|
January 30, 1998
RATINGSGATE I never would have expected to feel this way... ...but out here in Los Angeles, as I watched the avalanche of errors and excesses that blighted the television coverage from Washington D.C. this past week, I found myself hoping the L.A. stations would break away to a good old-fashioned freeway chase, or maybe team coverage of the storm-that-never-happened -- you know, the stuff that too many local news dreams are made of. Why ? Because it was so deeply depressing to watch colleagues, reporters who know better, going live from the White House lawn, their commentary rife with material of a most dubious and damaging nature. No previous example of overkill, not O.J., Marv Albert nor even Diana, could prepare us for this sad spectacle. As a working journalist, I have never seen a story spin out of control with such runaway-train velocity, never witnessed a case where so many unsubstantiated charges and rumours were dressed up as facts, never listened to opinion outweigh information to such a critical degree. Making things much worse was the all-enveloping extent of this masquerade; all the big networks cut and ran from Havana, blacked out Baghdad and the rest of the real world and dunked their heads deep in the trough of scandal. And what was the only conclusive, damning evidence revealed ? That the tabloid epidemic has reached the very highest levels of the broadcastnews establishment. "There is this sudden rush to judgment," said University of Virginia media analyst Larry Sabato on NBC's "Today" show. "I've heard some of your commentators on the network practically have Clinton on a plane to Arkansas." Critics and academics were not alone with these observations: a good number of print and broadcast journalists voiced their objections, but on television in particular management was on a roll, grasping for ratings advantage and stubbornly refusing to hit the brakes. This, in spite of the conscientious reaction of the best hearts and minds in the business. Let me draw your attention to one of them, a journalist I know extremely well, a professional recognized by both friends and rivals as an instinctive, intuitive but most of all a painstakingly honest and faithful reporter. My brother, Peter Kent, anchor and editor of Canada's Global Network News, wrote and presented this on-air commentary on Friday the 23rd, day three of the sexscandal story: Before we go, a few thoughts about short-cut justice, "what if" journalism, and gossip-hungry viewers. Even more shocking and disappointing than the newest allegations against Bill Clinton this week -- and the tactic of the special prosecutor who's been trying, for years, to nail the President on just about any offence more serious than jaywalking -- has been the gossip presented as journalism pumped out of the U.S. capital this week. What's significant here ? That Peter was speaking for many news professionals, people who remember the difference between investigative journalism and show business. That he was not alone; several other seasoned voices of reason spoke out in a similar way. And that he delivered these sentiments in his Friday newscast -- at least two days before the D.C. pack went into back-pedal overdrive, emphasizing that the tapes and whispers amounted only to allegations and that there was, crucially, a scarcity of that basic element called a second source, also known as corroborating evidence. All we know for certain in this affair is that the public appears far more disgusted with the performance of much of their commercial news media than they are with the allegedly-wayward President. And, sadly, that despite eloquent expressions of caution from prominent news veterans, too many news management and ownership groups have become deaf and blind to appeals for restraint. They remain convinced that ratings and profit are the only real considerations. While the public has the option to turn off the noise and find a good newspaper or radio broadcast, television news reporters have a much more uncomfortable choice to make. They can put their heads down and accept that dignity, pride and correct practice will no longer guide their profession, or they can choose not to be victims of the economics of broadcast news in the 90's and reassert their proper role in the industry. Deciding where you stand on these issues is imperative, and not just to protect the national consciousness from the kind of dispiriting and distracting phenomenon we've lived with in recent days. It has a bearing on what kind of work you'll be doing tomorrow: covering the news, or swimming in the trash. |
| Next time... | some hard documentation on mismanagement in the industry.
See you then... |