Coverage of Gates, Crowley, sharing beer with the President, offers few surprises

(Originally published on Examiner.com)

The cable news networks did not surprise us. The beer chat in the Rose Garden was covered with all the serious intensity of a major summit. Little was said by the participants, in the immediate aftermath, but the White House and police officer involved expressed positive--though muted--messages about the value of the meeting. Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley seem to have developed a dialog even if neither is willing to apologize. Reports of the meeting paint a positive picture of a cordial encounter with the potential for continuing good will.

The president probably hopes that the episode is behind him and the country can focus on health care. Time, now, to start looking ahead and move past the encounter--and arrest--that led to a potentially productive discussion of race. The extremists on both sides had their say. Now it's time for more reasoned voices, led by those who shared a brew outside the White House, to move ahead and tackle our national troubles, a little wiser and, perhaps, less polarized than a couple of weeks ago.

Photo caption and credit:

(President Barack Obama, Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Sergeant James Crowley walk from the Oval Office
to the Rose Garden of the White House, July 30, 2009. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Prof. Gates, Sgt. Crowley, and a beer with President Obama

(Originally published on Examiner.com)

So much has been reported about the confrontation between Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley, that tonight's (6:00 PM EDT) meeting for a beer with the president will be as widely covered as any White House summit in recent times. From the moment President Obama said that the Cambridge Police "acted stupidly," the story's rather long legs grew a few inches. Now the story is getting more air time than health care reform, and just about everything else.

The fascination with the arrest of Gates is not surprising. First the question of race became the focus. Was Gates arrested and singled out because he is black? Much evidence now seems to point to other factors, as well. The initial caller to 9-1-1 does not mention race until the dispatcher asks her for a description of the men she thought might be breaking into her neighbor's home. Her response, that one might be "Hispanic" would seem to indicate her focus was on the act, not the race of the individuals.

The fact that Sgt. Crowley arrested Prof. Gates after he knew who he was, and that he was in his own house, indicates something about the confrontation between the two men--a power struggle--led the police officer to act the way he did. Among interesting comments about why things devolved so fast are those suggesting that testosterone fueled male power struggles are more likely to end in such confrontations. On one side, the world renowned Harvard scholar, on the other, a working police officer who felt he was just doing his job; clearly, neither felt he was getting the respect he deserved.

Perhaps President Obama will find some common ground and all of us will learn valuable lessons from this latest story. A certain cliche comes to mind, "it takes two to tango." It seems that both Gates and Crowley began their destructive dance and neither knew when to back off. Ultimately, Crowley had the power during the moments of the confrontation--the power of arrest, the strength of other officers on the scene, and the authority to do what he did, or to walk away. Race inevitably became part of the story, by the very nature of who was involved.

The president wisely reached out in an effort to turn things around. The news coverage has actually helped set the stage for tonight's "Summit with Suds." The country will be watching to see how the participants characterize the meeting, in much the same way diplomatic summits use code words and language to convey meaning. The aftermath of tonight's meeting will generate its own coverage. Perhaps, too, a little good will may emerge.

Jon Stewart vs. Brian Williams: And the winner is--us

Originally published on Examiner.com.

When Brian Williams appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, earlier this week, the two TV titans tensely tangled but apparently left laughing. Their confrontation serves as a lesson in how we get our news these days and the evolving role of television for delivering news and information.

Williams apparently believed he was there to discuss the death and career of Walter Cronkite. Stewart had other ideas. Earlier in the program Stewart showed excerpts from emails sent by news programs, including NBC's Meet the Press, to South Carolina's governor, Mark Sanford, in efforts to get an interview with him. When you watch the video (embedded below) you can see for yourself how it got so tense.

As the audience for TV news declines, programs that mix comedy and news reach an audience less inclined to watch traditional news programs. They also seriously, though humorously, critique more straight laced entries including network evening newscasts and cable news programs. In their own way, Stewart's The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Real Time with Bill Maher, serve an important purpose that keeps us laughing while conveying hard truths.

When Stewart took on CNBC's Jim Cramer, for failing to anticipate the financial crisis, viewers got it. Major figures in government and media continue to appear with Stewart which means they usually get a fair hearing and the opportunity to make their case. Stewart would come off as a bully if those he picked on were not up to the task; to his credit, Stewart's targets are usually pretty tough. And this week, Brian Williams held his own and displayed a sense of humor and timing worthy of his host. Not bad for two guys from New Jersey who now talk to each of us, almost every night, when we choose to listen and watch.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Brian Williams
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

Remembering Walter Cronkite

Originally published on Examiner.com.

When I walked into ABC News headquarters in New York City, in August of 1973, my goal was to become the next Walter Cronkite. It was my first TV news job. Having just graduated from NYU a few months earlier, I quickly learned that my own interests and talents were better suited to producing newscasts, and managing news operations. But, despite my change in career plans, it was still Mr. Cronkite who represented the ideals and positive reasons for wanting to work in the news business.

TV was the dominant news medium in those days, and Walter Cronkite was its undisputed champion, the most trusted man in America, according to public opinion polls. Whether it was the triumph of space flight or the tragedy of losing President Kennedy to an assassin's gunfire, we heard about it from Walter Cronkite. Watching the network evening newscast was appointment viewing for many Americans, and the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite was the top choice for most viewers. NBC's Nightly News was a respectable second place entry. Where I worked, at ABC, our third place operation was just beginning to assert itself. It would take time before ABC began to challenge and then overtake CBS and NBC for several years; it finally happened, long after Cronkite retired.

Cronkite was described as "avuncular," defined by the New Oxford American Dictionary as "of or relating to an uncle.• kind and friendly toward a younger or less experienced person." This description served as the source for one of his nicknames, "Uncle Walter." Not only did people trust him, they liked him, too. This combination of authority and likability gave Cronkite a special stature during the two decades he anchored the evening news. The people who research why certain personalities are successful on TV sometimes refer to "Para-social relationships" that viewers form with on-air personalities. We feel like we know them. In the case of Cronkite, having a trusted "uncle" on the air every night, worked for viewers.

Many of the people I worked with at ABC came from CBS and had worked with Walter Cronkite for many years. From his peers, I got the impression he was highly respected for his serious approach and professionalism. His background as a wire service correspondent during World War Two, served him well as he made the transition to television. He was a fine reporter first, and an excellent writer and editor.

One of my jobs at ABC was to watch "the Cronkite broadcast" every evening, and type up a report that described what was covered and how it was presented. This report was distributed to all the executives at ABC News, the next morning. Watching Cronkite, with focused attention, helped me understand what makes a good newscast and what makes a good anchor. The term "anchor" was developed for Cronkite. Somebody came up with it when they realized political coverage required a central person to pull all the elements together, to anchor the broadcast; that was Walter. In Sweden anchors are sometimes referred to as Kronkiters; in Holland, the variation is Cronkiters.

Walter Cronkite was a man of his time. Tom Brokaw coined the term the "greatest generation" to describe those who came of age during World War Two. Cronkite was one of the giants of that generation.

How we get the news today has changed dramatically. TV is still important and watched by millions, but it is no longer the daily and dominant ingredient in the American diet that it was when there were just three network newscasts, no cable news, no Internet. Today's news sources represent points of view and often lean this way or that. Fox goes right, MSNBC to the left; Drudge gives you the conservatives' take and Huffington Post takes you to the land of liberals. Couric, Williams, and Gibson still try to play it down the middle but are viewed with suspicion and tainted--rightly or wrongly--by assertions that they represent particular positions on everything from environmental reporting to election coverage. Trust has been replaced by suspicion.

In this environment we may never have another TV journalist who rises to the level of Walter Cronkite, as a trusted figure capable of anchoring our view of the world with a sense of honesty and fairness. Trust, itself, is in short supply as we navigate the problems of the day. For future generations of journalists, Cronkite's legacy should serve as inspiration to report the news, without fear or favor and by so doing rekindle a sense of trust and honesty that we so desperately need during these difficult times. This may not happen on the scale of corporate success and leadership that Cronkite enjoyed during CBS's dominance. But the new generation of journalists, empowered by technologies Cronkite's producers could only dream of, needs to aspire to greatness and win the trust of those they serve.

Musician Carroll's viral video as tool--and lesson--for journalists

The following article is also posted on my Examiner.com page.

In case you have not yet heard of Dave Carroll, he's the Canadian musician who posted a music video on YouTube, last week. It describes, in lighthearted and humorous fashion, how United Airlines broke his $3,500.00 Taylor guitar. Among the funniest shots in the video are the way Carroll depicts indifferent airline employees as he tried to alert them about his broken guitar. In just over a week, the video is approaching three million page views. Carroll also posted a statement acknowledging the support he's received; in it he suggests that United Airlines take the money it is now willing to pay, and donate it to charity.

Clearly, getting his guitar broken is the best thing that could have happened to Carroll in terms of advancing his career. His injured instrument and the song it spawned are the kind of PR a musician can't buy. For United Airlines, it's an object lesson in how not to handle customer service and consumer complaints. This is the sort of incident and outcome that will be studied in business schools for years to come.

With all the attention the video is generating, the mainstream media are reporting the story, but not necessarily to the extent you might imagine or expect. Local TV news in particular is a medium that historically has thrived on taking a populist approach to consumer reporting. But everything has changed. With video on the web coming of age, along with relatively inexpensive production tools available to everybody from home video enthusiasts to companies that make wedding videos, TV newsrooms have competition in terms of visual storytelling. But is it journalism?

Ultimately the answer is yes, but it is a qualified and conditional yes. As a stand-alone piece of work, Carroll's video is not journalism in any traditional sense. It is, however, an important part of a journalistic process that is both dynamic and evolving. How news organizations learn about stories and develop news tips and leads determines what gets covered. Carroll's video became the story and it opened the door for traditional news organizations to cover his situation and expand it. In the marketplace of story ideas finding new sources serves journalism well. Empowering technologies allow talented people to tell stories directly and passionately.

The fundamentals of good journalism, fair, accurate, unbiased reporting, can then flow. When journalists have a heightened awareness of facts and situations, they have a responsibility to apply sound principles to the information before them. Advocacy journalism is still journalism, as long as it is fact based and its positioning is not tainted by partisan or commercial benefit as a reason for the reporting. Journalism should draw conclusions and take advantage of a wide range of sources.

The idea that non-journalists can create journalism is the key to understanding the future of the news media. We still need professional journalists who follow an ethical path and provide unbiased reporting that makes sense out of complicated situations and facts. As Brian Williams says in an NBC promo, their job is "making sense of it." Many may disagree and say that news organizations should just report the facts. But the very decisions of which stories to cover, what facts to report, and how much prominence one set of facts gets over another, is part of the "making sense" process. And, as entertaining and good humored as Dave Carroll's video is, that's a different process from what Williams describes in the promo. In our evolving universe of news, both approaches have a place. Understanding the difference is a form of media literacy we all should be learning.

Michael Jackson Memorial: Memories Captured on Live TV

(Originally published on my Examiner.com page)

Funerals in general, and celebrity funerals in particular, in part because they are so public, encourage the sort of emotional ambivalence that helps define life and being human. On the one hand, we feel a terrible loss because we will miss the person who died. On the other hand, we want to celebrate the person's life and all the good she or he has accomplished. When the person leaves behind a body of work or a clearly defined legacy we have something to hold onto, even though the person is gone. The funeral or memorial service, itself, becomes part of that legacy.

When Michael Jackson's flower covered casket was wheeled into the Staples Center in Los Angeles, millions watched on screens of all sizes, around the world. When Mariah Carey and Trey Lorenz began with a heartfelt rendition of I'll Be There, the sounds of their voices were transmitted around the globe through fiber optics and satellite dishes so millions could mourn in synchronous high definition splendor. For two hours this day, Jackson was the world, or at least large segments of it.

As expected, the quality of the performances, oration, and stagecraft was first rate, fitting for a man with a legitimate claim as the top entertainer of his time. To their credit, the TV broadcasters provided commercial free, uninterrupted coverage once the service began.

During Brooke Shields' remarks, she mentioned that Michael's favorite song was not one of his own; it was Smile with music written by Charlie Chaplin. When Michael's brother, Jermaine, sang it a few moments later, it captured the ambivalence of the day, dramatically.

In the end, Michael's own words, from We Are the World, co-written with Lionel Richie, and Heal the World, served as a fitting close to an unwanted and premature capstone event in the life and legacy of Michael Jackson. But only after the planned, produced, part of the program ended did we get the most raw sense of the intense pain that the loss of a loved one surely inflicts. Michael's daughter, Paris, spoke last, through tears, a sad but brutally honest moment that will soften with time but speaks volumes about love, all captured for the world to see--and experience--on live TV.

Jackson Memorial as Tribute to a King

The spectacle that will be Tuesday's memorial service for Michael Jackson, to be carried live on major networks (10 AM Pacific/1 PM Eastern) and the world wide web, will surely draw a huge audience and provide the sort of event extremely well-suited to the television medium in the 21st Century. As Jackson was known as the King of Pop, this memorial for a monarch will include music, passionate recollections, and stagecraft, fitting for a figure of his stature. The last time TV covered a royal remembrance of this scale, the realm belonged to the regal Princess Diana. At that gathering, Sir Elton John sang goodbye to England's Rose, a version of Candle in the Wind that went on to be, probably, the best selling single, ever. Anticipating memorable moments, the networks have all sent their top tier talent to anchor this tribute to the ultimate entertainer who died so suddenly.

With today's technology, and the scale of what will be produced in Los Angeles, attending the memorial in person, will be a different experience from that of the millions who see it on TV. Of course, anybody who is in Staples Center will be able to watch replays and recordings to experience the full effect of the media moments that are created in memory of Michael. And anyone who attends in person will hold special memories for years to come.

As the celebrants convene for this end of life tribute, the tragic nature of Jackson's life and death remain poignant and disturbing. The July 9-23, 2009 issue of Rolling Stone includes an article written before Jackson died that reads like an eerie foreshadowing of the desperation that likely contributed to his demise. The pressure surrounding the preparation and expectations for this summer's London concert series was intense and unremitting. This was to be a make or break chapter in the future reign of the King.

As the world prepares for this final send-off many questions remain for the living. The simpler ones are not so simple and involve the future of Jackson's children, the circumstances and causes--in the broadest sense--of his death, and the management of his estate and the wealth associated with it. The more difficult questions focus on the timeless notions of tragedy. Fame and wealth, so sought after and pursued, become insatiable appetites, as success in life, as a parent, a friend, and positive force in the world become more elusive for the tragic figure.

Michael Jackson's abiding legacy will be his music and performances captured forever on audio and video recordings of the highest quality. But the interest in him and empathy for him is more complex. As he is remembered on Tuesday these nuances will be woven into the day's activities and outpouring of affection. And it will be on a scale fitting for a king. So in a sense, the world will stop as the media focuses on one story, for a moment in history, one more time.

Examiner

Hello, again, everybody.

I recently started writing for Examiner.com, a national website. My beat is TV news. Some of my work will appear on both IrvsEyeView and Examiner.com, posting the same article on both sites. But each will, from time to time, include articles, blogs, and commentary specific to one website, but not the other.

So, if you have not yet visited my page at Examiner.com, please take a look. Here is the link.

http://www.examiner.com/x-15271-TV-News-Examiner

Thank you.

News Judgments: Jackson or Healthcare, or a Little of Both

The future of journalism is a popular topic today, mostly among the biggest stakeholders, those who work for news organizations and their leadership. But the most important stakeholders are the public, on whom everything else depends. If consumers are not served well, they usually go elsewhere to get their news.

With that in mind, a look at three separate pieces of information offers some guidance.

First, a survey published on Wednesday by the Pew Research Center shows that coverage of Michael Jackson's death was too much for a majority of those surveyed.

Second, some media leaders, including the president of ABC News, say one answer to improving journalism is to provide unique coverage that viewers cannot get from other media outlets.

Third, ABC's own John Stossel offers a reaction--articulating his disappointment--to his own, apparently, unique coverage, about Canadian healthcare, being pulled in favor of more Michael Jackson followups, on 20/20, last week.

If we take the time to synthesize these three pieces of information, we may actually emerge with a bit of wisdom. As mentioned on my Examiner.com page a few days ago, wisdom is something too often in short supply.

As for ABC's decision to pull Stossel's piece, it happened last Friday. Jackson's death was still fresh news and, for many viewers, of overwhelming interest. So it's easy to understand why executives chose to pull Stossel's piece on the Canadian healthcare system; that doesn't mean it was a good decision. Most important, it is the kind of decision that is emblematic of the defensive, play it safe, approach to programming news. 20/20 still could have provided substantial and meaningful coverage of Jackson's death.

For producers, it's a question of balance. Was there room for other news that night? And would breaking away from Michael Jackson better serve viewers and hold their interest? Staying with Jackson was the conventional, safe, decision; that doesn't mean it was wrong. But when media enterprises are losing audience, losing money, and struggling to survive, offering an alternative approach might just serve all stakeholders better than more of the same.

Drug Dangers and Madoff Move Jackson from Newscasts' Top Spots

The three network evening newscasts moved away from leading with Michael Jackson, this week. On Monday it was the sentencing of Bernard Madoff, except on NBC. On Tuesday the leads were new warnings about the dangers of not following directions when using acetaminophen (including Tylenol, and other products), the popular over the counter pain reliever that is also in some prescription drugs. The drug danger story got the top spots with Brian, Charlie, and Katie, across the board. Many local newscasts, around the country, followed a similar pattern, at least with the acetaminophen news on Tuesday.

Perhaps the greatest beneficiary of the timing of Jackson's death is Mark Sanford, the governor of South Carolina. His marital problems and free flowing accounts of liaisons with his "soul mate Maria" were relegated to the lower depths of newscasts, at least for a few days. Sanford's ability to hang onto his job may suffer once Jackson's death consumes less time and space in media coverage. The other beneficiaries of the Jackson coverage are the media. TV, newspapers, and web based news organizations all got a boost from this story with high interest and a long life or "legs."

Stories with "legs" can make viewers weary when the real reason they last is the media's laziness or fascination with human weakness and bad behavior. The Jon and Kate saga falls into this category. Certainly the manufactured interest and initial fascination with their high profile breakup made sense from the perspective of producers who wanted to give viewers as much as they would take. The problem is that stories of this type are pursued and presented for far too long. After a few days there is only so much you can say about an intrinsically sad, not otherwise newsworthy, domestic dispute.

But that's not the case with either Jackson or Sanford. Both these stories have legitimate legs. In Jackson's case, the ongoing investigation into his death and the future of his family continue to have news value. Gov. Sanford's situation, whether or not he survives as governor, requires continuing coverage until resolved.

The Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism tracks news coverage. Last week, protests in Iran led Pew's list of most covered stories, but that shifted dramatically as Jackson's death became the overwhelmingly dominant news. After several days as the lead, it took the sentencing of a high profile scoundrel and a public health story about dangers from a popular painkiller to knock down our fascination with a legitimate celebrity's death, in the news lineups across the country.

The story of Madoff's swindles and the dangers of acetaminophen should have been pursued more actively by journalists before government prosecutors, in the case of Madoff, and the FDA, with regard to acetaminophen, got involved. The failures of the financial media have been well documented as the economy tumbled. Jon Stewart, ostensibly a comedian but really much more, did some of the best work in showing how poorly reporters reported on what was going on in financial markets. As for the dangers of not following directions when it comes to the use of acetaminophen, that story has been available, too. But for the media, it usually takes "official" action for the story to break as major news. Some of those reasons are legal--fear of libel lawsuits--but with good, honest, reporting that should not be a problem. Mostly, though, the media's failure to be out front on important stories is a consequence of shrinking budgets and lack of will.

For journalism to thrive in the future, mainstream and grassroots citizen journalism, reporters will have to identify stories and trends before they become prosecutions and crashes, or unnecessary deaths requiring FDA action. Those stories will always have "legs" and they'll serve the public, an important part of journalism's mission.