastic_magazine_for_goodness_sake/ http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/its_scholastic_magazine_for_goodness_sake/#When:23:46:00Z 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?  Are you trying to SCARE us into changing our votes?  Why did you have to air that kind of smut on your news program?  Oh, so we’re supposed to “listen” to the kids now just because they don’t REALLY know the issues in this election and that their only reason for voting for Obama is because he’s younger than McCain?  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. Children across the country voted—and the results are now in.  Carol Anne Riddell reports.  If kids could vote—they’d choose Senator Barack Obama for president. The Scholastic Magazine election poll—with about 250 thousand children voting—shows kids choosing obama by 57% compared to 39% for Senator John McCain.  These scholastic kid reporters broke it down for us. What’s intriguing about this—the folks at Scholastic say since 1940 the results of the kid vote has largely mirrored the actual outcome in the general election—with just two exceptions over the years. Student: “Scholastic election poll has only been wrong twice. Once during the Dewey/Truman election and once again during the Nixon/Kennedy election so we’re on a good streak right now.“  Suzanne McCabe of Junior Scholastic magazine explains what *might* be the reason for that. “We think they’re just a mirror maybe into what their parents are thinking very often.“ Some other interesting results. Girls chose Obama by a wider margin than boys—57 percent opting for Obama, 39 percent for McCain. Among boys, 49 percent went for Obama, 46 percent for McCain.  And youngsters do seem to care about many adult issues.  Student: “My parents just bought a house. The economy is failing. How does that affect us?“ But kids will be kids—Obama and McCain weren’t the only vote getters. Student: “There were some votes for the Jonas Brothers, Barney, Miley Cyrus, Stephen Colbert. Then some people voted for themselves—some people Voted for my daddy.“ 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 2008-10-21T23:46:00-05:00 http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/unpopular_question/ http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/unpopular_question/#When:14:17:00Z           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 2008-09-12T14:17:00-05:00 http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/sleight_of_hand/ http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/sleight_of_hand/#When:13:16:00Z 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 2008-08-05T13:16:00-05:00 http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/the_tourism_story/ http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/the_tourism_story/#When:19:11:00Z 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 2008-07-17T19:11:00-05:00 http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/you_must_remember_this/ http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/you_must_remember_this/#When:15:32:01Z 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. 2008-06-19T15:32:01-05:00 http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/the_vanishing_ombudsman/ http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/the_vanishing_ombudsman/#When:17:17:01Z 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 2008-06-11T17:17:01-05:00 http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/illegal_immigrants_revisited/ http://www.turnto10blogs.com/index.php/viewersvoice/illegal_immigrants_revisited/#When:18:40:00Z 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 2008-05-14T18:40:00-05:00