Bland on Bland

The other day I was reading an article in one of the newspapers that was basically an interview with the U.S. actor with the highest TVQ on television. TVQ is another name for star quality. An actor the viewers respond to positively. In this case they respond more positively than any other actor regularly seen on television. It was a big surprise to me, and unless you read the same piece, it will be a big surprise to you too. It’s Pauley Perrette. She plays the tall goth scientific investigator on NCIS. With her crazy clothes, spider web tattoos and huge platform shoes it is hard to believe that the character she plays, let alone the actor could be so popular in a country as right wing and closed minded as the United States.

Ms. Perrette’s popularity, and the popularity of the other stars of the show, especially Mark Harmon and Michael Weatherly, goes a long way to explaining why a show that has seldom had good reviews and is generally ignored by the entertainment media is on most weeks the most watched drama on American television.

A long time ago, a very smart television producer taught me that most viewers watch television in one of two places…either their living room or their bedroom. He went on to explain that nobody invites anyone into their home that they are not very comfortable with. He further pointed out, if you like someone you will have them back to your house more and more often. The lesson is obvious. If you want to produce a successful television show, the stars should be the type of people that the viewers want to spend time with.

A few years ago at the Cannes TV Market, MIP, I sat in on a discussion of how reality TV is produced. Some of the top reality producers explained how they draw in the big audiences. They explained that they send every day’s rushes back to focus groups to test the TVQ of all the contestants. What they found, and the way the show works, is that everyone on the show who is well liked gets to stay. They adapted the TVQ theory a little too because everyone the audience hates also gets to play longer. Their formula gets rid of the players who are bland, who do not create any response at all. How they get rid of the players they don’t want is grist for another story. Suffice it to say that they manipulate the cast to try to end up with a man versus a woman as the final pair, and if all goes right, one contestant the viewers will cheer for and another the audience will cheer against. Perhaps this explains the popularity of House.

So what does all of this have to do with television news in Canada?

It seems to me that the people who produce news and current affairs in this country have yet to learn the lessons that drama, reality and comedy programmers have known for years.

It’s not that News producers don’t know. Ask anyone who works at any of the major newscasts and they will tell you who their stars are. In most cases they will explain that their stars are great journalists, but if you let the conversation flow you will find they will begin to talk about the great performers. The people with personality that shine through the TV screen and brighten up a room. At CBC Adrienne Arsenault stands out today. She is immediately recognizable. Sure, she does a great job, but she also has high TVQ. In the past Mike Duffy was a star even greater than his ability as a journalist or his girth. At CTV I see more and more of Omar Sachedina. Yes he’s a talented reporter, but he is also a performer who is welcome in the homes of Canadian news viewers. Craig Oliver was one of the great reporting stars that CTV had. Everyone knew Craig in the same way they knew Mike Duffy. CTV has also had Harvey Kirck and Lloyd Robertson. You couldn’t walk on any street in Canada and not see immediately how people responded positively to them.

Look closely at CBC and CTV news however, and you will not be blown away by the personalities you see night after night. For the most part you would be hard pressed to recognize them on the street if a camera was not pointed at them. I sometimes wonder how some of the very bland people became on air television reporters. Was it by default? They were, like Mount Everest, there. What’s the process that allows such nondescript people to get these few and important jobs telling the stories of Canada to Canadians?

One incident speaks of the failure of Canadian news broadcasters more than any other to me. When Pamela Wallin was whizzed from CBC News one of the greatest opportunities to create audience for The National opened up. The person with the highest TVQ at CBC news at the time was Wendy Mesley. If ever there was a true news star at CBC it was Wendy. Add to that, she is a terrific journalist and a good interviewer. She was a natural to replace Pamela. Oh, and as if all that is not enough, she had just divorced Peter Mansbridge. The pairing would have earned audiences off the charts for news in Canada in my estimation. People would tune in just to see how the former couple got along on air. The great journalism would have been a bonus. But it was not to be. I have asked CBC people why it never happened and have heard all kinds of answers, none of which have made any sense. I do know, however, if it was NBC, ABC, or CBS Peter and Wendy would have certainly been co-hosting and perhaps, the ratings they created together might have saved The National from the changes that led to the predicament that CBC News faces today.

Filed under: Media Commentary, ABC, Adrienne Arsenault, CBC News, CBS, Craig Oliver, CTV News, Harvey Kirck, Lloyd Robertson, Mike Duffy, NBC, NCIS, Omar Sachedina, Pamela Wallin, Pauley Perrette, Peter Mansbridge, The National, Wendy Mesley

Disaster! What Disaster?

For the first time I can remember, I have read more comment about the lack of coverage of an event than I have had the opportunity to read and see coverage of the event itself. While not completely ignoring the devastating floods and human disaster in Pakistan, the western press has certainly treated the massive loss of life and the humanitarian crisis with little more than a figurative yawn. Where are the teams of CNN journalists? Where’s the CBC and CTV? Where is ABC, NBC and CBS? I hear Al Jazeera English is all over the story though.

As almost all the commentators have done, it is reasonable to compare the coverage of the Haiti earthquake and the events of the past two weeks in Pakistan. In Haiti it took but a few hours before news teams were on their way. They took every imaginable route to the disaster defying the difficulties of an airport that was out of commission and a port that was in ruins. Most came in overland from the Dominican Republic but many chartered their own boats and even helicopters to land in Haiti.
Beyond the news media, rock stars organized fund raisers, everyone, it seemed, had a plan to come to the aid of the Haitian people. The world mobilized and the money poured in.

Now let’s look at Pakistan. Yes, a flood is not as dramatic as an earthquake. Sure the numbers of immediate deaths are small in comparison to Haiti, 300,000 to 14,000. But in Pakistan there are more than triple the number of homeless and if help is not forthcoming disease and starvation may drive the numbers of dead up to Haitian levels or worse.

I’ve heard of no concerts for Pakistan. Anderson Cooper hasn’t moved to Pakistan for a few months to cover the events and rail against the lack of aid. After a few days the news from Pakistan made few front pages of daily newspapers.

The commentators are asking why the lack of interest by the media and in turn, the public. They all give their reasons. Most prominent among the reasons I’ve read has been the idea that there is a disaster fatigue. In other words, we are tired of disasters. Haiti took it out of us. It’s hard to get up for a new human crisis just a few months after we mobilized for Haiti.

Another reason I have read a lot about is that it is summer. TV viewership is down, many correspondents are on vacation, staffs are stretched and frankly why waste the big bucks it would take to do a proper job on the relatively small vacation time audiences.

While I believe there is some truth in both of the above excuses, I do not believe either one comes close to the two real reasons the world press are avoiding Pakistan.

The first “real” reason is that in these days of austerity and budget cutting no network has the money to go all out on Haiti and Pakistan. Haiti is already done and so is the budget. Maybe if the flooding had taken place after Labor Day, the traditional start of the new TV season for newscasters, the news bosses might have been more willing to part with a few bucks and few more resources to cover the flood and its aftermath. Let’s face it, at this time of year you can hardly get Peter Mansbridge and Lloyd Robertson to host their own newscasts, let alone fly off to Islamabad and beyond.

In my opinion the networks and newspapers are breaking one of the golden rules of news coverage. When I got my first executive producing job at CTV, my brilliant boss, Don Cameron, gave me this advice: never spend money you don’t have to spend and NEVER let money get in the way of covering an important news story. I wish Don were alive today because I know if he was, CTV at least, would be all over the Pakistan flood.

Now to the second “real” and least discussed reason for the lack of coverage of Pakistan. Nobody wants to come out and say it because it sounds more than a little racist or anti-Muslim, but come on folks, don’t you think that news people in the west look at Pakistan and see a whole lot of people, many even in the army and the government, who are all too willing to help Bin Laden and the Taliban to kill our boys and girls in Afghanistan. Don’t you think news people see many of the people of Pakistan as fundamentalist Muslims who want to destroy Christianity and kill Jews. Don’t we see Pakistani’s as a source of terrorism in the west and worse a possible source of nuclear terrorism. I haven’t even mentioned the treatment of women or the attacks in Mumbai. Add to all these things the very real fear that if they go, journalists I mean, to western Pakistan there is always the possibility of being kidnapped and beheaded. All of this has to add up to a very natural reluctance to cover any events in Pakistan, let alone the floods.

Logically I can sit here at my very safe desk in Toronto and say yes, all of that may be true, but the millions of poor Pakistani’s who are suffering are human beings, they are victims of a terrible disaster and they are being further victimized by prejudice and the possible fact their religious and political leaders may have committed what we in the west consider crimes against us. It’s not fair, but unless we confront the truths behind our actions we will not be able to do it better next time.

I believe it is really important in the aftermath of the Pakistani floods to take a good look at how the western media reacted to the floods, the homelessness, the starvation and the disease. We must ask ourselves why we gave these event short shrift and we must examine the kind of response that we feel was needed. In the end, journalists may say it was too expensive or too dangerous. They may even say it wasn’t worth the money to report on people that westerners show little compassion for. I would argue the other side. But let’s have the argument so that we know how to react next time instead of letting the story pass by default.

I highly recommend that you all go to the J-Source website, http://www.j-source.ca and read a most thoughtful piece by Claude Adams. Claude is an excellent journalist who has covered these sorts of events all over the world. He speaks from experience and he makes more sense than any other commentary I have read on the subject.

Filed under: Media Commentary, Political Commentary, ABC, Al Jazeera, Anderson Cooper, CBC, CBS, Claude Adams, CNN, CTV, NBC

Badly Served in Canada

My wife is constantly amazed that I read every page of the newspapers that are delivered to my door every morning…seven days a week. Of course I watch a lot of news on television too. That makes me a bona fide news junkie. According to the statistics I read in one of the newspapers, it can be difficult to differentiate when you are plowing through so much news, I am not an uncommon Canadian. It seems we are a country of news junkies in comparison to our American neighbors. The market for quality news coverage is still very strong here. So why are Canadian news outlets from print, TV and radio following the U.S. down the road to coverage of non-events, non-stories and celebrity garbage…I mean gossip?

Each day it feels like it takes me less and less time to read the papers. The Sunday Toronto Star is an empty shell that can be perused cover to cover in about ten minutes. I barely know who Lindsay Lohan is and what makes her famous yet I am bombarded with her brush with the law and her impending jail term. I’m sure Lohan’s incarceration will have little effect on the world economy other than to sell a few more newspapers.

When I was at CBC my bosses conducted a poll of news viewers; which station they watched, why they chose to watch a specific newscast, their age, education background and yearly earnings. The results were obvious. The CBC’s viewers were older, richer and better educated than CTV, Global and CITY viewers. CITY-TV viewers were the youngest, poorest and least educated. But put that way, it is highly misleading. The difference in average age from CBC to CITY-TV was about 5 years, 44 for CITY and just under 49 for CBC. CBC had the most university grads but most CBC viewers barely finished high school.

I remember thinking at the time that CITY’s rock and roll news was a great thing for CBC. Younger folks got hooked on the news watching Gord Martineau and his gang. They developed the news viewing habit in simple bite sized, picture stories. The way I saw it, when they matured and wanted more, they would graduate to CBC News. CITY was news with training wheels. CBC was the 18 speed racing bike.

The world of television and TV news is far more complicated today. It is as much about style as substance. There are far more choices. The internet and all-news channels provide way more options. A friend told me that watching network news in Canada today is like watching yesterday’s newscast. He has seen all the stories during the day on the net and has no time for the déjà vu provided by the TV newscasts.

Given all of the above I have to ask what CBC, CTV and Global are doing. Instead of creating a new kind of in depth version of a newscast with fewer stories and more context, they are still competing with CBC NN, CTV News Network and the internet. They are still trying to cover all the stories without getting down to what is important and giving those stories more time and effort. In Canada this is doubly stupid because the networks own the services they are competing with.

When Newsworld was first created I believed it would be the best thing that happened to national newscasts. It would free them from having to be everywhere covering stories large and small from across the country and around the world. I expected the news bosses to choose six or seven important stories and give them in depth coverage. Why not? The small stories about the snow storm in Calgary and the 20 car pile-up outside Chatham were now taken care of. There would be more time to look at the cost of the G-20 and whether we really need a census any more. (By the way, we still have not seen a single investigative report on how our government spent $1.2 billion on a summit that cost everyone else a tenth of that sum or less.) Alas, this has not happened. Today’s newscasts in Canada look very similar, in coverage, to what they looked like before Newsworld and CTV News Network. If anything, CBC especially, has taken many steps backward. They have done away, for the most part, with their excellent long form journalism and replaced it on most nights with fillers and fluff that should not have a place on a serious national newscast.

Why did I expect change? Because CBS, NBC, and ABC changed when CNN came along. They realized the futility of challenging CNN for speed. They understood that they couldn’t cover in half-an-hour what CNN had 24 hours to report on. Before CNN a typical network newscast in the U.S. packed 12 to 14 stories into their 30 minutes minus ads every night. Since the advent of CNN, the average American network newscast averages 6 to 8 stories and on many nights an investigative feature on an important subject is one of those stories.

In Canada we may be a nation of news junkies but we are not being well served by our national institutions. The CBC, Global and CTV are mired in formats that were out of date in the 90’s. The Globe and Mail seems to be providing less and less serious news coverage and little investigation into important stories, in some cases preferring to be touts for their own (CTV Globe Media) Olympic coverage or even stooping to stories on which dance team was eliminated from a CTV reality(?) show. CBC Radio is the lone exception but rumors abound that Richard Stursberg is coming to make radio news as inane as he has made TV news.

With new hosts coming to CTV and Global and a renewal process at CBC TV that is an abject failure, perhaps the time has come to take a long look at what network news is doing and look to the future rather than the past to bring about the kind of change that a news hungry population craves.

Filed under: Media Commentary, ABC, CBC, CBC NN, CBS, City-TV, CNN, CTV, CTV News Network, Global, Gord Martineau, NBC, Newsworld, The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star

An American Fiasco…it can’t happen here.

The fiasco that’s playing itself out in the United States with Jay Leno, Conan O’Brien and NBC could not happen here in Canada. There was a time when it could but the amassing of television properties by just a few large conglomerates has put an end to anyone being able to force CTV, Global and even CBC to do anything they don’t want to do.

What occurred in the U.S. was a revolt by the NBC affiliated stations against the low ratings Leno was getting at 10 o’clock. This resulted in lower ratings for the local eleven o’clock local news and of course a corresponding loss of advertising revenue for NBC’s local affiliated stations.

The affiliates said enough is enough. We don’t care if NBC is saving money by not running an expensive drama at ten. Your gain is our loss.

In the U.S. the affiliates wield all the power. The networks need them to air national programs so that they can sell national advertising. That’s where they make their money. If the affiliate in Cincinnati or St. Louis doesn’t broadcast the NBC show it means a lower national audience. A smaller audience means less money for advertising for the network. It is this system that makes local television strong. This system is why local news is important in America and why the average local newscast in a small city like Buffalo spends more money on news than the huge CTV station in Toronto. The entire U.S. network system is based on a grid of local stations that cover the entire country, local stations that are only there to serve local markets.

For all the bull coming from CTV and Global about saving local TV the fact is the Canadian networks co-opted the local owners and bought them out years ago. CTV and Global own almost all the stations that broadcast their signal. If CTV or Global is saving money on a show that is not delivering audience it is their call as to whether the money savings are worth the audience loss. There are no affiliates left to complain. There is no local left. In Canada it is always about the network. In Canada it is always about the bottom line of CTV and Global.

What’s most interesting about the Leno problem at NBC is that the show was working well-enough for the network. Sure they were getting about one-half to one-third of the audience that ABC, CBS and Fox were getting in the ten o’clock time slot, but they were only paying 20 percent of what the other networks were doling out for shows like CSI Miami and The Good Wife. Do the math. They were actually making more money on the cheap Leno show with five million viewers than they would have made with a cop show or hospital drama with 10 to 15 million viewers. NBC in fact did not want to move or cancel Leno it was working for them.

In the U.S. it was the power of local TV, real local TV, that made the difference.

When I started in television at CTV in the seventies the entire network was controlled by the affiliates. The Peters family in B.C. created the highest rated newscast in Canada. B.C. TV was a powerhouse. In Toronto and Saskatoon the Bassets ran the local CTV stations and built the strongest local newscasts in Toronto and Northern Saskatchewan by far. In Ottawa and Halifax the Waters family built massively successful local newscasts that it seemed everyone watched. All these stations did one thing really well: they were local. They covered their communities better than anyone and they made money doing it. They also held the real power at CTV. The network had to make them happy or they would be called on the carpet to explain.

Even at CBC the affiliates had a lot of power. Years ago, in the mid-eighties, a study was done by CBC to find the best time slot for The National. CBC news was getting beaten badly going head-to-head against CTV National News. It was embarrassing to the bosses at CBC so they plotted to move the show. The study, it cost thousands of dollars by the way, came back saying 7 p.m. was the best time slot for The National. It would follow local news and would come on after NBC, CBS and ABC News. No problem right? Wrong. At the time the CBC had 14 affiliates in places like Sudbury, Victoria and Barrie and 7 p.m. is where they made their money. This was a local timeslot. Here the affiliates ran game shows and in some rare instances they ran local current affairs (Does anyone remember local current affairs?). It was local TV making local choices. The money they made in that hour helped pay for local news. The result: The National moved to 10 o’clock which was considered network time. I guess the relative success of that move and the creation of The Journal silenced the local critics for a few years. In the end though, most of CBC’s affiliates left them for CTV or Global as CBC News numbers started to retreat.

So, when you hear about CTV and Global trying to save local TV think about Conan and Jay. Think about the power local TV has in the U.S. Think about the fact that local TV does not really exist anymore in Canada. If Leno was a Canadian show there would be no talk of moving the program. Sure local news numbers would be down but the networks would be making more money and isn’t that all that matters to CTV and Global?

Filed under: Media Commentary, The National, ABC, CTV, NBC, Jay Leno, Global, Conan O'Brien, CBS. Fox

No News is Bad News

At the end of the year it’s traditional to look back at what occurred during the past twelve months and pick out the highs and lows. Most years there are a few examples of each. 2009, however, has proved to be one of the most dismal years for news and current affairs in Canada ever. I can’t think of a worse period in my lifetime.

Everybody has already noted the disaster that is the new National at CBC: thin gruel masquerading as news, the worst reporting staff in CBC Television history, the inability to fill sixty minutes with relevant stories, and this doesn’t even refer to the ludicrous and totally unmotivated standing around to read the news and do interviews. The good news is that the audience numbers are way down. Perhaps this will induce the CBC bosses to see the error of their ways. I’m not holding my breath.

The CBC’s last great journalism show has also been diminished. The Fifth Estate has been moved to the dead zone of Friday night where it is almost impossible to garner decent ratings. The reason for the move: a better night to run Being Erica. Now I’m all for Canadian drama but why do the schedulers at CBC need to promote Canadian drama at the expense of their flagship current affairs program?

CBC fell further under the leadership and thrall of the evil emperor, Richard (Darth) Stursberg. He and his hand-picked minions of “yes” people seem to be doing the best they can to wreck CBC News and Current Affairs. Under his rule we have seen the degradation of national news, the moving of The Fifth and local news to dead zones, the virtual disappearance of the once popular program Market Place (it finally reappears after New Years), the now almost non-existent documentary, and I haven’t mentioned the terminally unwatchable CBCNN. There are those within the network, the cynics I guess, who believe Stursberg wants to see news and current affairs fail miserably so he can take the money and spend it on new drama, comedy and reality. If that’s the case the man has not looked at the history of television. News has been, and still is, one of the best ways to build an audience for your entire schedule. Hello, Dick, is the CBC still the CBC without Little Mosque on the Prairie and Being Erica? Is the CBC still the CBC without The National and The Fifth Estate?

CBC Radio has fared a little better but those in charge there believe it is purely a case of benign neglect and they fear that neglect is coming to an end. One producer of a flagship current affairs program on radio told me that Stursberg and company are beginning to look at radio. Scary. Ratings are good, but they can better if the shows are “dumbed –down” like over in CBC-TV land, at least that’s the idea the radio producers are getting from their bosses.

Over at CTV and Global the news is not much better. The bulwarks of “Capitalist Broadcasting” are coming to the government cap-in-hand begging for money in the form of cable and satellite fees. Their hook: they want to save local TV. Local TV, isn’t that the part of their empire they have abused and chopped going way back before they had a small financial dilemma? To prove how much they care about local TV they have been closing local stations even before they find out whether the CRTC will grant them their millions in unearned cash and they have steadfastly refused to guarantee that the dollars they squeeze out of cable and satellite subscribers will go to local TV. Save our shareholders! I guess that doesn’t sound so good in a television ad.

In the meantime CTV still runs W5 but buries it by running it against hockey on Saturday evening and if and when they invest in a documentary, it always airs in the W5 timeslot.

Over at Global, they bury their current affairs in their schedule too. Hands up anyone who has seen or heard about a Global documentary. I saw one on the rise of religion in Canada but that was only because a friend produced it and was kind enough to let me know when it was going to air.

CTV and Global news do a much better job of appealing to Canadians than CBC News does. For proof of this I only have to point out that both get over a million viewers regularly while CBC has trouble reaching half-a-million. Both are better produced and slicker than CBC’s effort but there is little room for celebration. Neither makes any attempt at depth or context. In a world where ABC, NBC and CBS have long understood that fewer stories told more completely is the best way to compete with all-news TV; CTV and Global are still doing newscasts the same way they were done pre-CNN and the internet. Here too CBC News’ failure may be a key. CTV and Global have always done a better job when they were pushed by excellent coverage at CBC. Now that the “Corpse” news has sunk below CTV and Global’s level there is no need for the privates to try harder.

In the U.S. we have witnessed the disintegration of the CNN audience with the odious Fox News being the main recipient of new viewers. Serious stories go unreported south of the border while the balloon boys, disappearing politicians and “birthers” dominate the airwaves. Sensationalism is winning and stories like Copenhagen are losing. Worse still the all news folks are challenging each other to see who can distort or get the facts more wrong. Any coverage of the health care debate by Fox or MSNBC is sure to make a Canadian’s eyes roll.

The good news? Well 60 Minutes somehow continues to tell excellent stories and surprise, surprise, gets a big audience too. The Fifth Estate still has the ability to do the best research and find the best stories. PBS’ new Newshour format is even better than it was before. CTV’s reporters, as a group, are as strong as any reporting team I can remember; perhaps that’s because they took their best and added some of CBC’s best to create a kind of dream team of news reporting. The Agenda with Steve Paikin gets better every year and deals with the kind of topics that only PBS and TVO tackle; oh, and surprise, surprise, they get pretty good numbers doing it in the middle of prime time against the toughest competition. CBC Radio has so far stayed the mostly fine course (we can only pray that lasts). And finally, Lou Dobbs is gone from CNN, this alone could be reason to celebrate the New Year.

Filed under: Media Commentary, 60 Minutes, ABC, Being Erica, CBCNN, CBS, CNN, CTV, Fox News, Global, Lou Dobbs, Market Place, MSNBC, NBC, PBS, Richard Stursberg, The Agenda, The Fifth Estate, The National, TVO, W5

The Need for Speed

A little while ago, it was a few days after the” balloon boy” incident caught the attention of CNN and erupted into the leading story on every major news station and newscast in America, a friend of mine from Boston opined that since the all-news networks came into existence Americans seem to be less well informed. Year after year since CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNBC have become major sources of news coverage the American people seem to know less and less. He asked the pertinent question: Is all-news television making America stupid?

From the Canadian side of the border it has always seemed that Americans are incredibly ignorant of the world around them. Perhaps that’s just the way super powers are. I’ve heard Czechs and Poles say the same sorts of thing about the Soviet Union and Russians.

More likely there is more than a little truth to this idea. What the all-news networks have created is a need for speed. Getting on the air first and running with a story is the be-all of CNN and Fox News. This has resulted in journalists not doing their primary jobs as journalists: verifying their sources and facts to be true and accurate. The excuse: who has the time anymore?

The biggest losers in all this rush to air are the viewers, listeners and readers of news. We are reaching a point where the consumer does not know who to trust. Heck the “balloon boy” was the lead on ABC, CBS and NBC. It wasn’t just that the story ran, it was that it ran without question. Looking at that strange silver flying object I know I wondered “where could a kid be in there?” I didn’t see a bulge. I didn’t see feet or arms trying to find a way out. It seemed highly implausible. Yet there were no serious questions on any newscast I viewed until after the incident ended and the boy was found in his own attic. Why? Why ruin a great story is only thing I can think of.

The “balloon boy” wasn’t the only story in recent weeks to draw questions about how U.S. news operations are doing their jobs. A much scarier incident for the public as well as all journalists took place on September 11th, the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. CNN ran with the story that there was an impending terrorist attack in Washington, DC.

Here’s how Jamie McIntyre in BS Detector, IMHO, Media Watch, saw the incident:

What fooled CNN into “breaking news” mode was realistic-sounding radio
transmissions from the Coast Guard as it conducted a routine drill to
practice procedures to be used in the event a private boat attempted
to breach the security zone it set up on the river.
There’s an irony here. CNN is one of the few networks that still
routinely monitors police radios to get a jump on news. It’s a bit
of a lost art. As an old radio reporter I listened to scanners all
the time. And they produced plenty of scoops for me over the years,
but as any good police reporter knows, you never, NEVER, report
information heard over a scanner without getting verification. Never.
It’s basic journalism 101. And it would seem that CNN, believing it
would get a jump on a potential major story, violated this inviolate
rule. (When I was at CNN I got plenty of tips from our desk that came
from overheard police or fire department transmissions, but that’s
what they were – “tips,” to be checked out. Not “initial reports” to
be put on the air only to be corrected later.)
Now CNN is certainly not the first major news organization that has
allowed its competitive instincts to overwhelm its better judgment.
Nor will it be the last. But how this story played out illustrates a
number of ways the “new media” environment has lowered standards that
are already hovering dangerously close to the ground.

There have been dozens of similar cases. Recently a media conference by a man claiming to be from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce resulted in Reuters, the New York Times and the Washington Post rushing to publish his astounding pro-environment statement. Fox Business News was actually on air reporting on his remarks when the real Chamber of Commerce folks arrived to put an end to the hoax. It turned out the faker was a man who routinely pulls anti-corporate pranks. None of the journalists there bothered to question his credentials.

Yes we have the tools to report almost instantaneously from anywhere on the globe at any time. But if we don’t use those tools properly, what’s the point? Why has speed become more important than accuracy? I suppose the answer is self evident, competition and ratings. When there’s an election to cover, or there’s an economic crisis, people will tune in to all-news television thus driving the ratings up. On a ho-hum day of normal news there is no reason to switch from ESPN or Oprah. So getting the big story and hyping it is a simple strategy to get viewers to tune in. If you are wrong, so what? So long as you drive the ratings up. Here’s more of what Jamie McIntyre had to say about the Coast Guard incident on September 11th:

Here are some factors present in today’s media universe that
contributed to, and culminated in, CNN’s inexcusable lapse:
Too Good to Check?
The first and biggest mistake CNN made was rushing to air without
waiting to get confirmation from the Coast Guard. This seems so
basic that it’s mindboggling how it could happen. But here’s why.
CNN absolutely believed it had a big story on its hands, and it had
heard it with its own ears. Everything fed that perception. The
Coast Guard was saying nothing. If it were only a drill, usually they
would know that right away. But if something were going on, only then
would authorities be reluctant to give a statement until they could
gather the facts. I’m sure if the people listening to the police
radio had heard any hint that indicated the event might be an
exercise, it would have prompted CNN to employ more caution. But
everyone in the newsroom listened as the radio crackled with the
chilling transmission, “We have expended 10 rounds.” Adrenaline
flowed. The President was nearby. It was Sept 11th. Twenty minutes
had passed and the Coast Guard seemed to be stonewalling, insisting it
still didn’t know what was going on. Finally CNN could contain itself
no longer. Convinced it was sitting on a major story, the folks in
charge rolled the dice and went with it, and figured they would get
confirmation later.
First with the Scoop, First with the Correction: Win/Win!
CNN knew it didn’t have the full story. But in the internet age, no
one waits for the full story anymore. Not even newspapers, which
publish quick writes on their web pages to stay competitive long
before a more thoughtful version is published in the paper. In fact
the 24/7 information marketplace seems to reward rushing to air or the
web with initial, incomplete, and often inaccurate reports. This is
not seen as irresponsibly spreading information before it’s confirmed,
nailed down, or fleshed out, rather it’s seen as getting on the record
with the news that something is happening. Then, as the story is
calibrated, corrected, downscaled, and sometimes dropped by the end of
the day, each revision is treated as a separate scoop. So instead of
scoring just one “first” with a single accurate, complete report, the
news organization racks up a series of “firsts” intended to keep the
viewers/readers coming back for more. First with the bad report,
first with the better report, and finally first with real report.
It’s a win/win/win!

Another insidious aspect of the “rush to be wrong” trend is the
speculation that fills the information vacuum until facts can be
unearthed. In this respect, all-news television can reinforce the
worst tendencies of its reporters. It is fed by the desire of
producers to keep the coverage going on a breaking story even when
they have run out of fresh information. They call their
correspondents and contributors with this question, “Can you play?”
Meaning can you come on the air and say something about what’s going
on. The standard here is, can you “say something,” not “do you have
something worthwhile to say?” This results in a lot of people
babbling on the air who should be out checking the facts, instead of
offering facile and fatuous observations. CNN did this by calling on
its experts and correspondents to weigh in even when they obviously
knew nothing about what was going on. As a friend of mine, a veteran
reporter, commented to me, “What I did not hear anyone say was,
‘according to my sources at the FBI, or according my sources at the
Pentagon…’ “.

As the ratings stand now, CNN has plummeted to 4th place among the all-news networks. They have, for the most part, taken the high road when it comes to opinion and politics. That worked for them during the primaries and election campaign, but now, without the big story, they can’t compete with the bombast and bull over at Fox. It seems, in America you can’t draw an audience with even handedness when there is no big story. The big lies about health care and President Obama’s roots lend themselves to the windbags at Fox. The result is that CNN has had to sensationalize to be noticed.

Are we seeing this in Canada? So far, only to the extent that we have so few resources outside the country that we are dependent on the news people at CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and Reuters, the very people who are committing the lapses. I am also worried about the new CBC National and CBC’s all-news television channel. They too need ratings. They are resorting to far too much to the talking reporter as opposed to the reporting reporter. What I mean is that they are asking reporters to go on air and tell us what they are hearing rather than what they know. It is a dangerous way of doing business. And in Canada it is not only done for ratings purposes, it is also done to fill time. How can you fill a newscast with relevant news if the report is not yet completed? Simple, have the reporter come on air and spout innuendo for a minute. The viewer gets the impression of news even when there is none.

Is there an answer to this sorry state of affairs in journalism? I suspect we are in the middle of a revolution in news gathering business. How the internet, TV, radio and print settle out in the next few years will determine where journalism will land. One can only hope that journalism goes back into in the hands of the journalism professionals, not the bloggers, sensationalists, accountants, ad salespeople, TV doctors and bureaucrats who are all playing too large a role today.

Filed under: Media Commentary, ABC, CBC News, CBS, CNBC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC, Reuters, The National, The New York Times, The Washington Post

The Late Show starts early

Those in the know: the critics, the intelligentsia, the elites have already started. After one show Jay Leno is getting panned unmercifully. His interview with Kanye West, just one day after West’s major faux pas at the VMA’s, is being cited as an example of Leno’s inability to connect with his guests. Leno is being demonized for asking Kanye what his dead mother would say about his rude antics the night before, a middle-America question if there ever was one. Leno’s monologue, they say, was just not funny.

Still, the same critics, as always, loved Jerry Seinfeld and admitted the musical number at the car wash was both funny and good.

Let’s take a step back here. While I am no fan, the truth is Leno knows his audience. They want big name stars (Seinfeld, Oprah, West, Jay-Z, Rihanna) and they got them. They want jokes they understand and don’t want to have to think about. They want to be entertained. The quality of the interviewing is not important. The fact that the audience could see Kanye West and hear him attempt to answer for what happened just one day earlier, as the commercial says, was priceless.

I know, I know, Leno is no Letterman. For NBC, that’s a good thing. The last thing any network is looking for is a cult hit. Cult hits are for cable. NBC needs the masses to jump on board. We’re talking prime time here, not late night. The only question is will audiences watch Leno when the blockbuster dramas begin next week? The answer, I think, is that it depends on whether Leno can continue to get the biggest names in show biz to appear on his program, especially when there is controversy involved. If so the audience will grow. If Leno gets big enough audiences, the stars will have to appear. Prime time and a big audience to sell yourself or your new movie is a mighty big draw. The bigger the audiences the more stars, the more stars the bigger the audiences.

I see the Leno show as the perpetual second choice at ten p.m. If you don’t like the ABC or CBS drama Leno becomes a real choice, something different, alternate programming, better than watching the Fox Seinfeld re-runs for the 52nd time. Leno’s numbers should be especially good when the networks begin their inevitable re-runs. CBC ratings shot up the year of the strike in the U.S. when the networks were forced to re-run show after show. Leno will be especially strong in December and during the summer when there is little new to watch on television. If he attracts the biggest stars he will also get viewers to PVR his show.

All-in-all it’s an interesting strategy for NBC. They looked at Leno who consistently beat Letterman at 11:30 and concluded he speaks to middle-America. His appeal is wide. Guests don’t hate or fear him. Many stars just don’t want to appear on Letterman to be abused. Leno’s interviews are soft, seldom does he ask the hard question or demean his guests. He’s a risk-free commodity, no home runs, but no strike outs either.

The real bottom line here is the bottom line. Leno’s show is incredibly cheap compared to any drama. It’s even cheap compared to some of the big reality shows. NBC can produce a week of Leno for less than it costs to make a single episode of Law and Order. So audiences will have to be really dismal to force the cancellation of this show. Think about 20/20 and Dateline, both shows are perennial ratings losers yet both programs have had long lives on network prime time. The reason: they are cheap. Even with poor ratings the programs make enough money to not just pay for themselves, but to actually make a healthy profit.

So let’s not argue about whether we like Leno or not, or whether he’s as good as Letterman. The fact is his non-obtrusive appeal and ability to attract big names to his show is exactly what NBC was looking for. Television audiences have never been known to accept the high concept or avant garde. CSI draws way more viewers than Mad Men. Sure it hurts to contemplate the mediocrity that network television so often aspires to. But in the end where does the fault lie? With the networks who need to make money to survive or the consumers who chose American Idol in huge numbers?

Cheap, or as my former partner used to say, “at a price,” is what most network TV is all about. We saw it first with reality television. Then came the big game shows. Now it’s the 21st century talent shows. If Leno succeeds will his success mark the beginning of a trend to prime time talk and variety? I think it will. The copycats always follow every success. In the end the real scary prospect is how reality, game shows, talent contests and now talk could squeeze drama and sit-coms off the networks. Just when CBC decides to get into drama in a big way, U.S. networks are running in the opposite direction. Costs of up to $3 million an episode will do that. The golden age of television is long gone. Welcome to the bronze age.

If you get the opportunity please go to http://www.newsy.com/video/death_of_the_american_actor/ for an interesting American view on what’s happening to network TV.

Filed under: Media Commentary, 20/20, ABC, Amrican Idol, CBC, CBS, CSI, Dateline, David Letterman, Jay Leno, Jerry Seinfeld, Kanye West, Mad Men, NBC, Oprah

Hewitt’s Law

I just returned from over a week in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. The weather was great. The scenery was beautiful. The company was amazing. The only negative was trying to watch TV. The current coverage of Obama’s healthcare reforms is enough to drive even the most hardened news junkie away from the television. American networks are dropping the ball big time. They are not delivering the facts. They are allowing falsehood after falsehood to make it to air with little or no comment. If I worked for news at CBS, NBC, ABC, or CNN I would be hanging my head in shame and telling the people I met that I was an accountant.

But that’s not what I want to talk about: the poor coverage of healthcare reform is just a jumping off point to talk about Don Hewitt. Hewitt was one of the creators of television news and current affairs. We all know him for 60 Minutes but he goes back a long way before that. He produced Walter Cronkite on CBS Evening News and Edward R. Murrow before that. He wrote the very vocabulary that television journalism uses and he did it from scratch. There was no TV news before Hewitt.

Lucky for all of us who have followed in his footsteps in broadcast journalism, he set the standards.

I wonder what he would say if he watched tonight’s evening newscasts in the U.S.? I think I know. He would wonder what happened to the story telling. Why are the reporters dealing with issues and not telling stories about people. What about the story of a working class family that can’t afford health insurance? Where’s the story about the middle class dad who’s afraid of losing his company-paid-for insurance? How about the couple on Medicare or Medicaid, government programs, telling us how well or how poorly these programs work for them? Those are just a few of the possibilities.

You see, the true genius of Don Hewitt was his understanding of three small things that every broadcast journalist should know without thinking. They should be automatic – like breathing. They were the backbone of all Don Hewitt accomplished and stood for and they are deceptively simple.

The first is to “tell me a story.” It was his mantra. When you wanted to get something on the air he demanded this simple act from you, the ability to tell an interesting story. What is more basic in broadcasting? Nothing. If you are not a story teller you should not be a journalist. In fact, if you are not a story teller you should not work in TV, radio or film. The ability to weave a tale that will grab the viewer’s attention and hold it is the singular most important craft that we have to perfect to do our jobs. When the powers that be are weeding out applicants for jobs that’s all they should look for. We can teach the rest. Cameras, edit suites, microphones…these are just the tools we use. We can learn how to use them in one year of community college. Story telling…that’s innate, something you are born with.
Don Hewitt’s second rule is even more abused by modern broadcast journalists than his first. He demanded that every story be entertaining. He realized immediately upon joining CBS TV in the late 1940’s that television is an entertainment medium. People don’t turn on their TV to watch the news, they turn it on to see House, CSI and Family Guy. Go ahead, ask your neighbors what their favorite TV show is. None will say it is the news, I guarantee it. Even though this is more important today in the 200 channel universe it appears to be less understood.

When I worked at CBC News they were upset with me for telling my staff to make their stories entertaining. I had to come up with a new description the bosses would accept. I called for “engaging” stories. Today’s newscasts are anything but entertaining. The CBC is the worst offender and the changes they are talking about threaten to squeeze the last bits of entertainment from their newscasts. They don’t seem to understand that their competition is not CTV News and CBS News, it is CSI Miami and Law and Order. Even the 6:30 U.S. newscasts are going up against reruns of NCIS and 2 ½ Men. To Don Hewitt this was obvious.

Finally, Hewitt understood that people do not relate to issues, they relate to people. He demanded that his reporters and producers put a human face on every story. It seems simple and obvious to me as it did to Don Hewitt but I still see story after story on the news that deals with the issues of the healthcare debate without telling me how they affect a single human being. Why should I care about the deficit? Why do we have to help the banks stay afloat? There are real people, Americans, who are affected by what government does. Who is telling their stories?

Don Hewitt’s three simple rules should be the first thing we teach journalism students. They should be automatically understood by everyone who works in TV and radio news. Sadly they are not. In fact we are losing our acceptance of these basic rules. Just watch the news and you will see.

Like all great artists Don Hewitt’s genius was his understanding of the simple truths, the basics, and he never strayed from that. Even though I never met the man I am sad that he is gone. We need his wisdom more than ever. I’m afraid we will miss him more than we will ever know.

Filed under: Uncategorized, 60 Minutes, ABC, CBC News, CBS, CNN, CSI, CTV News, Don Hewitt, Edward R. Murrow, healthcare, House, NBC, NCIS, Walter Cronkite

Newman on the Block

There has been a steady flow of rumors floating around the TV news business in Canada for over two years about the future of both Lloyd Roberstson at CTV News and Peter Mansbridge at CBC News. If the scuttlebutt is to be believed, both networks are looking for a replacement host for their flagship newscasts.

Loyal viewers are sure to be surprised by this news, mainly because, as the research shows, most people watch just one major television newscast and having made that choice, are either satisfied with what they are getting or they don’t know what the other channels have to offer.

Let’s begin with the situation at CTV. For years now, people in the know have been asking when Lloyd Roberstson is going to retire. He’s well into his seventies now. I wonder why he would want to. He works about three hours per day for about four days per week. Sprinkle in the generous vacation times, a massive six figure salary and you have the Johnny Carson of Canadian news. He’s still popular with the audience and his ratings have held up for decades. So why change a good thing? The only obvious reason is that Lloyd will have to retire sometime and CTV would prefer to set the timing so they can be prepared with a replacement.

Peter Mansbridge, on the other hand, has never really been loved by the audience the way Lloyd is. He is respected but he is not an audience grabber. More to the point, before he signed a two year contract extension a year ago, CBC insiders were saying that a rift between Peter and Vice President and chief poobah, Richard Stursberg, would mean the end of Peter’s tenure at CBC. Within the newsroom there’s a list of grievances against Peter. The most frequently heard complaint is that he demands a say in every decision, especially about news content and hiring. Both lead to problems. Peter has an unhealthy love of Ottawa politics. He is fascinated by the minutia that the viewing audience could care less about and that hurts ratings. As far as hiring is concerned, he is said to surround himself with people who agree with him, any argument and you could find yourself sent to the Siberia of CBC News, Newsworld, or worse. I am not sure whether this is true, but I can vouch for the fact that some extremely talented newsroom staff have been banished, pushed and prodded off The National. Many of those people would be assets to a newsroom short on experienced assets.

While all of this is fascinating the real reason for dumping the icons of national news in Canada could be even more interesting. The real prize, it seems, is Kevin Newman the star of Canwest/Global’s First National. With no obvious replacement from within for their stars at the major networks Kevin is, or at least should be, everyone’s first choice to replace either Peter or Lloyd.

Kevin has been highly successful, garnering, if you can believe Canwest/Global’s publicity, a larger audience than both Peter and Lloyd, and, he does this at a time slot that is hardly traditional for national news in Canada. In Toronto he’s on at 5:30. Add to this the fact that he is host of a mediocre newscast at best, with a poor reporting staff and few international bureaus and his success is all the more amazing. Since nobody I know attributes the success of the newscast to the program that Canwaest/Global produces, it must, they believe, be Kevin.

Kevin Newman is a highly thought of journalist with arguably more field experience than either of the other options, a fact the audience doesn’t care about but is very important to news insiders. He is also considered one of the really good people working in news in Canada. Those who know Kevin, both like and respect him.

But why leave Canwest/Global? The argument is that any serious news person wants to work on a high quality newscast with good budgets, foreign bureaus, high-caliber reporters, and at a network that has shown a serious interest in news as something other than a CRTC requirement and loss leader for purchased U.S. programming.

The speculation today is about where Kevin Newman would prefer to go. Insiders say he was treated quite poorly by CBC when he was the host of Midday. Shortly afterwards he went to Good Morning America and later Nightline at ABC in New York. But CBC still offers the biggest most prestigious newscast in Canada, the prize any Canadian newsreader is supposed to covet. Is it big enough to let bygones-be-bygones and return to the network where he began his climb to stardom?

CTV seems to be the perfect solution. It is bigger and more prestigious than Canwest/Global. There is certainly a commitment to news, maybe even greater in the long run than CBC based on recent CBC cuts and maneuvering. There is just the one roadblock: Lloyd.

I don’t know where Kevin Newman will wind up. Will he jump to CBC or CTV or will he stay to help build a serious newscast at Canwest/Global? What I do know is that his contract has about a year left on it and both major networks will want to take a crack at getting him on board, if for no other reason, to keep him off the other guys’ team.

Filed under: Media Commentary, ABC, Canwest/Global, CBC News, CTV News, Good Morning America, Kevin Newman, Lloyd Robertson, Nightline, Peter Mansbridge, Richard Stursberg, The National