Do All Murders Warrant Coverage?

I'm living and working in Baltimore this month and have been introduced to a near epic level of crime, I believe. Not just crime though--death. I knew the murder rate was extremely high in some cities including Baltimore, Detroit, Oakland.. and some others. But it doesn't really sink in until it's truly surrounding you each and every day, at work and at home.

By Thursday of my first week, I had already lost count of the death count. Just 4 days and I had already lost track because there were so many deaths. Mind you, some over these past 2 weeks have not been murders (1 police stand-off led to police shooting and killing the man plus a train hit and killed 2 teenagers), but most have. And the worst one of all has yet to become a murder... a 5-year-old girl shot in the head after a punk 17-year-old fresh out of jail was firing bullets at a rival gang member on a sidewalk one afternoon. The girl is still fighting for her life on life support in a drug-induced coma. Word from the hospital though is that she won't make it; she took the bullet to the worst part of her brain apparently. If she does, they expect her to be essentially brain dead. She is five years old. As for the 17-year-old, he's been arrested 13 times since he was 10, and he had just removed his parole ankle bracelet before firing those shots.

But many times police simply find bodies. No one ever reported shots fired. No one ever reported a killing. No suspects, no motive. In the hood. I've been told the murder count is about 200 annually for Baltimore City. However, that person says it's actually much higher because as with other cities with such high crime/murder rates... they lie. When the Baltimore City Police Department finds a body and toxicology reports come back showing the body had drugs and/or alcohol, in it then even if it has gunshot wounds or stab wounds, the police department classifies it simply as a homicide and not a murder. That accounts for about 200 or more deaths a year. Hence, Baltimore City's murder count per year can be more like 400-500. It's a war zone out there.

With that many bodies turning up, is each one a news story? Or is it like robberies, burglaries, and drug deals which many of us view not to be particularly newsworthy? Part of me feels bad for saying a person being murdered is not even worth an 11 second VO in the newscast (that's how long some of the one's I or the other show producer have written are). Yet, there's so many, is each one a story? What's unique and therefore newsworthy about it? Part of me also wonders if we don't cover it--and in an unintended way glorify it--will there be less of them?

Any ideas?

A Different Level for Censcorship

I've been working at WBFF (FOX45) in Baltimore for a week now and after 4 days I've lost count of the death toll for the week--this while a little 5-year-old girl continues to cling on, on life support after being shot in the head. When you stop and think about it (for me that's what it takes) it's absolutely disgusting. Should I by a stroke of a miracle get a job here and move here, I would not stay to raise a family in the future. No way in hell.

So, after that little girl was shot the other day I noticed something in the hour afterward. We were receiving video of the scene fed back from the live truck prior to the newscast and there was a shot of a young guy being put into the back of a Baltimore Police van. The Assistant News Director told the editor he could use any of the video, just not that shot. Why? Well, that's simple of course, it would lead viewers to believe that guy was guilty of shooting that little girl when in reality he may not have at all. He was being taken in for questioning at that time and nothing more. Simple journalistic ethics.

But, in a city like Baltimore (or Detroit or a couple other cities) things are different. A decision like that I've realized after just one week==whether the Assistant ND realized it or not--goes much further than just ethics. It may save someone's life.

This is gang stuff. That's how the girl got shot because she unfortunately got between 2 moving gangs in a neighborhood and took a stray bullet. Say this isn't the guy who fired that gun and is released before police make an arrest. Around here the gangs may take care of business themselves and go after that guy when he's back on the streets. All because we would have used one piece of video of him that gave the worst person the wrong impression.

So, get your facts (including video) straight. It may go well beyond just "moral ethics." In some cities, it may save lives.

Local TV News vs. Network

Local television news is not necessarily dieing, but it sure feels as though it's coming damn close. It's not dieing, but it is shrinking considerably and it's not going to stop any time soon. I'd say expect this to continue for another 12 months.

I love local TV. Don't get me wrong. However, the lack of stability in this industry right now is semi terrifying. And I don't get scared too easily. I'm cautious yes, and try to make thought out, informed decisions especially regarding anything that is going to last a good while in my life from an iPhone vs. Blackberry to a career direction. Reasonable I'd say. Welp, local TV just ain't doin' it for me. Let's be realistic here, it's crumbling. The jobs are disappearing and they are NOT coming back. Why would they? Why would yo expand and do more with more when you can do more with less? You wouldn't. Job roles are merging and equipment is becoming advanced enough to go automation on the technical side of things. So what am I looking for exactly?

Don't get me wrong, if a local TV station comes calling... or answers a call or email of mine... I will listen and take an offer if it is good, reasonable, and does indeed come. At the same time, I feel like network may be a better option right now. I want to get into network television and network news anyways and with local TV seemingly crumbling harder than network, seems like a bit of a better route. I'll even start at the bottom, what the heck, let's give this a shot.

More to come another day on this potentially.

Severe Weather Takeover

I got my first solid taste of severe weather coverage (as in tornado WARNINGs during the newscast) last Friday. I've dealt with breaking news before--and certainly severe weather before--but I actually had not played a leading role in the newsroom for tornado warnings at the time of a newscast in the past.

I was watching the competition a few minutes after five o'clock (5:04 to be exact) when they cut back to the weather center. The National weather Service had just issued tornado warnings for 2 of the counties in our viewing area. I immediately headed for the control room where my producing student was boothing our newscast, assuming she knew nothing of these up to the minute new warnings. I knew what I wanted right away. I wanted to cut to our meteorologist ASAP to begin nonstop coverage of these two warnings. We would ditch the remaining 25 minutes of the newscast and continue with nonstop severe weather coverage until the tornado warnings expired. This is per our station's policy and I whole heartily agree with it. There is no better way we can serve the public at a time of potentially deadly severe weather in the area than through nonstop coverage and information on these warnings and what people can expect and should do.

Now, knowing what I wanted and making it reality became two different things. In retrospect (which only took a matter of about 10-15 minutes afterwards) I could see clearly how I could have better gone about making this happen and happen smoothly. First of all, as it turned out, our meteorologist and her weather producer were not even aware of the warnings until 5:07. I knew 3 minutes earlier. I should have been on the phone to them first to make sure they were aware of the warnings as well, inform them of what I wanted, and determine how soon we could make that happen. Second, I should have informed my producer student (who became mildly freaked when I told her there were tornado warnings and we needed to go to all weather ASAP) of the warnings and the information I just got from the weather department. Third, we should have told the director and anchors. Fourth, keep my frustration commentary to myself. Business first.

As it happened, simply put, THAT did NOT happen. I wasn't useless, but I could have done a much better job. Frankly, I was not myself. The way I reacted Friday at that moment was not how I have handled breaking news and split second producing decisions in the past. We began nonstop severe weather coverage at roughly 5:15, two commercial breaks and one regular, yet extended weather forecast later. We wrapped it up when the warnings expired at 5:45. I, however, was far from the control booth at that point... where I belonged on that day, or at that time that day in any case.

I was not perfectly calm. Therefore I did not think a plan through clearly (which I always do). And when the weather team wasn't ready to go wall to wall with these warnings quickly, I was verbally frustrated. After regaining my composure later outside of the booth and thinking things over, I apologized to the participants for messing up. I did learn a lot though. My producing student did a great job working with our director to further our severe weather coverage and help out our inexperienced meteorologist (who was doing severe weather coverage on-air for the first time ever as well... and talking intelligently for 30 minutes straight isn't exactly realistic we all know). In any case, the first obvious helpful thing they did was cut back to the anchors on-set to talk about what to do in case of a tornado, for non other than to give Michelle a one minute breather. They also put up a full screen graphic with those tips. The other thing they did was get one of our other, more experienced meteorologists on the phone for a live report as he was driving through a thunderstorm to get to the television station to help out. That gave Michelle a solid five minutes to take a breath, regain her composure, and look over some maps and information before going back on air and doing so live on the fly again. My only complaint on the phoner with Eric was to cut away from the phoner full screen graphic and show a picture of the doppler radar again. As a viewer at home, I know more than anything I want to see that radar and what the storm is doing.

Later that night after things were all calm again, I talked things over with Michelle and the weather producer to figure out what happened on their end and how to make sure things go smooth next time. I had never given consideration that, Michelle needed to review the data they were receiving from NWS before she could start talking about it on-air. Also, as I said, she had never reported tornado warnings on-air before and it was all new to her weather producer. Frankly, our personnel in the weather department was highly inexperienced for the circumstances at hand; they learned on the fly. Surprisingly enough, our director also had never done severe weather coverage before and was unaware of our station's policy to go wall to wall until the tornado warnings expire. Since then, Michelle built a severe weather show template for the next time we have tornado warnings (which will probably happen within the next few weeks) to help herself and the others back in the weather department. Doing the same on the news side would be a great idea. At least now I've thought it all the way through, see what did happen, see what should have happened, and know what I want to do next time.

All and all though, our team did a stellar job in the end and I'm proud of them. In terms of competition, we rocked it. While one of the competing stations relayed the warnings before we did, they went away from the coverage quickly and didn't spend a great amount of time on them at all. The other took a long time to get someone on air and once they did, also did not stick with it until the end of the warnings. I'm proud of our team at KOMU. Great job guys and another lesson learned.

Be yourself on Twitter

...yeah so this is kind of a continuation from the previous post just to break them up since it was so long. But I still have more thoughts to share.

Some people lock their Twitter accounts, privatizing their tweets. Some people only will tweet professional tweets and not share their personality at all or let us into their life at all. I don't think either is the best way to use Twitter.

This tool--especially for journalists-- is best used completely open to the public. Your tweets (news updates you journalists!) are not nearly reaching their full potential locked behind that cyber padlock of yours. Yes, people simply have to click to request to you to follow you, however, I argue that padlock is a turnoff and people are not as likely to click to request to follow you as to simply.. follow you. You are therefore limiting your audience significantly I believe and that is not the best use of Twitter. You might also argue the problem of lack of Twitter security and therefore the incessant number of spam accounts out there. This is true and it's a big issue they need to address, but for the time being it's very easy to just check your followers list now and then (which you probably do already) and just delete any followers who appear to be spam accounts ( you can usually tell if the name is just a series of numbers and letters and there's no picture). Problem solved.

Also, I think it's useful to share yourself with the Twitter world. A friend of mine who is a reporter is on Twitter but only uses it for work purposes. She says she does this because her station can monitor her tweets and she doesn't want to say anything too personal. Come on now. Agreed, you do not want to tweet private information or inappropriate thoughts or comments. This is going out to the whole world. That's just obvious. But, I believe sharing some personality and personal tweets is useful as a news person as it helps the community feel more in touch and connected with that big television star that probably isn't really human and makes too much money and is nothing like me. Or.... wait. Maybe she is? The more comfortable people are with you, the more they connect with you, the more they will most likely trust you. Twitter can definitely play a role in this.

U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill tweets professional and personal comments for one, including a rebuttal to criticism for doing just that. She explained in a blog post how tweeting keeps her connected to the people and provides a window into the life of the person they voted into office. Interesting thoughts on her part and the original New York Times columnist's criticism: http://clairecmc.tumblr.com/post/100898280/why-i-tweet.

Interesting stuff. And again, the more people using Twitter, the better it will be.

Start Tweeting NOW!

Since I joined Twitter a few weeks ago I've been an all out supporter and endorser of the social media site. I've read and thought a lot about it and really understand and appreciate its usefulness. Last week, it pulled up BIG for my reporter and me.

My reporter was reporting for the 10pm show on a very controversial bill down on the capitol. It was stuck in the Senate and the senators weren't expected to get to it until late that night, very possibly after 10:00. She talked to a number of legislators about the bill gathering information and video. Meanwhile, back at the station I was monitoring Twitter while producing my newscast. A reporter for another news source, Missourinet, was sitting in the Senate chambers tweeting frequent updates. Each time a bill was voted on, the reporter tweeted about it, named the bill and the bill they were moving on to. Shortly after my reporter informed me she was heading back to the station to write and cut her story (seeing as how they weren't expected to get to it for a good long while still) a tweet came up on my list that they were moving on to House Bill 22. 'We're up!' I thought and called her and told her to get back down there. Luckily she hadn't gone far and she was able to get back there quickly. More luckily, we knew they were debating this bill FIVE HOURS early because of Twitter. Yes, a potential FIVE hour swing.

It gets way better. Later that evening back at the station we're looking over the script and simultaneously and continuously checking Twitter for updates--the bill was being filibustered. Wait, not anymore. Update script. Hang on.. bill passed! Now onto the House again. Update script. Woah.. still wait. The House quickly just passed it and it's onto the Governor for a signature. All of this happened over a very short period of time. As quickly as we could finish updating the script, it needed to be updated again. The bill was moving fats and the ONLY way we would have known this play-by-play, minute-by-minute movement was through Twitter. Call other sources to confirm the bill's status and clear up any loose ends and we're good to go. Yes, we could have found out all of these things through calling sources as well, but will they or even can they answer at that moment? What about as quickly as this was moving? Had we gotten this information later, everything would have been more rushed at the end. This was no doubt far easier and more convenient. We might not have had the true LATEST on that bill had it not been for Twitter.

Just the same, Twitter clarified the details of a vehicle incident on the interstate that afternoon causing lane closures. We heard about an incident and the general location but were fuzzy on the details. A quick check of Twitter pointed us to the exact mile marker and told us exactly what was going on. Again, thanks Twitter.

I'm a big fan. Twitter has extreme potential. It already is serving a great purpose as a great tool like in the situations I just named. But, the more people join, the better Twitter will be. I was sold on it after reading an article about a Denver TV station getting news tips from it "frequently" the news director said. Which makes sense. Because you can follow anyone and anyone can follow you. Ordinary people in the community are more likely to tweet a potential story/situation to a TV station than they are to call or even email them because it's just so much easier. Also, because you can follow anyone and see their updates, if you scroll through the tweets on your "wall"(? FB lingo?) you may find an intriguing observation some random person just made somewhere that catches your eye as news. You very well may have never caught that if not for Twitter and tweets.

It truly is the fastest way to get and spread information. For that reason I have become a huge recruiter for Twitter. I keep encouraging more friends and co-workers to get on and try it. I just got a friend of mine who is a meteorologist on it last night. Seeing as how if you follow a person, they generally follow you in return... if she starts following a lot of people in the community and they follow her in return, they will get her weather update tweets. If they get her weather news, they may very well rely on KOMU 8 for weather news more often if they do not already. And of course the more eyeballs on channel 8 or komu.com means more advertising dollars. It works the same way for news with my updates. I also suggested she follow weather agencies such as the National Weather Service. I was quite disappointed to find they do not have a twitter account .. yet. Has no one explained to them the usefulness? They could tweet weather updates faster than any other way they can get the information out. If they did that, meteorologists and other news folks can get that information and relay it on faster than, again, we would be able to any other way.

Great tool. I can't say enough good things about it. So, NWS.. what gives? Get with 2009 and start tweeting!

Blame Swine Scare on Government

I continue to argue... the media is far from the only one to blame for the swine flu scare. I firmly argue, the government is playing a big, big role in this. Take this story of a Missouri representative's comment yesterday at the state capitol:

HOUSE MEMBER ROB SCHAAF SAYS KIDS SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM THE CAPITOL FOR FIELD TRIPS.
HE SAID IF ONE SICK CHILD CAME TO THE CAPITOL, THE SWINE FLU COULD SPREAD ACROSS THE STATE.
SCHAAF WORE A MASK OVER HIS MOUTH AND NOSE TODAY TO DRAW ATTENTION TO SWINE FLU.

In case you missed that last line, the representative WORE A MASK while he made this bizarre statement. Additionally, when a local health department advises that 10+ schools close down for RISK of kids getting the virus.. again, absurd and that is NOT the media creating the drama. We may have spread it, but at the same time... when 10+ schools have been advised to shut down in one area that is NEWS.

So, how much do we decide to filter? Where is the line drawn? I will not defend newsmen and women like Wolf Blitzer asking if people should not hug/kiss hello/goodbye. That, also, is dumb. And there are many others of course, but I firmly argue the government is as big of a culprit as anyone in this drama. Thoughts?