IT'S TIME TO THINK ABOUT WHAT IS AND ISN'T "NEWS"

Hi Everybody:

When I saw this video from WAVE-TV
 http://www.wave3.com/category/195955/video-landing-page?clipId=7286256&autostart=true
and watched the station's continuing coverage of the story, I didn't know whether to laugh, cry or throw up.  I finally decided to laugh.

The whole thing is quite humorous -- and very, very sad.  Anyone with life experience--especially anyone who covered news in big cities like I did (Los Angeles, Philadelphia & Cleveland for over 20 years) knows all too well that most inner-city neighborhoods are infested with worthless gang punks destined for prisons or early graves.  There are decent, hard-working people.  There are innocent little kids.  There are lovely senior citizens.  Those people hate the gangsters but they are powerless to control them.  The gangsters overshadow all the rest.  The gangsters turn the whole place into a sewer.

The people involved in the Louisville shooting were  likely born into their circumstances.  They were undereducated; they were  products of teenage pregnancies; they were extremely poor; they were lacking in role models for anything that could change their way of life for the better.  They learned at an early age to solve disputes with erratic, illegal behavior, including gun violence.   

Now that sounds like a key demo to me!  So why is it that every boneheaded news director from NYC to L.A. thinks it's a great news story when one scumbag shoots another scumbag.  Personally, I don't even think it's worth a 10-second reader.  Maybe a mention on the crime blog on the website somewhere would be appropriate.  But a live shot?  With a reporter and crew?  Not a chance in this man's newscast.  Not a chance.

Unfortunately, the lily white reporter from the Cleveland suburbs, who trained at the Scripps School of Journalism and spent a few years in Evansville, IN and Lexington, KY before graduating to Louisville, didn't work for me.  So, she was sent to tell the story of how two young, black males had been shot to death --cut down in the prime of their criminal lives--and another wounded.  While she was preparing this startling report, a young, black female with a gun shot another young, black female during an argument over the shooting of those young, black males.  Cops who were investigating the first shooting then shot that female shooter. 

The reporter, scared half to death, cowered in her van (as did her camera person) apparently not willing to take the same risks as the dozens of cops and citizens who were walking around outside after the shooting had stopped.  The reporter told her producer on the phone that it wasn't safe to do a live shot-- as if it were EVER safe to do a live shot in the projects.  In fact, just then it was safer than it had been in decades.  There were cops everywhere. 

Much later, she did go live, as part of a pass-the-mic-back-and-forth-team-coverage performance that focused mostly on how frightening the whole incident had been for all of the people NOT INVOLVED IN THE SHOOTING and NOT LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD--namely, the TV people.  The lily white, older, male reporter who led the team report sounded like he'd been raised in Canada (or Minnesota--same thing) and appeared to be genuinely frightened and shocked --by what had happened-- even though his report made it clear that the area was known for gang shootings.

The anchor who read the lead-in to the team report stated emphatically that no one in the WAVE newsroom had ever seen anything approaching this level of violence-- thus, informing her audience that the staff at WAVE is extremely inexperienced.  I don't know about you, but I want my TV news people to act like they've seen it all and like they aren't surprised by anything.  I want them to be reassuring and informative, not wide-eyed and scared half to death.  I want them to be like the football player who scores a touchdown and hands the ball to the referee, not like the player who scores and then breaks into some stupid dance routine.

http://www.wave3.com/category/195955/video-landing-page?clipId=7286256&autostart=true


So, what did all of this accomplish?  Absolutely nothing-- except to confirm what most people already know:  That TV news is all about itself.  "We were frightened, but we're okay."  "We hid in our van while everybody else was running around outside, but we're okay."  "We saw something terrible, but we're okay.  Don't worry."

Oh, I'm worried.   I'm really worried.  I'm really worried that someday soon one of these boneheaded news directors whose only experience outside of a newsroom has been walking to the nearest deli for lunch will send a 20-something reporter into the projects for a gratuitous live shot --and the poor child will be shot, stabbed, raped or worse in the name of covering "breaking news" about worthless pieces of garbage shooting other worthless pieces of garbage.  That's what I'm worried about. 

Why was the crew sent to west Louisville in the first place?  Is a gang shooting "news"?  Does anyone actually give a rat's ass whether three gang bangers shoot it out and two of them die?  Sure.  Their weeping mothers, who are always more than willing to go on camera and tell you what terrific kids their little boys were.  "He didn't deserve what he got.  He was a good boy."  Sure--just like you were a good mother.

Of course the cops will tell you that the dead kids had been terrorizing the neighborhood for years and were running with the Crips; that they'd spent half their young lives in juvenile detention; and that it was only a matter of time before they were either killed or killed somebody else. 

Here's an idea for a follow up:  Try to calculate how many crimes these kids would have committed, how many lives they would have ruined had they lived another ten years.  Try to calculate how many more children the young woman shot to death by the other young woman would have brought into the world and raised as gangsters who would go on to commit countless crimes.  Then, try to put a dollar value on all of it, from the cost of replacing stolen goods, to the cost of incarceration, to the cost of court proceedings, to the cost of  hospitalizations and funerals.  Wouldn't that be interesting?

I'd say it would be a damn sight more interesting than watching a 20-something white girl reporter talk about how terrified she was during her visit to the hood.  

On second thought-- just track this blog, throw some video on it and call it a sweeps piece.

THE ULTIMATE LOCAL NEWS VIEWERS' SURVEY

Hi Everybody:

I have just completed an exhaustive research project aimed at settling once and for all the debate about what local news viewers actually want to see-- and what they are tired of seeing.  There are five categories:  Local News; World & National News; Sports; Weather; Entertainment News.

Local News:

1. 100 percent of viewers are extremely interested in hearing about anything that is going to cost them money or disrupt their lifestyles.

2. 98 percent of viewers couldn't care less about what local gang members are doing to each other or to the people in their neighborhoods. 

3. 100 percent of viewers are not impressed or fooled by the "Breaking News" label attached to minor stories like an abandoned garage fire or the arrest of a teenage car thief after a brief chase.  In fact, 100 percent of viewers chuckle at ridiculous cliches used by spineless producers future news directors who do absolutely everything they're told to do by consultants. 

World & National News:

1. 22 percent of viewers care about what is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else American troops might be engaged in conflict.

2. 21 percent of viewers care about campaign politics. 

3. 11 percent of viewers care about crimes that happen in other states, unless those crimes are especially outrageous crimes against children--in which case the number jumps to 28 percent.

4. 50 percent of viewers care about weather or other natural disasters that happen elsewhere.

Sports:

1. 100 percent of viewers do not believe local sports can be covered adequately in less than five minutes.

2. 50 percent of viewers don't care if local sports are covered at all.

Weather:

1. 100 percent of viewers want to know what's going to happen later that day and the next day.

2. 25 percent of viewers believe weather predictions that are more than 48 hours in advance, unless those predictions are made in the southwest or southern California.

3. 100 percent of viewers believe that much of the time wasted by weather people in front of over-complicated maps could be used for in-depth reporting on meaningful topics.

4. 100 percent of viewers don't believe local stations are capable of or willing to do in-depth reporting on meaningful topics, so they don't complain about how boring weather segments have become.

Entertainment News:

1. 100 percent of viewers don't believe entertainment news should be included in a local newscast.

2. 100 percent of viewers who care about entertainment news will get it from "E" or "ET" or "GMA."

3. 100 percent of viewers realize that including entertainment news in a local newscast is an extremely cheap way to fill time.  They believe it shows that local stations are simply out to make money and not to serve the public.  They consider it an insult to their intelligence. 

Other Findings:

1.  98 percent of viewers are angry that experienced, intelligent, trustworthy reporters and anchors are being replaced in alarming numbers by young, inexperienced reporters and anchors who have no credibility.  The two percent who aren't angry include sex offenders and viewers with dementia.

2. I forgot the rest....

WE DON'T MAKE SENSE

Hi Everybody:

Why do we accept things that don't make sense?  I wish I knew.  Here's a great example of ridiculous human behavior:  For safety's sake, the people who make rules for high school and for youth baseball and softball have set strict ones concerning foul weather.  It used to be that only lightning meant a half hour delay from the moment it was seen.  Now, if the umpires hear thunder, the same rule applies.  So, this week, my son's team was playing in the first inning of a baseball game when a rumble of thunder was heard.

"Time!" Yelled the home plate ump.  "Everybody off the field!"   About five minutes later, a bolt of lightning streaked the sky.  The ump extended the delay.  Meanwhile, the boys and their coaches sat on their benches.  Some leaned back against the steel fences.  Some took practice swings with their metal bats.  The plate umpire talked on his cell phone.  The base umpire sat on one of the benches and extended his legs so his feet rested on the steel fence in front of him.

I watched this and thought, "How is it safer for the boys --and for everyone else-- to be sitting with their bodies touching fences or standing and swinging metal bats, than to be out on the field playing baseball?  Does the game itself attract lightning like sudden movements attract sharks?  The answer, of course, is "no."

Then, I did something about it.  I told my son to pack his gear and to come with me to sit in the car.  After 45 minutes and more lightning, the ump finally postponed the game.  On the way out of the park, I stopped and asked the ump a question.

"What's the safety difference between playing baseball when there's lightning, and having all the baseball players sitting on benches with their backs or their feet touching fences during a lightning delay?"

"I can't make people sit in their cars or find shelter.  All I can do is stop the game when there's thunder or lightning.  What they do during the delay is up to them."

"I understand," I said.  "It just doesn't make sense to stop the game for the sake of safety, only to have all  its participants do something that's just as unsafe."

"Yeah," he said.  "I guess."

TV news has more than its share of nonsense.  How about the station that was advertising recently for a news director?  "We need a strong newsroom leader capable of coaching and mentoring young reporters," read the station's employment ad. 

Who did the station hire?  It hired a 30-something guy whose seven-year TV career had been spent as an assignment desk worker; a producer; and an executive producer.  Just how did that qualify him as a coach and mentor for young reporters?  Now the young reporters can look forward to having a leader who is clueless when it comes to news gathering and reporting.  Like most producers, he'll also make unrealistic demands of the people in the field-- because he's never been in the field.  The result will be anger, frustration and low morale. 

It makes about as much sense as letting boys lean against a steel fence during a lightning delay.  So, why does it keep happening?  I don't know.  I guess for the same reason my son and I were the only ones who went to sit in a car.  People just do things that don't make sense.

...BECAUSE THE UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE REQUIRES ME TO APPLY FOR THREE JOBS PER WEEK...

Hi Everybody:

Here's an email I sent recently about a news director opening in a smallish market.  Do you think I'll hear from them?

Hi There:


If you hire me, you won't need this:


"Works closely with outside news consultants furnishing them show tapes, rundowns, and talent information."


Outside news consultants are for stations with incompetent news directors. If you fire them and hire me, I'll be pretty much free-- and your news department will be so much better you won't recognize it. Outside news consultants are in the business of taking your money. They will take credit for ratings improvement and make excuses for ratings decline. They will tell you one thing in 2012 and contradict that opinion in 2013. They rely on the fact that most of the people who hire them are sales people with no experience in news. Most of these "consultants" are former news directors who were fired for incompetence. Most of them were producers--not reporters--and really have no business even attempting to critique or advise your talent.

Tell Magid or whatever firm you're allowing to rob you that you've decided to hire an "in-house consultant" in the form of a competent news director. Think of all the great things you could accomplish with the extra money!

Thanks,

Matt Stevens
resume attached

I guess it's possible that some really sharp GM could get to thinking, "Hmm, he's got a point.  We've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and we're still in last place."  Or, "Hmm, we've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and we're still in second place."  Or, "Hmm, we were in first place before we hired the consultants and we're still in first place."  Or, "Hmm, I always wondered why so many reporters took sick days or vacation days when the consultants came to the station.  Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't know they're idiots who talk about things that are irrelevant to the daily situations faced by our people."

Nah.  At best, the GM's will copy this to an email to their consultants and ask them what they think.  The consultants will then tell them not to hire me.  The GM's will take the advice, of course, because they'd be wasting their money if they didn't.  Right?  God bless all of them.

IT'S HOME OPENER EVERYBODY! LET'S ALL GO TO HOME OPENER!

Hi Everybody:

I recently watched a predictable, poorly-written piece by a newly-non-teen blondie TV reporter about the first home game for a Major League Baseball team.  She referred to the event as "home opener."  She didn't say, "the home opener."  She just said, "home opener" -- like teens refer to "prom."  Will you be going to "prom" this spring?  Will you attend "home opener" this spring?  That was a new one on me.  I've only been living and breathing baseball since I was about four years old.  That takes me back to Roger Maris breaking the Babe's single-season home run record of 60. 

Who was Roger Maris?  The Babe who?  What Babe?  Wasn't that an animated film? 

Ah, well, I'm sure she didn't mean anything by it.  I'm sure whoever read her script and allowed her to continually refer to the event as "home opener," in an awkward attempt to be literally correct--since the team had actually opened on the road a few days earlier-- didn't know any better.  That's the problem.  Isn't it?  Newsrooms across America have fewer and fewer people with any sense of history or any respect for it.  If the people working in them decide to invent new terms, new usages out of convenience, who's to stop them?  If they actually have managers with the background to know the difference, they're probably too preoccupied with improving the Facebook and Twitter numbers to notice.  It's just a baseball game.  Anyone can do a baseball story.  Right?  I guess so.  Anyone just did.

Broadcasting instructor:  "So, you want to be a TV news reporter?"

Student:  "Anchor."

Broadcasting instructor:  "Well.  Yes, but most anchors are reporters first.

Student:  "I suppose."

Broadcasting instructor:  "You look terrific on camera.  Can you write?  Can you spell?  Are you well-rounded?  Are you a quick study?  Do you have a burning desire to uncover the truth and to tell compelling stories?"

Student:  "Are those things important?"

Broadcasting instructor:  "Not really."

R.I.P.  Mike Wallace.

ABOUT THE TRAYVON MARTIN CASE

Hi Everybody:

...and now my take on the Travon Martin case.  Any declaration by authorities either way should come only after a thorough review of the evidence.  Any public outcry should be reserved.  If the man who shot Martin, George Zimmerman, is determined to be criminally liable, then he will be punished under the law.  If it is determined that his crime was a "hate crime," then he will be punished under that statute as well.  Anything else is just politics.  Al Sharpton and all the other egotistical opportunists should just shut up and back off.  They are not going to solve America's racial and social problems by exploiting this case.

This case is not about America.  It's not about race in America.   It won't change anything in America one way or another.  It's about one guy with a gun and one teenager who was shot and killed by that guy.  It's about neighborhoods where "neighborhood watch" groups are necessary-- and about the kinds of things that happen in those neighborhoods.  If you live in that particular Florida neighborhood, then you (obviously) have a chance to be shot and killed by some fanatical protectionist armed with a hand gun.

If you live in Chardon, OH (obviously) you have a chance to be shot and killed by a mentally disturbed teen from a broken home.  If you live in Los Angeles, you have a chance to be shot and killed by a random bullet fired on a freeway by a gangster wannabe performing some sick "rite of passage."  This kind of stuff has been happening in America since the 17th century.  We're not going to stop it anytime soon.

All we can do is reduce our risk.  All we can do is try to avoid some of the circumstances that lead to terrible things.  If you don't want your black teenager to get shot by some random protectionist who's paranoid of black teenagers, then tell him not to walk around by himself in that guy's neighborhood.  Becoming outraged doesn't change what happened.  Al Sharpton can't bring that kid back to life.  No amount of protesting or feigning disgust on cable television about a single incident is going to change the fact that black (and Hispanic) teenagers have been stereotyped by many people in America as being threatening and prone to violent acts. 

Al Sharpton sure as hell isn't going to address the root issues that plague millions of Americans of all races and disproportionate numbers of African Americans:  poverty, teen pregnancy, lack of parenting, lack of role models.  These are the reasons our prisons are filled with disproportionate numbers of African American males.  These issues are too deep for Sharpton and his ilk.  They require admissions of failure;  they require the taking of responsibility;  they require effort; they require deep thinking and serious plans of action.  Sharpton doesn't think or plan.  He just talks.  He just incites.  It's the easy way.  Anybody can curse the symptoms.  It takes a special kind to cure the disease. 

On the positive side, millions of black teens have grown up without being shot.  How did they do it?  I'm going to guess they did the same things most of us have done.  They went to school.  They did their homework.  They obeyed their parents.  They participated in organized activities.  Most important, they avoided conflicts with fanatics carrying hand guns.  Are there any guarantees that no one will shoot you no matter where you live?  Clearly not, but you can reduce the odds for yourself and for those you love.  Here are my top five things all teenagers can do to reduce their odds of being shot:

  5.  Don't walk around aimlessly and alone in places where a fanatical neighborhood watch guy who carries a gun might live.

 4.   Find something to do with your spare time, such as playing on a baseball team, working at a part time job or going to the library.

3.    Surround yourself with motivated friends and mentors who want to be productive members of society and can help you do the same.

2.    Don't believe that God will provide if you do nothing.  God helps those who help themselves.

1.    Accept the fact that certain situations and certain places are to be avoided.  It doesn't matter if you're dead right or dead wrong.  You're still dead.

  

IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT-- THAT MEANS YOU, CBS!

Hi Everybody:

I tried to watch the Ohio State/Syracuse game in the NCAA basketball tournament Saturday night, but CBS wouldn't let me.  To be more accurate, CBS annoyed me to the point where I had to turn the channel.  How?  Instead of just letting me watch a normal telecast, CBS forced me to watch much of the first half through a wide-angle lens from a remotely-operated robot camera that slides on a wire above the court.  (It's like the one that almost decapitated a couple of football players when its wire broke last fall).

What genius at the network decided that people who've been watching basketball just fine from the usual camera positions for 50 years would suddenly enjoy a high, distorted, wide-angle view of the game from a camera that's moving at the same time.  You can't see anyone's face or number.  It's like watching the game from the blimp, only the blimp shot doesn't make you dizzy. 

In my recent informal survey of 53 NCAA tournament watchers, 53 people said they hated the high, wide-angle shots.  Fifteen of them said they actually turn away when those shots are used.  Ten said they turned the channel and started watching other programs.  Please, CBS (and every other network using these stupid shots for basketball, football, hockey or any other sport), stop it.  Just stop it.  Listen to the guy who started the thread below.  Some things just don't need fixing.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/messages/chrono/35371632