Legwork or lack thereof: the new bias in the industry

There's obvious, in-your-face bias that the general public can spot a mile away. There's bias by omission, by which you don't cover stories that go against your agenda.

Welcome, boys and girls, to the latest tangent to the omission condition: legwork bias. Or, to put it in simpler terms, how hard do you really dig for a story that doesn't support your agenda?

Let's say your News Director is a card carrying member of one political party and you're a member of another. He assigns you to look into allegations concerning a candidate you really like. Are you gonna turn over endless slips of paper like Redford and Hoffman in "All the President's Men" or just phone it in? And if you're assigned to dig up skeletons in the closet of a candidate you despise, will you pull out all the stops?

Many news organizations think they're being fair by covering both sides, but very often the effort is not equal.

I'll give you two examples: the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. Watch coverage of either of these groups on a variety of stations and you'll come away with very different viewpoints. Right now Occupy is often the lead story... but are you getting the full story? I have friends in NYC who tell me the movement is just a few hundred people, but I've yet to see an aerial shot of the group, like the one we got of the Tea Party rally in Washington, DC. It reminds me of the time we showed up to cover a protest and there were about four people. I called in and told the desk we had no story, and was told to "shoot it tight."

So is Occupy a growing horde of people, or just a few hundred "shot tight?" We've seen plenty of shots of people being hauled away by cops, but where's the police point of view? And why are reporters saying both groups are similar? Do you remember any arrests during Tea Party protests? Confrontations with police? Did any Tea Party gatherings create a health hazard?

These are separate stories, very different stories, but both provide evidence of bias on both sides. Underestimating or overestimating crowds, pointing out the whack jobs or sympathetic figures, or using one protest sign to symbolize the entire group are easy means to a biased end. And in regard to the latter, does one protest sign mean all Tea Party members are racist and all Occupy members are anti-Semitic? If you're covering a group, you can't just focus on one person.

If you're going to dig on any story, make sure you keep using your shovel until you hit paydirt. If not, you're just digging yourself a hole.

--

Tonight, check your opinion at the door

On this election night, you'll be able to flip around the dial and find countless examples of why the public trust has been violated.

Oh, I'm not even talking about the results from the polls. I'm talking about media bias.

Slanted news coverage has never been worse in this country. It has always been around, with a rich history in the newspaper business. Funny how newspapers can "endorse" candidates but television news organizations aren't supposed to.

Since that isn't exactly fair, some TV news people take it upon themselves to slant coverage. Bias filters into coverage in many forms, from blatantly slanted coverage to bias by omission, in which important stories are simply not covered. It can be conveyed by body language, by simply appearing happy when one candidate wins while looking like someone ran over your dog when your guy loses. It can take the subtle form of lighting a candidate to look bad, using an unflattering still frame for an over-the-shoulder graphic, or using adjectives like "popular" or "embattled" to describe candidates you like or dislike.

And then there's the first inductee into the media bias hall of fame...taking something out of context.

It's one thing to host an opinion show and have a bias toward one party or another; it's a very different thing to be a journalist and show it.

Tonight, many of you will be working your first election night. It's easy to be swept up with excitement when the balloons fall at a winning campaign headquarters, or to be sad when a good candidate loses. It's hard to ask fair questions of someone you know to be a total sleazebag, easy to lob softballs at a candidate you like.

Tonight, we must set an example, and turn the tide of public opinion. Not about politicians, but about us.

We must be fair, objective, remain even keel in a winning or losing situation. The voters are speaking tonight, and it is their voices, not ours, that viewers want to hear.

The numbers speak for themselves. You can offer all the analysis you want, but please, leave your opinions out of any coverage.

If enough reporters and anchors did that, maybe the approval numbers for the media will be up the next time an election rolls around.

-

Why America's best days really are behind us, why it's partially our fault, and how you can turn things around... regardless of who wins the election

I use the phrase "back in the day" a lot. Sometimes it refers to my childhood, when a ticket to a Mets game cost a buck thirty. Sometimes it refers to the eighties, when reporters didn't have to worry about meaningless and endless live shots. It rarely refers to any time period earlier than 1990.

Let's be honest here; this doesn't have anything to do with either political party because both are at fault. This country has been headed on a downward spiral for twenty years. It started slowly, subtly. The beancounters turned us into a bottom line society. Quality went out the window. The telephones that lasted our entire childhoods were replaced by Chinese garbage that breaks every two years. We've gone from solid metal to plastic, and I'm not just talking about manufactured goods. It's an attitude of a disposable society, one that produces goods with planned obsolescence rather than quality. An attitude that makes you believe your six month old iPhone is hopelessly out of date and should be thrown away even though it works just fine. It's an attitude that has taken the class out of everything, from the way people dress to the in-your-face garbage that often passes for news these days. It's an attitude that looks to file a lawsuit in court because your coffee is too hot.

The downward spiral became a full-fledged swan dive during the 2000 election, and that marked the time that bias became blatantly obvious. Liberal newscasters looked as though someone had run over their dog when Bush was declared the winner over Gore, while conservative news people couldn't contain their delight. And thus began the division of this country by bias: people are no longer people. They carry labels now, conservative or liberal. You're either one or the other, with no gray area. And if you don't agree, you're an idiot.

Bias has always existed of course, but it was quiet and subtle, sneaked into your news with a pointed adjective here and a supportive adverb there. But once it got out in the open it gained steam, and that steam has been the anger that has boiled up out of the newsroom and over the airwaves. It's no longer enough to be biased; now you have to be biased and angry, to demonize those who don't think as you do, to not respect the opinions of everyone. To shout down anyone who isn't on the same page.

That anger has filtered down to viewers, who no longer see their neighbors as people, but label them when they see a particular yard sign or bumper sticker. Years ago people were defined by their professions. Now they're defined by their beliefs, and heaven help them if they don't agree with you.

The word "polarized" has never been more applicable. So is the word "gridlock." And a lot of it is our fault.

Go ahead, look in the mirror and be honest with yourself. Have you been totally fair in your coverage? If so, you're a journalist. If not, if you're one of those who slants stories, who sits on stories you don't like and trumpets those you do, then you're nothing more than a hack. Doesn't matter if you cash a network paycheck, that doesn't validate your actions. You're still a hack.

And if you honestly believe politicians of both parties care about anything other than getting themselves elected and that your biased support will make a difference, you're a really naive hack. You may think you're smarter than the average viewer, that they're too stupid to understand the issues. They may not all be mental giants, but they're smart enough to realize the media isn't playing fair. And why would anyone want to watch a channel featuring a newscaster who tells you that you're not intelligent because your views are different? Insulting a viewer is a wonderful promotional tool, don't you think?

Many of you are young, and didn't have the chance to enjoy this country when things were great. They can be great again, but it starts with you. If you want to see things continue to go downhill, embrace your bias and share your anger with the world. If not, do your best to be fair and portray people as people without giving them labels.

This should apply regardless of who the next President will be.

A recent Gallup poll in September showed that 60 percent of Americans do not trust the media. That's an all time high. Is it any wonder ratings for news programs have constantly gone down in recent years? Yes, your bias is killing the business. Because when you take one side or the other, you're losing fifty percent of your potential audience.

I learned this years ago working in my dad's store. A good customer came in one day, asking to put a political sign in the window, but my dad politely told him no. After he left I asked my dad why; the customer was a great guy, we liked him and wanted him to win the election. My dad said, "If I put his sign in the window, the customers we already have who aren't voting for him might not do their business here." He said it was best to stay neutral when you're in business.

And make no mistake, broadcasting is a business.

Be fair. Help bring the country back together instead of dividing people and pitting them against one another. Then maybe you'll get to see what "back in the day" really meant.

-

Bias by omission

We hear the term "media bias" tossed around all the time, and it's pretty easy to spot these days, both on a local and national level.

But there's another kind of bias that the viewer doesn't see; it's called bias by omission. In other words, sitting on a story or conveniently omitting facts that pertain to it.

Several years ago (I was not the ND) one of our reporters uncovered some serious dirt on a politician. It would have likely ended the politician's campaign. But after a heated discussion in the morning meeting, the story went uncovered. Several staffers grumbled for days about sitting on the story, and many were convinced that had the politician belonged to the other political party, it would have been the lead story on our newscast.

That's just one way coverage gets slanted. You don't have to slam a candidate or a view; sometimes you can do serious damage by not reporting both sides of the story.

There are other subtle ways stories are slanted. It's so easy to take things out of context, select sound bites in a way that favors one candidate over another, run an unflattering OTS still frame of a candidate, or choose b-roll that tilts the story. It has the same effect as going on camera and slamming someone. More subtle, but the same results.

And if you do these things, you're as biased as those left wing or right wing screamers that seem to dominate our television these days.

So choose your bites carefully, make sure the video you pick presents both candidates in the same light, and don't leave out the good stuff.

People respect reporters who don't have an opinion. Tell what you know, not what you think, and you'll never have a problem.

Viewers have wised up to our old tricks

Watching a station waste money on a custom tag made me just shake my head the other day, and wonder how many of these old school tricks are still around... and not fooling anyone.

Back in the day you'd go to a party, people would find out you worked in television, and you'd end up explaining the business. You could bring people to the station and show them the chromakey wall and watch their jaws drop in amazement. Nobody knew about sweeps, sound bites, ratings, media bias, or any of the things that are common knowledge today.

Just look at magazines like Entertainment Weekly and TVGuide that have sweeps issues and routinely discuss ratings. Or cable talk shows that fill time with chat of bias and media manipulation.

In other words, there are no more media secrets. Everything we do is out in the open.

So here's a list of stuff that needs to be buried in a time capsule. Forever.

-Custom tags: Yes, I mentioned them already, but talk about a waste of money that could be spent in the newsroom. Does anyone really believe a viewer thinks that an average local station really has its own White House correspondent? Please. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Network correspondent Joe Reporter is at the White House."

-Pre-arranged questions on live shots: We discussed this in a seminar years ago and everyone agreed that nothing looks more fake that having a reporter toss back to the anchor, the anchor asking a question, and the reporter having the perfect answer. Just once I'd love to see an anchor ask a question and a reporter say, "Don't know. I'll have to check it out."

-"Closet" live shots: Nighttime live shots so dark that the reporter may as well be in a closet. If you can't see anything but the reporter, don't bother setting up the shot.

-Live shots from car wrecks: Nobody cares.

-Live shots from events that happened hours or even days ago: I love seeing some reporter on the late news in front of a darkened City Hall, or a crime scene that was cleaned up the previous day.

-"Exclusive" banners for stories that everyone is broadcasting, or stories that are so unimportant that no one else wants them. Save the exclusive banners for something special. Use them all the time, and you're crying wolf.

-"Breaking news" banners: See above.

-Teases that don't deliver: Nothing ticks off a viewer more than a great tease followed by a lame story.

-Sweeps stunts: You're in sweeps every day. To assume that people suddenly switch allegiances when the calendar hits November, February or May is ridiculous. You build ratings by doing a solid job every day. Got a great story in September? Don't sit on it for two months. And if you're asked for sweeps ideas, come up with solid stuff that isn't sensationalized.

-Sweeps series: Viewers don't have time for those anymore.

-Stories "that can kill you" during sweeps: If I see one more sweeps piece on the lingering death waiting for me on my dish scrubbie or shopping cart handle...

-Overkill with weather equipment: Go ahead, ask a viewer to explain "doppler." Viewers watch weather for the credibility of the person presenting it, not the equipment. I've seen a few weather maps with so many different radar sweeps it looks like the Hollywood opening of the Academy Awards.

-Bias: In case you hadn't noticed, viewers have figured this one out big time.

Remember, content is still, and always will be, the king. Keep your reporting solid and unbiased, ditch the sensationalism, and people will watch.

Only you can fix this problem

Well, apparently we're somewhere between Congress and used car salesmen on the old trust meter.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142133/Confidence-Newspapers-News-Remains-Rarity.aspx

So, only 22 percent of Americans trust members of the television news media. It sounds even worse when you do the math and realize 78 percent don't trust us. Here's something even more telling: newspapers rated higher than television... and they do editorials. Their opinions are right out in the open, and people still trust us even less.

First, let's look at how it got this way.

-Bias: Never before has media bias been so in-your-face. When you have some members of the media who don't even try to hide their political affiliation, you've got a trust problem with the public. Sometimes it is just the tone of the person doing the interview; softballs for members of one party, an attack dog attitude for the other. Bias has always existed, but it was a lot more subtle years ago.

-Sensationalism: Average stories are blown way out of proportion. While this has always been true, it's gotten much worse of late.

-One-sided reporting: Too many reporters go out and do one interview per package, never stopping to even consider another side of the story.

-Out of context editing: I can take just about any political speech and make someone look like a saint or the devil with a few simple cuts.

-Lack of class: How can you trust anyone who shoves a microphone in someone's face after a tragedy?

-The Internet has revealed all of our old tricks: The public is now well versed in ratings, editing tricks, journalistic principles or lack thereof, and how reporters actually gather facts. People can see entire speeches and decide for themselves what a politician actually meant. They can look up anyone's background. And they no longer take one news organization's word for anything.

The Japanese have a saying. "Fix the problem, not the blame." That said, here's how you can do your small part to make television news trustworthy again.

-Check your opinions at the door. You may be a bleeding heart liberal or a Bible-thumping conservative, but the public doesn't need to know it from your actions or your words. Keep your personal views to yourself and put stories together in a fair manner. Give each side equal time. Make sure your b-roll doesn't cast either side in a bad light. Let the viewers decide for themselves how they feel about a story.

Remember, people who disagree with you are not stupid just because they don't share your views. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Except media people have to keep theirs under wraps. People who watch your stories on a regular basis should have absolutely no clue where you stand on issues or what your political affiliation might be.

-Be professional, especially in the field. A few years ago I was on a network story covering a tragedy. Several people had been killed in a senseless crime, most of whom were members of a particular church. I walked into the church without a camera and asked the priest if he wanted to comment. I'll never forget what he said. "I can't believe you actually offered me the chance to say no." Others had apparently been shoving cameras in his face.

The next day a family member actually drove to our satellite truck and invited us to come by for a news conference. When we arrived, several other news organizations weren't even there.

Did they trust us simply because word got around that we were polite and didn't use ambush journalism? You make the call.

-Treat all people you interview equally. The dirty mechanic covered with grease deserves the same respect as the man in the thousand dollar suit. They're equal. The mechanic might even be a lot smarter than the guy in the suit. (Hence the term "empty suit.") Keep this in mind: both have one vote on election day. Both count the same in the ratings book.

-Stop airing stories that are in bad taste. Here's the great indicator: if you wouldn't want your mother to see your story, it's outta here. Either that, or fix it so she could watch it. Also, it's time for the all-time most effective tease ("You may find our next story disturbing") to be retired. If it's disturbing, it doesn't need to air.

-Look for more positive stories. The most common complaint I hear from viewers is that local news is all bad, all death and destruction. Would you want to listen to someone everyday who told depressing stories? Well, that's what the viewer is getting.

Bottom line, ethics, class and professionalism start with you.

-

R.I.P Journalism, 2021

 In 1974 (yes, I’m that old) I walked into my first Journalism class at the University of Connecticut. The bell rang and a middle-aged, white haired gentleman entered the class, moved to the front of the room and looked up. “I’m Evan Hill and welcome to Journalism. Check your opinions at the door.” The man who would become my favorite teacher of all time was a by-the-book journalist who taught us the importance of being fair, objective and unbiased.

At one point we were assigned to write a profile and I ended up with the University’s first female Trustee. I handed in my profile and watched as Mister Hill went through it at his desk, red pen poised to strike. Suddenly he shook his head and the pen slashed through a sentence.

“What’d I do?” I asked.

“There’s an opinion in your story.” He turned the page around and showed me the offending sentence.

I’d referred to the woman as an attractive brunette dressed in a tailored business suit with a single strand of pearls. “I don’t understand. How is that an opinion?”

“You called her attractive.”

“Well, I mean, she’s not a fashion model or anything but she’s a nice looking woman.”

“In whose opinion? Yours? Maybe someone else thinks she’s ugly.”

Sure, that was an extreme example, but he taught me something which made me very careful to keep even the slightest opinions out of my stories.

During my career as a television reporter I probably did more than three thousand stories. And I don’t think any viewer had a clue as to how I voted. In fact, the opinionated stuff you see today on TV would have gotten me fired in a heartbeat.

But then things changed as I saw my first blatant example of media bias in 2004. I was working in New York, and the country was in the middle of a presidential election. During the morning meeting when stories are assigned people were discussing a story in the New York Post about a major Democratic presidential candidate who allegedly had a mistress. People were speculating if the mistress was real, when from the back of the room an intern spoke up. “She’s my roommate in college. He calls our room all the time.”

Jaws dropped, conversation stopped. Suddenly every reporter turned to her and started asking questions. And every reporter wanted this story.

Until the person in charge spoke up. “We’re not doing this story.”

A veteran reporter who was head of the union was furious, arguing that this was a major national story. And this being a union shop in New York, just about everyone who worked there was pretty liberal and a Democrat. The manager wouldn’t budge. “Nobody cares about that stuff anymore.” What followed was the biggest newsroom argument I’ve ever witnessed, with liberals fighting for the story that would surely take down a Democrat. These were real, old-school, objective reporters. But the story was killed and never saw the air. Thankfully, the candidate did not become president.

Same TV station, a few months later. We’re airing sound bites from a George W. Bush speech and all of a sudden I hear a scream in the middle of it. Then it happens again. And again. I assumed the control room simply had two tapes playing at the same time or there was a hot microphone somewhere. But a later look at the tape showed someone had actually edited the infamous John Dean scream into the sound bite. A little detective work found the culprit. Was he fired? Suspended? Fined? Nope. Same manager. Rules didn’t apply in that station if you made a Republican look bad.

In 2005 I started working as a freelance producer for all the major networks. And I started to notice something. When I worked for NBC, people assumed I was liberal. When I worked for Fox, they thought I was conservative.

I see 2008 as the year journalism began a death spiral as the media love-fest for Obama was in full bloom. Planted questions in the White House press room, more softballs than a beer league, and a ridiculous query from a reporter who asked the President what had most “enchanted” him about being President. I think if the President had come to a sudden stop, some of these reporters would have broken noses.

But the past four years have left no doubt that journalism is dead. Suppression of news, known as “bias by omission” in which you simply don’t cover stories you don’t like (see: New York, 2004), along with what is now known as “opinion journalism” (which is an oxymoron) have left the media with no credibility. The often laughable coverage of the “peaceful protests” in 2020, the prime example bring a reporter in front of a burning building saying things were mostly peaceful, showed how the networks are not even trying to hide their bias any longer. The double standard evident this week during the incident at the Capitol. Looting, destruction of businesses, burning buildings, destroying monuments, billions in damage, police officers killed or injured… that’s okay. A bunch of people storming the capitol… and yes, people died… but they made it seem like it was worse than 9/11 or the day JFK was shot. Once anchor said, “We will get through this.” ABC actually used the term “cleansing the movement” in reference to Trump supporters. If you don’t know your history as it refers to cleansing, look up Nazi Germany.

So, rest in peace, journalism, and it appears free speech is circling the drain as well with big tech banning anything they don’t like. Trump is now banned from Twitter. The Ayatollah still enjoys his account.

The big problem is that “news” is no longer about information but affirmation; meaning you will watch or read things with which you agree.

The bigger problem is social media, which has done nothing but divide us. The internet is Skynet, terminators not needed to destroy society. We have met the enemy and it is us.

Of course now the media will call for unity, after referring to half the country for four years as racists, homophobes, Nazis, Klan members, and everything you can think of. And now they expect everyone to hold hands and sing Kumbaya? As we say in New York, I got your unity right here.

I feel very sad that the business I loved is playing a key role in the destruction of this country. People often ask me, “What do I watch or read? How do I know what the truth is anymore?” Sorry, I have no answer. But if you read both sides, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Look, don’t let anyone, especially a reporter or anchor, tell you what to think. Most people have enough common sense to understand that the fringe groups of both parties are not the norm. The guy with the Republican yard sign who lives next door does not attend Klan rallies. The person across the street with a Democratic sign does not go looting on weekends. But the media would have you believe you need to hate the person who thinks differently than you do.

There’s an old saying. Tell a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth. But that’s  changed.

Tell a lie often enough, and it now becomes journalism.

What a chicken sandwich tells you about bias

On Wednesday I was driving through the small town of Pace, Florida when all of a sudden I found myself in a traffic jam. Which should never happen in a place like this. A quick look to my right told me why.

There was a Chick-Fil-A restaurant on the corner.

The parking lot was packed. The parking lot of the business next door was packed. There were cars parked on the lawn. The drive-through line snaked out of the parking lot, onto the main road and around the corner as far as the eye could see.

Since then I've seen similar video and photos from around the country. I'm sure you have as well.

You're probably thinking this whole controversy centers on people voicing their opinions about gay marriage. It doesn't.

It's about people, both on the left and right, being fed up with media people and politicians telling them how to think. Telling them that if they think a certain way they're wrong. Or stupid.

It's about politicians needing to realize you cannot legislate thought. Change the laws all you want, and you're still not going to change people's basic beliefs. Choose any politician in the country, and chances are at least 40 percent of the voting public voted against him. So just because someone holds office, that doesn't mean he represents the views of everyone.

But lately politicians and some journalists are starting to look a lot alike.

Here's how viewers react to bias and attempts at thought control: Imagine you're a reporter doing a man-in-the-street interview. You get a sound bite from a guy whose views are opposite of yours. You then tell the man he's stupid. He's wrong. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't understand.

How would he react? You might get a punch in the mouth. You might get in a big argument. But what's certain is that the man would never watch your station again.

That's what you're doing when you're biased, when you try to impose your opinions on someone else. You're telling viewers they're wrong, they're stupid. And you're chasing them away. You may not be doing it face to face, but the result is the same.

And you've lost all respect and credibility as a broadcaster.

Does it finally take a chicken sandwich to make the light bulb turn on?  Does a one hour wait to get fast food in a state like New Jersey tell you anything? Does it speak volumes that people in New Jersey (who are not exactly noted for patience) would actually wait that long?

Apparently some have forgotten that the right to free speech also gives one the right to independent thought and the right to have an opinion.

And here's the big irony: when I got into this business, we were the one group of people who weren't supposed to have an opinion.

Now some of us apparently think we're the only people entitled to one.


-

Politicians are avoiding the media... can you blame them?

Ugly guy walks into a bar. Sees a spectacularly beautiful woman across the room. Doesn't approach her because he knows he doesn't have a prayer of getting her phone number, even though he's a nice, decent guy.

Politician walks into a room full of biased journalists. Passes them all to talk to the people because politician knows he doesn't have a prayer of getting objective coverage.

What's the difference? There isn't one. When you know the outcome, why bother?

If you're wondering why so many politicians might be giving you the cold shoulder these days, it's because of the perception of media bias. And let's be honest, it's not even a perception anymore. It's very real. You may be the most objective reporter in the world with a big "J" on your head, but politicians might not trust you. They think we're all playing the gotcha game, waiting in the bushes to spring out with obscure questions.

So now we're going back to the days when Ronald Reagan decided he was better off talking to the people instead of the media. Had he been President during these days of the 24-hour spin cycle, he might have never left the Oval Office.

How do you fix this?

Well, I'd say it has to be fixed from the top down, but that's not gonna happen. So it's up to you, the local reporters who have to deal with politicians every day.

As sleazy as some politicians might be, you still have to earn their trust. You must strive to be fair, to keep your personal feelings out if the story. Once you do that with one or two politicians, you'll eventually get the reputation as a fair reporter. Politicians, in their own weird way, respect reporters who actually dig up stuff rather than just inject bias.

Be firm but fair. Put yourself in the politician's place: if you were running for office, how would you want to be treated?

Trust me, if you treat someone in public office fairly, word will get around, and these people will start calling you.

Instead of avoiding you.

Best and worst of the decade: Top 10 bonehead broadcasting decisions and trends of the oughts

The oughts. That seems to be what everyone is calling the decade that's about to end.

Highly appropriate, as the past ten years have pretty much been a zero as far as the broadcasting industry is concerned.

We've seen the biggest changes in the history of the business, bigger than when we went from film to video, from tape-to-tape to non-linear. TV News will never be the same, and if anyone is trying to predict what it will look like in the next ten years, well, fuhgeddaboudit.

Meanwhile, time to look back at the decade, and we're going to start with the worst decisions of the past ten years.

1. Embrace the Internet

Yes, you may love the Internet, but it is the main reason the business has taken such a hit. This big bonehead decision surfaced around 2000, and has been more damaging than Y2K. (Remember that?) Back when we first heard this directive from beancounters and corporate empty suits, the most common reaction was, "So let me get this straight... you want us to tell viewers to turn off their TV sets and turn on their computers?" Well, yeah. Problem was, the stuff on the computers was free. Had those in charge made TV viewing on a computer a subscription based operation from the beginning, appointment television would still exist. People would still tune in for the free 6 o'clock news rather than spend a buck to watch it later on a computer. But the horse is out of the barn, and it isn't going to be coaxed back in.


2. Promote the other network

Huh? Why would we do this? Well, turns out your network or local station probably does it all the time. Are you something other than a Fox affiliate yet watch your anchors talk endlessly about American Idol? Oh, now you get it. Years ago this stuff would get an anchor fired, but now it seems fine to basically promote another station that might be airing a watercooler show. The boneheads in this case are the NDs who allow this to go on.


3. The Chicken Little weather philosophy

This country got seriously whacked by a ton of hurricanes this past decade, and it set in motion the trend of trying to one-up the competition. Years ago if Mother Nature was brewing up something bad, you'd get a non-intrusive weather crawl. Now entertainment programming is filled with endless squeezebacks, ear splitting sounders preceding crawls, and break-ins for weather watches instead of warnings. Personally, I love the stations that carry "Who wants to be a Millionaire" and run their crawls or radar over the answers. (Apparently it would take someone from NASA to put the crawl over the top of the screen.) As one ND put it, "it makes entertainment programming unwatchable." The desire to get on first with hurricane stuff is out of control, with break-ins now preceding storms by five days. And wall to wall coverage has deteriorated into calls from yahoo viewers talking about the wind blowing as the hurricane fades away.


4. The one man band comes to big markets

Call it backpack journalism, multi-media journalism, or any other euphemism, it's still beancounter news designed to cut costs while throwing quality out the door.


5. Filling the newscast with Internet video

It's bad enough to cover non-stories, but stations are now taking whatever is the hot video of the day off the Internet and broadcasting it as a story. For some reason it is usually someone robbing a convenience store. Yes, there's funny and interesting stuff on places like YouTube, but putting it in a newscast is just lame and shows the world your staff can't dig up real stories.


6. Bias becomes acceptable

A friend of mine who has worked in the business for a long time calls 2008, "The year journalism died." Never before has bias, which ran both left and right, been so acceptable. If you want to know why the general public trusts journalists about as much as Congress, look no further.


7. Live shots take precedence over everything

Wonder why your package looks so lame? Maybe if you didn't have to do live shots all day with teases thrown in you'd actually have time to put together a decent story. Live shots haven't fooled the public for a long time, especially when you do them in your late newscast from the location of a story that ended several hours ago. Not really a new trend, but it got much worse this decade.


8. Including part of a newscast from a central location.

Ever see one of those out of market segments in which the anchor or weatherperson mispronounces just about every local town or name incorrectly? That's what you get when you outsource part of your news to a central location. This doesn't fool viewers either.


9. The death of the kicker

These days every newscast closes with yet another weather forecast, even though the viewer has just seen one ten minutes ago. Kickers used to be a significant part of a newscast, the thing that kept viewers sticking around till the end. For those of you who can check your ratings in 15 minute segments, check the last half of your newscast and you'll see your viewers bailing in droves.


10. The death of local sports

Not totally dead yet but headed in that direction. Blame the consultants for this bonehead decision, as they'll tell you sports fans get their sports from ESPN. Well, I'm a huge sports fan and I don't as I can't stand a smart comment every single sentence. Local people may follow national teams, but they want local sports.


11. The graveside vulture interview

(Yeah, I know the article calls for the top 10 decisions, but I had to get this one in.) The practice of shoving a microphone in someone's face at a funeral is just another tasteless line that was crossed with more frequency this past decade. I keep waiting for a reporter to get a punch in the mouth from a grieving widow. And the reporter would deserve it. May the NDs who allow this be buried under a circus tent.


Next up, the best things of the decade. (And I'll be hard pressed to find 10.)

What constitutes a "gaffe" in politics?

Google the word "gaffe" and you get a bunch of definitions ranging from "an unintentional remark causing embarrassment" to "a clumsy social error" to a "faux pas." (Scroll down a little and you'll see something called the "Joe Biden gaffe-o-meter.")

During this political season, the word is being tossed around with regularity, for even the slightest missteps by any candidate.  Whether something is a gaffe or not is open to interpretation.

Examples: Some journalists saw Mitt Romney's comments about the London Olympics as a huge gaffe while others thought it was no big deal. Others saw President Obama's quote on Egypt not being an ally of the United States as a major gaffe, while others say it wasn't.

So who decides? If you're doing the deciding, you might be showing bias unintentionally.

Best to avoid the word gaffe altogether. When you say one candidate or another has committed a gaffe, you're telling viewers that the candidate said something stupid. That's your opinion, and might be that of many others, but it's up to the viewers to decide. Labeling sound bites as "controversial" or "raising eyebrows" injects opinion into the story, something I hope you're trying to avoid in this era of media bias.

Let the sound bites speak for themselves, and let the viewers decide.

-

The new Fairness Doctrine

Back in 1949 the FCC implemented a rule known as the "Fairness Doctrine." The goal was to insure that stations provided fair and balanced coverage to all issues, especially politics. It was abolished in 1987.

Regardless of the rule, bias has always been present in the media. You can trace it back to the beginning of the printed word. Newspapers have done editorials for years, and now stations and networks do it in a back door manner.

These days viewers often choose their news provider based on the political slant rather than the quality of the product. It's sad that it has come to this, as most journalists try to be objective and fair. In many cases the slant of a network or station is the decision of management, and you have to follow the leader or you're out of a job.

Even though the Doctrine was abolished nearly a quarter century ago, it doesn't mean you as a journalist have to throw the rules of journalism 101 out the window. We're all opinionated, and most news people have strong feelings one way or the other about politics or social issues. But you have to check your opinions at the door and do your best to be fair. And trust me, when you get a reputation as a reporter who is fair, you get the respect that goes with it. Show the world you're biased, and you're killing one half of your audience and almost all of the trust factor.

With that in mind, and with the 2012 elections just around the corner, here are the rules for the new Fairness Doctrine.

-I will never let my opinion be part of any story.

-I will treat all candidates fairly.

-I will not lob softball questions at candidates I like, nor "gotcha" questions at candidates I dislike.

-I will not slant my questions to let the viewer know how I feel. Questions should not begin with, "With all due respect" or "But don't you really think" because those telegraph the fact that I do not agree with the candidate.

-I will not ask questions so totally obscure that I would have to look them up myself. Those are "gotcha" questions.

-I will not commit "bias by omission." That means I will not leave out a part of the story that I do not personally like, that would hurt a candidate I like or help a candidate I don't like.

-I will keep my political and social opinions to myself in the newsroom and out in public.

-I will not shoot video or edit my story in a way that makes a candidate look bad. If I am a producer, I will not use an unflattering still frame of a candidate I do not like. If I am a photographer or one-man-band, I will light and shoot my interviews in a professional manner.

-I will not use sound bites or b-roll of the most extreme followers of a candidate in an effort to show that the entire group is made up of extremists.

-I will not treat female candidates differently than males. I will not use terms like "shrill" to describe a female candidate, nor have any opinion about a female candidate's appearance.

-I will not use opinionated terms to describe a candidate, like "popular" or "embattled."

-I will not view people whose views differ from mine as "ignorant."

-I will not let my facial expressions tell the viewers what I think. I will not roll my eyes during a sound bite about which I disagree, nor nod my head during one I agree with.

-I will not edit in such a way that things are taken out of context, or in a way that the viewer does not get the entire story.

-On election night, I will have a poker face. I will not look like I won the lottery if my candidate won or appear as though someone has run over my dog if my candidate lost.

-I will remember that as a journalist it is my job to tell the viewers what I know, not what I think.

TVNEWSGRAPEVINE, copyright 2011 © Randy Tatano

--

The Tim Tebow effect: bias creeps into the sports department

What's the difference between Tim Tebow and Michael Vick?

Right now Tebow gets more bad press.

Let me get this straight: on the one hand, we have a guy who did sick, twisted things to animals and on the other hand we have a squeaky clean kid who wears his religion on his sleeve. And the latter gets hammered in the media?

Tebow is not alone as far as "nice" athletes who get ridiculed for their religious beliefs. Olympians Lolo Jones and Gabby Douglas have also been victims of criticism simply because they believe strongly in a higher power and don't mind telling the world. Jones has the audacity to add that she's a virgin.

Meanwhile, Michael Vick, the guy who went to prison, the guy voted this year in a Forbes Magazine poll as the most disliked athlete in America, is a recipient of gushing praise from sports reporters. As if that stuff with the dogs never ever happened.

Tebow? He has the second best selling NFL jersey behind that famous ne'er-do-well, Peyton Manning. So obviously some media people aren't on the same page as fans.

Yet in an era during which politicians will tap dance and "do the little side-step" on any question while getting a pass from reporters, people like Tebow are criticized for what basically amounts to one thing. Being honest.

It wasn't too long ago that the sports department was immune to political correctness. After 9/11, only sports reporters and anchors were "allowed" to wear American flag pins. But now it appears that bias and agenda have crept into the sports section.

Funny, but every football fan I know roots against the Eagles simply because Michael Vick plays for them. I even know a guy from Philly who wants the Eagles to lose or trade Vick because he can't stand the fact that a felon is quarterbacking his team. Of course, you never hear any of that from the media.

Tim Tebow is an easy target because he's not going to hit back.

Lots of professional athletes have causes as they try to be role models. Justin Tuck raises money for literacy. Tom Brady has an organization for people with disabilities. Drew Brees runs a foundation to help cancer patients. These guys have a cause and use their celebrity to promote it.

Why is that any different from Tebow's cause?

And when did being a good person become something to criticize?

If you want to hammer Tebow because half his passes look like wounded ducks, fine. But if you're going to slam the guy simply because he lives a lifestyle you don't agree with, you're not a real reporter. And you're just as bad as the biased journalists who give our business a bad name.

-

When producing a local newscast, you don't have to follow the network's lead

I don't have too many posts for producers, but this one is necessary. In addition, many anchors are now producing their own shows.

This has to do with local newscasts that include national and international news.

There has always been a tendency to look at what the network is leading with, and following suit. That rule has now gone out the window, thanks to bias.

The prime example this week is the Libya situation, or scandal, or coverup, or whatever you want to call it. Two networks are devoting serious coverage to it. Two are totally ignoring it.

This should not have any effect on your local newscast.

Just because someone at the network level thinks a story is big doesn't mean you have to think the same way. Just because a network producer thinks this story should be ignored, doesn't mean you have to ignore it.

As always, put yourself in the shoes of the viewers. Your personal opinion means nothing. Is this a story the local viewers want to know about, or not? And remember, not covering a story you don't personally like is bias by omission.

You don't have to be a bunch of sheep. It's okay to stray from the herd.

-

Hey, Gannett, it's time to type up a few pink slips

By now you've heard the story of the New York newspaper that printed the names and addresses of local gun owners. You may not have heard about an Iowa newspaper which ran a column suggesting that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell be dragged behind a pickup truck until they do something about gun laws. It also implied that we not only do away with guns, but gun owners.

The common denominator in this story is the Gannett company. Media giant that owns properties like USA Today and a bunch of TV stations and newspapers. You may be working for one as you read this.

Bias is a big enough problem in our industry, but this stuff seriously crosses the line. In the first case, publishing personal information about gun owners is not only an invasion of privacy, it puts people in danger. The second case is nothing more than a hate filled diatribe.

Neither has anything to do with journalism. What, exactly, is the point of printing names and addresses of gun owners? If you were, for example, doing a story about a batch of shootings on Primrose Lane and needed to know how many people on the street owned guns, this might be information you'd want. You might say, "Fifty percent of Primrose Lane residents own guns." But you still wouldn't print personal information. This is like ringing the dinner bell for criminals, who now know which homes aren't protected.

This has nothing to do with your position on the second amendment or gun control. This is about a news organization trying to stir the pot.

As journalists we can often make positive change. We often help get laws changed by doing stories that expose problems that need to be addressed. But we don't "out" people who have not broken the law simply because our opinions on an issue differ from theirs.

It boggles the mind that the people who run Gannett have not fired the people responsible for this stuff. Considering the newspaper industry is on life support, the last thing it needs is a boycott because of a breach in ethics.

And in what has to be the best example of irony meeting hypocrisy, the New York newspaper is now being guarded by armed guards. I can only imagine the phone call which implemented that action. ("Hi, I see you're on our list of gun nuts. Wanna come down and guard the newsroom? Lock and load!")

There's enough hate and anger in this country right now. The last thing America needs is for the journalists to throw gasoline on the fire.

Time to take some action, Gannett. The most important thing you should be printing today is a bunch of pink slips.

-

Shedding the media bias tag

It happens to me every year, and it's happened since I got into this business. I'll be at a dinner party, or some other gathering, and be introduced to someone I don't know. Then the inevitable, "What do you do for a living?" question comes up. And my answer is almost always followed with something along the lines of, "Ah, a member of the liberal news media."

Now I'm never going to tell you where my political sentiments lie. I will tell you I've voted for Republicans and Democrats and even Independents. I was always taught to "vote for the candidate, not the party." I have good friends who are ultra conservative and some who are very liberal. So call me an Independent. Maybe it is because I was born in the same town as Joe Lieberman. I was even exposed to women in politics as a child, as my Aunt was an elected official, and this was a time when there were almost no women in politics.

Anyway, I always have to "defend" myself against the biased tag. No reporter wants the label, though this year it seems that a lot of them don't mind.

You'll run into this too, and probably moreso this year than any other.

The reason this happens is that very often people cannot differentiate between local and national news. I was always amazed to receive calls for the network anchor at the local affiliate, and this happened at every station in which I worked.

So when people call me biased, I tell them to consider that the national news comes primarily from three very liberal cities. New York, LA and Washington. And that certain networks are targeting certain demographic groups. That doesn't necessarily mean the local reporters feel the same way.

When I worked in New York a lot of the people in the newsroom slanted left. When I worked in the South, the newsroom was pretty conservative.

You may be the most objective reporter in the country, but you may still have to explain yourself. And that might mean explaining how the business works.

Of course, it's a lot easier if your reporting has been fair and balanced.

How politicians manipulate reporters (without the reporter ever knowing it)

Growing up in the New York area, I quickly learned to carry money in my front pocket. Putting it in your back pocket makes it easier for a pickpocket to steal, and they're so good at it in the Big Apple you'd never even notice.

Politicians can be the same way, only they can deftly steal your objectivity. And you might not even know it's gone. A little charm, an exclusive or two, and suddenly you're in someone's pocket.

I took a few years off a couple of times to run political campaigns, and it was certainly interesting being on the other side of the fence. What gave me an advantage was that I knew exactly what reporters wanted, but more important, I knew how to make their lives easier. And I also knew one key fact that many successful political campaign managers have known for years.

Many reporters are lazy, and if you do their work for them, they'll let you.

I'll give you an example. On one occasion I knew that the person likely to be covering a political speech was a clock puncher, someone who didn't consider journalism a career or a calling, but just a paycheck. I wanted to make sure my candidate's message came across perfectly, so the day before his speech I sent a verbatim copy to the reporter. Sure enough, the reporter never showed up, but the sound bites from my speech did in the reporter's newspaper. I had done the reporter's job, and in doing so I controlled the media in that instance. Had the reporter bothered to show up he might have heard some other interesting sound bites that weren't in the speech.

On another occasion (when I was a reporter) a local businessman I knew decided to run for public office. Members of all the media organizations turned out, but left quickly, never getting anything of substance. He pulled me aside and asked me how he could make reporters stick around. "You only need to remember four words," I told him, remembering my first campaign. "Lunch will be provided."

He scheduled another news conference a few weeks later and pulled out all the stops. A sit down catered lunch and an actual band. Over the top, yes, but every reporter stuck around through the meal and was in a good mood when the candidate came around and did his interviews.

Sometimes it's the candidate who picks your pocket, sometimes a member of the campaign staff. You simply have to keep one thing in mind when covering politics.

These people all want something from you. Sure, they want good coverage and to make sure the right sound bites end up on the air or in the paper, but all of that pales compared to the top request.

They want you to like the candidate.

These days many national reporters and talk show hosts are so transparent about their political views you could read a newspaper through them. And so much is being made about media bias, that the general public has become wise to the tricks of the trade. Clever editing can make even the most eloquent politician look stupid. Bad lighting can make someone look scary. Opinionated copy can turn something innocent into a topic of discussion. During the early part of the Presidential campaign, one of the candidates had some strong words for a reporter. The anchor copy read, "the candidate lost his cool" but anyone watching it could see the politician was simply defending his stance on the issue and was being passionate about it.

Now, more than ever, objectivity is key. Even a hint of favoritism and you've lost your audience.

You can like a candidate all you want, and vote for anyone. But you must always strive to tell the public what you know, not what you think.

Keep your opinions in your front pocket, along with your money, and no one will have any idea how you voted on Election Day.

Countdown to the Mayan apocalypse: this week's to-do list

Just for the hell of it, let's assume for a moment the Mayans are right and that the world will come to some sort of screeching halt on Friday. Now if we were absolutely sure of this we'd all quit our jobs and spend our last hours with the people we love the most. (Though a few managers I know would not, since the concept of love and human kindness eludes them.)

But the rules of this little game we're going to play this week do not allow you to hang it up and wait for grim reaper. No, you have to stay at your post, doing packages and live shots until the clock strikes twelve. I can see the teases now. "Fireball on the way! After the game!"

So seriously, what would you do if you only had one week left? If you knew that on Friday you're going to come face to face with the great News Director in the sky?

You know damn well what you'd do. You'd be on your best behavior, like a five year old trying to make Santa's nice list by not being naughty. You'd do your best to impress the man upstairs, pulling out all the stops to avoid a trip on the elevator that's headed down.

So this week, just assume we're all checking out on Friday. And try the following:

-Find at least one story that makes the world a better place. It's Christmas, so that shouldn't be too hard. Maybe you'll even find more than one.

-Do a random act of kindness for someone in your station who needs it.

-Put the knives away in the newsroom. No jealousy, no snide comments, no gossip.

-Ditch the bias. Be an actual journalist.

-Help someone in your station. An intern, a rookie reporter, whoever.

-Do every story as if it were your last. Doesn't matter if it's a chicken salad package; put your best effort into it. Knock out a great standup, use tons of nat sound, and write like there's no tomorrow. Literally.

-Praise someone in your newsroom, and do it in front of the staff. A photog who shot some great video, another reporter who did a great story.

We'll all probably wake up on Saturday and the world will still be here. But it might not. Why take the chance? If we're all gonna check out, why not do it on top?

And if we're still here next week, your apocalyptic to-do list might have changed you for the better.... in fact, it might become your permanent to-do list.

-

In times like these, it's okay to be an American on the air

I went to a seminar about two weeks after 9/11. The topic of patriotism came up, as many stations (including mine) had either put up flags on the set or decorated them in red, white and blue. Some had on-air staff members wear flag pins or ribbons. Our station never received a single complaint. No one had a problem with the show of patriotism.

Well, almost.

One person at the seminar said she found such displays of patriotism "offensive." Most of us couldn't believe anyone could make such a statement.

So here we are again, twelve years later.

Of course, we now have an unwritten "policy" that people in the sports department can wear flag pins, patriotic ties, or whatever. But for some reason it's considered "inappropriate" for someone in the news department to do so, because it might constitute "bias."

Oh, please.

Let me get this straight... the news business has become incredibly biased in the last ten  years, so much so that our trust level has reached that of used car salesmen and lawyers, yet we would appear "biased" if we literally wore our patriotism on our sleeves? How hypocritical is that?

If I were a News Director today I'd be fine with anyone who wanted to wear an American Flag pin. And if any viewer was somehow offended, I'd remind them what country they're living in.

Political correctness has done a ton of damage to this country. We don't need to make it any worse by denying our patriotism.

Because that's one thing that doesn't demand objectivity.

A New Year's Resolution every member of the media should make: It's time to retire the "If it bleeds, it leads" philosophy

Since the horrific story of mass murder in a Connecticut school, there has been much discussion about what we as a nation can do to prevent this from happening again. Members of the media have been very diligent in raising possible solutions. We need more gun control. We need to ban assault weapons. We need to revamp our mental health system. We need to crack down on violent video games. We need cops in every school.

While every one of those ideas may have merit, members of the media have missed the obvious element that contributes to our culture of violence. And all they have to do is look in the mirror.

All those crime stories that often lead national and local newscasts have a very definite effect. It's called "desensitization." In other words, when you see something horrible over and over, when it becomes so routine that it results in nothing more than a shrug, you've become desensitized to it. When we air stories of violence every single day, viewers begin to think murders and other violent crimes are no big deal.

And when kids grow up with that, when they grow up seeing the "murder of the day" on the local newscast, the result is that life doesn't have as much value. Another murder? Eh, what else is new.

The violence we cover as journalists may not be as graphic as that in a movie or a video game, but here's the big difference: it's real. It's not entertainment, it's not escapism. It's real life. And we broadcast it nightly without any thought to the ramifications, yet hypocritically get up on a high horse and slam Hollywood or the NRA for exposing the country to violence.

Look in the damn mirror.

As media people we have an incredible amount of influence, and it goes beyond the in-your-face bias that has permeated our industry. We create a perception of what life is like in a particular community. If we fill our newscast with stories of murder and mayhem, viewers may assume the entire market is one big war zone.

I think back to a time when I worked for a scanner chaser. We were covering a shootout that resulted in two dead drug dealers. A cop was smiling as we arrived, and said, "Hey, some good news for you guys. Two less pushers on the street."

With that story in mind, ask yourself this question: Do stories like that really matter to the average viewer in your market, or are you simply chasing the scanner with the belief that if it bleeds, it leads?

Look in the damn mirror.

If you want to make a difference as it pertains to violence in this country, do your part. Don't sit there in your ivory tower and point the finger of blame. There's plenty of that to go around. But we are just as much to blame for creating the perception that there is nothing but violence in our country.

Perception is reality.

Here's what we're saying to the viewers: "You want fifteen minutes of fame? Do something violent, and we'll tease the hell out of it and lead our newscast with it."

There's a reason you never see fans running onto a field during a baseball game. Broadcasters have realized that showing these people would only encourage more people to do it, so they have a policy of not showing them. With that in mind, what are we encouraging by broadcasting stories of violence every day? It's an easy way to get yourself on television, to gain a bit of fame in our reality TV obsessed society.

When you fill your newscast with real stories, when children stop seeing blood flow across the screen every night, then you've got the right to point that finger of blame. Until then, you're just as guilty.

Look in the damn mirror.

You don't have to see violence to know it exists. In the old movie "From Here to Eternity" Montgomery Clift and Ernest Borgnine engage in a fight to the death toward the end of the movie. The fight begins in a dark alley, then moves behind a wall. But the camera never moves, never follows the actors. We know what's happening, but we don't need to see it.

We know what's happening in real life as well. We don't always need to see it. Children really don't need to see it.

The "if it bleeds, it leads" philosophy needs to be retired. Local news ratings have been on a steady decline for years, and one big reason is the tendency to load up a newscast with blood and gore. But this goes beyond ratings.

You want a happy and safer new year for the children in this country? The next time you want to point the finger of blame, look in the damn mirror.

-