Erie Media-Go-Round Chat Down on Ethics in Local Journalism!
Yesterday’s post gathered a great deal of comment. As much as I would like to think it was the provocative post itself, the comments that were generated came more by decisions that were made in various local newsrooms yesterday.
I was going to do a post on what WSEE can do to improve its evening news position. However, yesterday’s journalistic ethics controversy has trumped that. (I will leave that for next week when the smoke clears.)
Instead, feel free to continue yesterday’s discussion in the first “Erie Media-Go-Round Chat Down.” I will post both pro and con. (This is not just for broadcasting) Just watch the usual rules. I will edit where necessary.
I would like to also invite students who may read EMGR to participate as well. I am sure that those in the local media (and they do read) would be interested in the younger comments as well.
So let the first “Erie Media-Go-Round Chat Down” on Ethics in Local Journalism begin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
This would never happen in our newsroom. We have safeguards in place to see that such an unfortunate incident would never happen. The final decision is up to Lou Baxter our News Director. Our reporters and anchors respect his decision. We don't have employees trying to get ahead on their own by kissing up to management.
Hopefully this will produce an intelligent discussion in classrooms around the region. People need to realize that actions have consequences. WSEE made a terrible decision and will have to live with the consequences.
We bet when you wrote this thread that you had no idea it would veer off into an ethics debate?
We really like your blog.
JET-TV Newsroom Staff
I can't believe that the cause of death was revealed in the newscast today. As for the comments left by Scott Bremner defending their actions and referring to Bud Dwyer's suicide, wasn't Dwyer's death on live TV? And not that there is ever a place to make a tragic event into gossip but he chose a very public format in which to carry out the deed. And he was an elected official, correct me if I'm wrong, I was rather young at the time, but wasn't he involved in very public legal trouble at the time that already made his TV presence visible?
This doctor was a private citizen with only a somewhat public persona. Sure there would be questions from patients who are curious about circumstances, but is it really ethical for a newscast to be the informer of these private details to the public? This whole situation reaks and reminds me of the tabloid senationalism where no details are censored, no matter how lurid.
In the Times-News this morning, there was a small article mentioning a doctor who passed away. They didn't mention cause of death. Just said that the doctor died at home. My presumption is that it's the same individual mentioned on-air by WSEE.
Thinking back to my days in radio, this NEVER would have happened locally. The only possible 1960's/70's radio station who might have announced it in the same fashion would have been CKLW. But, they were known for, as they called it then, "blood and guts" reporting.
Scott Bremner said the WSEE newsroom received numerous calls from people wanting to know what happened. OK, Scott how many people actually called? 1? 5? Is it really any of their business? NO!!!
As for Bud Dwyer, he unfortunately took his own life during a news conference in front of a room full of reporters and photographers. I don't know how you can compare the two circumstances? It is almost like comparing an apple to an orange.
I wouldn't bother calling the WSEE newsroom to complain. I read that several people claim to have been hung up on or treated rudely by the news staff. It wouldn't matter anyway! They are right even when they are wrong!
I am also offended by the implication that WSEE and/or Scott Bremner is a classy person....his words, not mine. I don't think a person with class would stick his/her nose where it does not belong. The Media is NOT GOD!!! They do not have the right to report or say whatever they please.
Scott also overtly implied that it was gutless to hide behind an "anonymous" label. Well, after what they did to the poor doctor I wouldn't sign my name to anything regarding WSEE. If they can cause his family further emotional distress imagine what they could do to an "average" citizen?"
Jack, You have chosen an excellent topic for debate. I look forward to reading a lot of intelligent posts regarding this matter.
Thanks for the forum.
(I'd sign my name but I don't want to be smeared by the WSEE Tabloid News!)
I am a High School Ethics Teacher. Thank you for giving me a topic for my class on Thursday. I was struggling with a lesson plan but after what WSEE pulled I decided to go with this.
There is a fine line one must walk between doing the right thing and not doing the right thing. WSEE clearly did the wrong thing. When that fine line is crossed there is no going back.
I hope this isn't the beginning of a new type of journalism in Erie?
High School Ethics Teacher....
If you like, invite the class to post their feelings on this thread. I am sure the TV, Radio and Newspaper people (who I know read) would be most interested in what their feelings about the issue are. Thanks for reading and giving you a free idea. No charge. lol.
My opinion. There is no going back but there is something that the station can do. Instead of just sweeping the mistake under the rug, management.,.I mean Brian or Kevin Lilly...should go on the air and acknowlege what happened and apologize and say what they have done about it internally to correct it from happening again.
Now that is what a responsible broadcaster would do. Show that you are big enough to admit a mistake and how you learned from it.
Doesn't the reporting of alcohol-related fatal car crashes hurt the victim's families? Doesn't the interviewing of murder victim's familes hurt the victim's familes? Yet we do that every day - even in the "safeguarded" 24 newsroom. What happened is a fact. Our job is to present facts to the viewers. It may not have been polite, but it is true. The person in question was of legal age and performed the action freely. The reason we don't use rape victims names is that they are VICTIMS, not perpetrators.
By the way, I find it unethical that six weeks into a school year, a teacher wouldn't have a lesson plan ready for the next day - especially in an ethics class. Have you talked about every ethical dilemma in six weeks?
If the decesion to broadcast this suicide were "unethical", it would make any coverage of any death unethical.
What is different from sticking the microphone in the face of a family member after one of their loved ones was murdered?
Nothing.
People say, "What about the family?" In fact, they are the only true victims of this. Not because of the media though. They are the victims of the person that decided to take their own life.
This doctor was a public figure, and public figures are held to standards, even in their private life.
This is not an issue of ethics. Just because this decision was controversial, does not mean it was unethical.
If this story is unethical, every news story that has an element of tragedy would be unethical. If all news were just feature stories with happy endings, nobody would watch... Does this make most viewers unethical?
Some words that will never be associated with WSEE: "Responsible Broadcaster" and "Apology."
I fully expect WSEE to simply ignore this controversy until it goes away. I have no faith at all in station management. My prediction: They will just sweep it under the rug!
After reading the obituary on goerie.com for the deceased, it amplifies my sadness that the news of this personal tragedy was broadcast on local television. Especially for the sake of his wife, five children, parents and loved ones. Consider this: the doctor was not an elected official, didn't do newsworthy experimental surgeries, really didn't cause himself to be a media celebrity. He was just delivering babies, and helping women with their health issues. Somewhere his life became troubled, but the consequences of his choice do not rise to the added insult to injury to his grieving family and colleagues by broadcasting the story.
I think this decision and the backlash the news dept. is getting points to a macro conclusion: what you do with your local newscasts (and pages) is very important. It's high stakes. The reason why there is so much emotion on this blog is because the people who participate in this industry care about what is shown and printed, and these days there's alot to be disappointed in. So when your producers haven't paid their dues and make rookie mistakes, or when the automation blows up and there is no tape for the whole cast, or when you keep repeating national packages and leave significant local stories untouched during your local casts, or when your Sunday paper now resembles a weekday paper 15 years ago, expect to get the phone calls and questions. Try to handle them thoughtfully and professionally.
My prayers go out to the doctor's hurting family and friends.
I see now that Scott Bremner has taken it upon himself to be spokesman for WSEE. I guess if the station were to make any public statement it would be through him.
I think what WSEE did was despicable! What about empathy, sympathy for the family of this person? I guess they really don't care anymore?
From now on I am going to get my news from someplace else. I really detest tabloid journalism. I cannot believe thinking people made this decision? Sounds like the newsroom at WSEE is quite the zoo.
Don't hold your breath for an on-air apology. At least there are still some responsible stations left in Erie.
Thank you WJET and WICU for doing the right thing.
Shame on you WSEE! Shame on You!
The broadcasting of the doctor's ID is exactly what is wrong with TV news. Don't give me the argument that he is a public figure.
So is the damn milkman for that matter.
WSEE lost the public trust. Stick a fork in 'em...they're done!
Moving on...what chaps my butt the most is that there are two threads on this post that actually defend the idea of sticking a mic in the face of a murder victim's family. THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH WSEE AND TV NEWS IN GENERAL.
It is one thing to ask someone (without the camera rolling) to talk on camera about the tragedy. It is entirely different to blind side someone and use their unprepared remarks for your cold open.
I think average viewers should know that if a camera ever comes their way, all you have to say is "I don't wish to be on camera and if you broadcast any of this, I will be forced to take legal action." If the station is still stupid enough to air the video, they'd better have a revenue surplus to cover court costs.
While it is true that murdered victim's familes are interviewed by media, they can decline an interview. This doctor's children didn't sign up for this kind of attention.
And to defend the High School teacher, I would guess a topic like Ethics would be better taught to students in present time, not planned six weeks in advance. Life is rarely that predictable.
And I agree, It's a disturbing trend, the public's appetite for such tabloid news reporting, it does bring in the viewers. But at what cost? The station is happy because people are watching, the viewers are happy because they are up on the latest gossip, but it's like second-hand smoke, it causes cancer!
Not to defend the actions of WSEE, but this is Erie. Why is the divorce of a local car dealer front page news? Why do we have bowling league results in the sports section? Why is a fender bender the lead story on 5, 6, and 11 o'clock news? Why? Because everyday is a slow news day in Erie.
Erie news has made a commitment to mediocrity and the coverage of softball stories has become the norm. If you're not going to do hard hitting in depth pieces, you are going to go with whatever falls in your lap.
So when something like this happens, I'm sure every reporter is falling all over themselves to get it on the air. In Erie, the only celebrities are those who somehow make over $30k a year and maybe are lucky enough to ride in a convertible in the 4th of July parade. When something bad happens to them, people want to rejoice in their missery to make their lives seem better. News coverage in Erie is at the mercy of the people who watch it. While they erred in this case, they weren't all that far off.
Hell, it beats covering a kitty stuck in a drain pipe.
Just my $.02.
Ethics in Journalism—Always an interesting topic.
I remember my first interaction with media behaving unethically. Back in 1997, TWA Flight 800 exploded and crashed off the coast of Long Island, NY killing 21 people from my small hometown (Montoursville) who were going on a French Club trip. Our small town in the middle of nowhere was flooded with reporters from all over the country. People we all knew were on the cover of Times, crying, seeking comfort from their fellow students and loved ones.
We huddled around the TVs, waiting to hear new updates about who was actually on the one plane and if any one was alive. We didn’t really appreciate the obtrusiveness of aggressive journalists trying to get a scoop, but we understood why they were there. This was news. It was a tragedy. However, I wonder if the journalists who SNUCK into funerals that were closed to the media thought back to their college journalism ethics classes? I wonder if they even thought after the fact their behavior was inappropriate? I wonder if when they stole closed letters from family members off graves if they considered the families of those grieving for their loved ones.
Who am I to say what those journalists said or did? I don’t know their thought process. I don’t know if they debated whether they should air certain material or not. I have not had to be in the situation to actually make tough decisions regarding whether to air something as suicide but I don’t think its right to speculate on the discussion in the newsroom. News is news. Even though we may not want have things reported, sometimes they are worthy of being reported. I’m not going to argue whether it was the best decision to air or not to air cause of death. The situation was tragic to say the least.
I think many of us had a love/hate relationship with the media during the TWA fiasco. We were glued to the TV but mad as hell. It’s obvious that this Erie situation made many people upset as well. I don’t think it’s the job of any news station to be someone’s friend though, but to report news.
Wake up Erie, the death of a prominent doctor is news. The news might not report on an unknown person's apparent suicide but when it is someone of prominence, of course it will be covered.
WSEE was fair in reporting the news. What was their other option - to ignore the situation altogether?
I would bet if you asked people on the street if they had ever heard of this doctor beforehand, most would say no. He may have been prominent in the medical community, but I venture to guess that he was not a household name.
Either way, I still think WSEE was out of line with this report.
Only one station in just one of its newscast delt with this issue. Apparently, the other media decided otherwise.
I welcome Scott's comments as honest and meaningful even if I don't agree with the final decision.
WSEE could have covered the story tactfully by simply stating that a prominent Erie doctor died unexpectedly today, Enough said. The moment that they mentioned suicidce is the moment that they stepped in the realm of tabloid journalism.
Bremner mentioned "cartoon characterizations of TV news".
WSEE has become that very "cartoon characterization", and I'm still having trouble drawing Scott's goofy hat!
I would like to take issue with a couple of comments that have been posted here. The comment below is #1....
"I think average viewers should know that if a camera ever comes their way, all you have to say is "I don't wish to be on camera and if you broadcast any of this, I will be forced to take legal action." If the station is still stupid enough to air the video, they'd better have a revenue surplus to cover court costs."
* You obviously know little about the law. You should refrain from giving such advice until you get admitted to the bar because YOUR ADVICE IS TOTALLY WRONG.
The simple truth is that if you are in a public place (virtually anywhere outside you own property) you can be videotaped for use on the air no matter whether you like it or not. In fact, even if you are on your own property, IF I CAN SEE YOU from public property or private property that I have permission to be on, you are fair game.
#2....
"I am also offended by the implication that WSEE and/or Scott Bremner is a classy person....his words, not mine. I don't think a person with class would stick his/her nose where it does not belong. The Media is NOT GOD!!! They do not have the right to report or say whatever they please."
Scott Bremner IS a classy guy and this comes from someone working for the competition. YES there are discussions nearly every single day in newsrooms that deal with ethics and stories. Right or wrong, I'm sure they had their reasons and I'm very sure that there were discussions about the air/no air decision. As for the comment about being God and not having the right to say or report whatever we please...YES WE DO as long as its the truth. That's what the Constitution is all about. I would suggest you go get a copy and read it, you obviously took a sick day in social studies the day they discussed the First Amendment.
The minute that the press no longer has that right, we are all in much more trouble than we think.
I think that's a valid point "The minute the press no longer has that right, we are all in much more trouble than we think." I agree. Mostly.
But then I think if I were the one making the decision, I would ask myself, if the information was a benefit to the public. If it was necessary to report the cause of death when they ran the story. There's a reason that when you read obituaries it states "Died unexpectedly". Usually the family writes or directs the obituary and for reasons that aren't hard to understand, they leave that detail out.
Now since the outrage has worn off a bit for me, I'm more curious as to what was the deciding factor in the newsroom that day to air it. When you list pros and cons, what weighted their scale?
Regarding the post that says if you are in a public place, you're fair game for Video. Why is it that when Letterman or someone else takes video on the street, other faces are frequently blurred out? I thought that you had to sign some sort of release or at least give consent to be videotaped and have it aired.
And I truly cannot believe that you're fair game on your own property. Can someone who is an EXPERT in broadcast law clarify this?
I have a videotape of yesterday's WSEE Noon News. When Channel 35 announced the doctor's suicide they also ran videotape of the Doctor. Guess who was in the tape interviewing the Doctor? That's right, none other than the defender of WSEE...SCOTT BREMNER!
I guess the one anonymous poster is correct, TV can do anything they want! Wait! TV always says that. Since when did Television become the defender of the Constitution?
It raises an interesting question, Scott was in the interview with the deceased Doctor. Scott wrote a post defending WSEE. Is Scott Bremner running the WSEE newsroom?
More disturbing is why we have yet to hear from WSEE Management on this issue. I guess it is a bunker mentality at WSEE. Oh well, just ignore a problem and it will eventually go away.
(By the way, you are not fair game on your own property. You still have the protection of the law...regardless of what some uninformed drunkard might say!)
Where's Scott today? I would have thought this would be right up his alley?
Perhaps Mr. Bremner is busy hanging up on all the people calling to complain?
In all seriousness, Scott wasn't Anchor yesterday at Noon. That honor goes to Raechel Vendetti. Wonder if MS. Vendetti would like to explain herself? That's not fair, it was probably a producer who had the robot..er, anchor read the story on air.
WSEE STANDS FOR "QUALITY!"
Video for entertainment purposes and video used in news is two totally different things. Do you think that there would be ANY video of criminals, rapists, con-men or corrupt political figures if all they had to do was to say "I dont want to be on tv"???? There have been a few recent legal cases concerning the use or procurement of video taken of people, actions or locations on private property, taken FROM public areas. In most of these cases, the legallity is still a mixed bag. It will take a case going up to the Supreme Court before there are absolute rules. In nearly every case of a store robbery, bad food from a fast food place or some such story, the management will demand that the press leave the property. McDonalds is especially nasty about this rule. I have even been acosted by managers when just getting lunch. Well....we can just move a few feet out onto the sidewalk and get the same video shot bacause its on public property and it makes interesting video to see the manager pacing up and down the parking lots fuming because he can't control our presence on public property.
The current term in use is "reasonable expectation of privacy". If you are in your bathroom, you have a reasonable expectation of not having a video camera shooting your morning shower. However, if you are laying out nude in your back yard where the whole world can see you (including passing planes), then you are fair game!
Local tv news COULD be so much worse than it is, there are rules in place. It would not take much before you started to see sheet covered bodies on the 6:00 newscast again, or blood soaked interiors of car crashes. All it would take is a change of a news diretor to one that was especially hard care and competitive and you would have "19 action news" right here in Erie. If you have never seen 19 action news from Cleveland, take my word for it. Erie news is pretty tame compared to it!
I am not sure everyone on this board knows what the term "tabloid" means. It has been misused several times in this forum and now it is time for a clarification.
Here is the definition from dictionary.com
tab‧loid /ˈtæblɔɪd/ Pronunciation Pronunciation[tab-loid] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a newspaper whose pages, usually five columns wide, are about one-half the size of a standard-sized newspaper page.
2. a newspaper this size concentrating on sensational and lurid news, usually heavily illustrated.
3. a short form or version; condensation; synopsis; summary.
–adjective
4. compressed or condensed in or as if in a tabloid: a tabloid article; a tabloid account of the adventure.
5. luridly or vulgarly sensational.
[Origin: 1905–10; tabl(et) + -oid]
—Related forms
tab‧loid‧ism, noun
tab·loid (tbloid) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "tabloid" [P]
n.
A newspaper of small format giving the news in condensed form, usually with illustrated, often sensational material.
adj.
1. In summary form; condensed.
2. Lurid or sensational.
[From tabloid journalism, from Tabloid, trademark for a drug or chemical in condensed form.]
tabloidism n.
tabloid
n 1: sensationalist journalism [syn: yellow journalism, tab] 2: newspaper with half-size pages [syn: rag, sheet]
Reading a fact does not make a tabloid. Including all information does not make a tabloid. It is the sensationalism that does. The station did not embelish, or lead you to believe anything other than the facts.
While you may disagree with the decision to run the word "suicide" in the story, no tabloidism took place.
You are fair game as long as you can be seen from a public place without the help of certain instraments (telephoto lense, binoculars). If you are walking downtown, any tvstation can air what you are doing because you are doing it in a public forum.
Your front yard can be seen by others, so that is considered fair game. Do you honestly think that people being arrested would take the time to sign a release to let the video of their arrest air? That is why criminals usually try to hide their faces when the are doing a "perp walk". Have many times have you seen photographers handing out release forms? If it is a news story, probably never. If it is a commercial, then you are signing a statement that says the station owns those particular images of you and can be used in any capapcity that the station sees fit.
There are the rules and an example for ya.
I guess if a Doctor is a public person then a TV News Reporter is certainly a public figure. What do you think would happen if a certain local on-air personality... (Edited) If you use the WSEE "rule" this would be reported in the "A BLOCK" of the evening news. However, what if the story were to be "quashed" by management out of "respect" (edited) What if said station did not want anymore negative publicity? The above fictionalization(???)is intended to show the dangerous double standard that exists in our local media. People who live in glass houses should not cast stones!
I do PR at a local non-profit and I am very pleased overall with the Erie Media. I think WSEE had the right to broadcast it, and they made that decision, just like the others did not. If you don't care for "that kind of news" don't watch it. They didn't break the law, although I think this is a great debate. The previous post hit it right on about Erie being a slow news town. I would rather live here and raise my family and have this be the story we talk about then when I lived in California (bay area) and the news was 1st 10 minutes: murders, 2nd 10 minutes: other violent crimes, last 10 minutes: sports and weather. I have 99% good things to say about how well the local media does, and Jack you are right on about the importance of good local news. Thanks for a great blog.-- Dan
Dan,
I do not care for that kind of news and I do not watch it. Don't believe the lies that WSEE is the area's "Most Watched News!" What a bunch of crap.
No comment from Scott today? He must be busy looking up the definition of "class?"
According to others "Class" is spelled W-S-E-E!
Jack,
I can't wait to see your next topic. This last one was a real doozie!
Since WSEE didn't repeat it on their 6 or 11 PM newscast, my guess the phone calls and critisism gave them second thoughts.
I have to agree that the deceased name is not a prominent name or a celebrity status in the community to warrent coverage.
If he or she had done it in a public place in full view or where others might have been threatened, then it becomes a story of significantes.
This story wasn't the lead in any of those newscasts, it was towards the middle or end of the first block - not sensationalized. There weren't any promos hyping it all afternoon - it was a VO. They probably didn't run it any longer, not due to the "huge" numbers of calls some on this board think they received, but rather that it was no longer newsworthy.
Jack,
Your guess is wrong. I believe the story ran the evening before.
As quoted in an earlier thread:
"what chaps my butt the most is that there are two threads on this post that actually defend the idea of sticking a mic in the face of a murder victim's family. THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH WSEE AND TV NEWS IN GENERAL."
Neither of those posts advocated that action. They were merely asking the difference between releasing the name of a suicide victim and a murder victim. Neither benefits society. I think people are jumping to conclusions. Most people posting on here probably did not even see the broadcast to make a decision. You are going on second hand information.... AND THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH SOCIETY IN GENERAL!!!!
Scott Bremner is lucky to still be working in television news as it is. (Edited) He may be a nice guy, but he's pretty lucky to still be on the air at all. If he was a woman, he'd have been shown the door years ago. There is a real double standard in local broadcasting. The women have to be young and pretty, while the men can be older, obese, and not that good-looking.
I am trying to be objective about Scott. However, when you look at the job he does, he really isn't that good of a reporter.
I agree with the previous poster about a double standard existing in local news. Look at the women of Erie TV:
Amanda Post - Changes Hairstyles Frequently.
Pat Van Zandt - Same as Amanda.
Karla Mullenax - Ditto (see above!)
Basically, the women have a very short amount of time to make an on air impression. Unless, of course, you are Lisa Adams. Lisa has been with Channel 12, it seems, since the beginning of time.
The men in Erie TV are allowed to just simply get OLD! For examples see: MacDowell, Kevin; Lafferty, Sean (although he is aging the best) and our friend Bremner, Scott!
It will be interesting to see if Scott responds. Personally, I think WSEE Management muzzled him.
Jack I am the one who made the comment in Post #39. I really think you should considering doing a blog entry in the future that explores the double standard in Erie broadcasting that women
on-air personalities face compared to men.
Even though I'm a guy, I think this double standard is very obvious. Just look at how many male on-air people in Erie are older, balding, obese, and not very handsome. On the other hand, some of these male "personalities" are also bad sounding with poor
on-air voices! Would a woman with the same characteristic even be put on the air in Erie? No way!
Yet, look at all the women! Almost all women who have had on-air jobs in the Erie market in recent years have to be very attractive, young, and usually slim. Many of them even have model-type looks.
Let's just examine a few of these men. If these guys were held to the same attractiveness standard that women face, none of these guys would even be on the air.
Scott Bremner-balding, over 40, overweight
Joey Stevens- Over 40, Overweight
Scott Wludyga- Totally bald (yes, I know he has left WJET.
Luke Simons-balding
Scott Cook-Over 40, probably the worst on-air voice of all-time.
Rob Wilson-Obvious speech impediment
Ray Petelin-Bald
Kevin McDowell-Over 40
Lou Baxter-Over 40, Balding, Overweight.
Yes, there are the examples of people like Lisa Adams and Carol Wilson, but they are the rare exceptions in Erie media. It seems every other woman who is on-air has to be young, attractive, and have a good speaking voice. There really is a double standard in local television broadcoasting in regards to gender.
These last few posts have nothing to do with the topic but it is an interesting twist again.
I can't fault you for showing the different standards for men and women. I think some women would make the observation that woman are held to a higher standard for on-air then men.
However, we see the same thing at the news networks. Like it or not, the public decides what they want on their home TV.
Besides...what's wrong with bald and overweight?
Truthfully, how many would welcome seeing bald women on their TV?
Perhaps this will be a subject for another CHAT DOWN!.
If you want to talk "unattractiveness" for TV, us long timers remember Bob Sutherland in the early days of WJET-TV. But a better journalist you would not find.
Then look more recently at Bob Schieffer (sic) on the CBS Nightly News. They actually showed a ratings increase during his temporary tenure. Enter Katie Couric...and CBS is back in the cellar.
Jack Tirak said:
"I can't fault you for showing the different standards for men and women. I think some women would make the observation that woman are held to a higher standard for on-air then men. However, we see the same thing at the news networks. Like it or not, the public decides what they want on their home TV."
I don't know, Jack. A big part of the problem is the mistaken assumption that women aren't "visual" creatures the same way men are. So stations (and networks) must assume that women viewers don't mind watching unattractive, balding, overweight male personalities.
And I'm not saying that any of the people I've named are bad people or anything. Not at all, and I'm not slamming them for their looks. But they are certainly evidence of this double standard. I look forward to a chat down if you decide to do a blog posting on this! : ) Great Blog!
I think it would be a great and an unusual topic for a Chat Down. We will do it.
"Held to the standards of attractiveness". If all you want is a pretty face on the air, you have problems. Jack has made this a forum about quality in media. Pretty faces do not always equal quality. Just because someone is overweight, or does not have hair does not make them a bad broadcaster. On the same note, being fit and having hair will not make you good. It is easy to find something wrong with every appearance of every onair personaility in Erie. It is hard to find a good broadcaster.
I don't think people understand that reporters rarely ever "stick" a camera in someone's face and make them talk(at least in our newsroom). Those tactics are only reserved for "uncovering" stories. We talk to people and get to know them... and we do ask if they want to be on camera. Especially familes of murder victims etc.
I always like it when some pompous, self important reporter interviews the family of a murder victim. Nothing says "class" more than being intrusive at the worst possible moment in someone's life!!! Aside to previous comment: I cannot for the life of me understand why Carol Wilson is still on the air. (edited)
Oh for the days when appearance was not an issue!
Remember Hyle Richmond? Ned McGrath? Dave Forsythe? Jim DeSantis? Suds?
It's a shame people are more worried about appearance than quality of news!
(By the way, I actually like Carol Wilson's reports. She would have done very well in the early days of Television!)
Who cares what the women of Erie TV news look like? Why not worry more about content?
In case you haven't noticed, Erie TV news is god awful!
Hire people (and PAY them) and make sure they stay in Erie. Merely hiring (renting) reporters who don't give-a-damn and then have them leave after 18 months is counterproductive.
Let's all say it together: "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!"
Rent-A-Reporter? That's a new one for me.
Kinda funny, thinking back to Erie local TV news of the 60's and 70's and fast forward to now. Would it be safe to estimate 50 or more reporters/weather people have left this market in the last 10 years?
eriedjguy,
YES! You are correct in saying 50 or more reporters/weather have left in the last 10 years.
Here's a little blast from the past:
ICU NEWS 11th Hour Edition
* Ned McGrath (Anchor)
* Vance McBryde (Weather)
* Bill Knupp (Sports)
Now THAT was a news team! And they kicked some major ass in the ratings!
Unfortunately, they wouldn't survive a ratings period in this day and age in this town.
(Footnote: Bill used to have trouble pronouncing Mike Schmidt's name. He would say "shit" instead of "Schmidt!" HAHAHAHA!!!!!)
Didn't they have rose colored blazers with the WICU logo on the lapel too?
Yes, they did have rose colored blazers with the WICU logo on the lapel.
Vance had his blazer custom made to fit - what a class act!
Post a Comment