[comp.society] NBC Coverage Decisions

davem%ersys@nro.cs.athabascau.ca (Dave McCrady) (01/30/91)

Dave Taylor writes:

> Whether the NBC national news covers the peace demonstrations is, most 
> unfortunately, a function of their belief in whether they can get "the 
> best ratings" of the news shows competing for the viewer dollar.  The 
> National Broadcasting Company ultimately cares little as a commercial 
> organization about the morals and ethics of the current situation; 
> they're more concerned with people flipping to CNN instead of NBC for 
> the news, taking away their advertising revenue.  

Mr. Taylor says he is a journalist.  Then he must know that coverage 
decisions are based on an editor's (or producer's) perception of what 
is of interest to the viewer.

As a TV assignment and lineup of editor with many years experience, I 
can tell you that each and every day, we are forced to not cover
certain events ... or, having covered them, drop the item ... because 
when it comes to getting the program together, it simple isn't possible
to squeeze 35 minutes worth of material into a 25 minute hole .. it
just can't be done.

There is more to the packaging of news for television than just
covering everything that happens.  The coverage has to be there, of
course.  But the program also needs the things that make television
work:  pacing, a mix and hard news and feature stuff, analysis.

We are >not< newspapers of the air.  We cannot cover everything.

We do what we can with the time alotted to us with a view to attracting 
the interest of as many viewers as possible.  Those decisions are made 
by people and people, as we all know, sometimes make errors in judgement.  
We're not perfect.  But who is, particularly when you are in the 
business, literally, of reading viewers' minds?

I'm prepared to stand accused of making a mistake in judgement when it 
comes to coverage decisions.  After all, I'm human.  But don't accuse me 
of being biased when I decide not to send a crew to your staged event 
because I feel there would be more interest in some other story.  I don't 
care if somebody managed to get a quarter million people out to a rally 
in S.F.  Does anyone who wasn't there really care?  That's a drop in the 
NBC audience bucket.  I can well understand their decision to pass on it, 
given the REAL news that's happening in this world of ours right now.

Dave McCrady

thom@dewey.soe.Berkeley.EDU (Thom Gillespie) (01/31/91)

Dave McCrady writes:

> ... don't accuse me of being biased when I decide not to send a crew to 
> your staged event because I feel there would be more interest in some 
> other story... I can well understand [NBC's] decision to pass on [your
> peace rally] given the REAL news that's happening in this world of 
> ours right now.

I'm agreeing with Dave until he makes this silly statement.  The day of
the SF 'staged event' which was not covered on National air, had an
interview with an in-flight gas-jockey flying around Iraq air space
refueling jets for more bombing runs.  This was pure propaganda and was
far more staged than anything in SF since the US govt 'allowed' you to
film what they wanted.

This was and is not 'REAL news' no matter how you stretch it.  This war
started with CNN running all this 'unedited Army footage' and it
continues with US sound bites constantly being delievered during prime
time.  I think a quarter of a million peace marchers are more news than
a 'gas jockey' any day of the week.

Thom Gillespie

mhorne@ka7axd.tv.tek.com (Michael Horne) (02/01/91)

Dave Taylor says:

> The National Broadcasting Company ultimately cares little as a commercial 
> organization about the morals and ethics of the current situation; 
> they're more concerned with people flipping to CNN instead of NBC for 
> the news, taking away their advertising revenue.  

And Dave McCrady says:

> We do what we can with the time alotted to us with a view to attracting 
> the interest of as many viewers as possible...
 
> I'm prepared to stand accused of making a mistake in judgement when it 
> comes to coverage decisions.  After all, I'm human.  But don't accuse me 
> of being biased when I decide not to send a crew to your staged event 
> because I feel there would be more interest in some other story....

In my opinion, Dave McCrady's rebuttal only reaffirms Dave Taylors
comments, though I suspect that that wasn't the intent.  The statements
"...attracting the interest of as many viewers as possible," and
"...decide not to send a crew to your staged event because I feel there
would be more interest in some other story" imply that the TV News media
are only interested in feeding news to the majority interest.  If, for
example, an overwhelming percentage of the viewer populace supports the
war, what are the chances that TV news will cover, say, a peace rally
over a support rally?  People in general like to have their opinions
reaffirmed.  Reporting on topics that reaffirm one's opinion tends to
earn loyal viewers, thereby preserving advertising dollars.

This, in my opinion, is the heart of the problem.  I can understand the
constraints of too much news to report in a short news window; However,
I do believe that there is an inherent bias towards news that matches
the majority opinion (which may or may not be morally or ethically
`correct').  I personally feel that the news media should report a cross
section of opinion, though in commercial television I can't see this
happening any time soon.  PBS's McNeil/Leiher (sp?)  News Hour comes
close, IMO, to the ideal TV news report.  They seem to cover a fairly
broad cross section of opinions on the latest news (such as the war),
and certainly their interviews and commentarys shed more light on a
topic than is possible in a 2 to 5 minute report.

In an ideal world, the demand for status quo news reporting could be
reduced by educating the masses on topics such as tolerance and
intelligent opinion making (i.e.  investigate something before forming
an opinion).  In the US, however, "My Country, Right or Wrong" and "If
You Don't Believe what I Believe, Then You're a Jerk" seems to be firmly
entrenched.

Mike

mikey%amnesia.uucp@theory.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Uncle Mikey) (02/05/91)

Thom Gillespie says:

> This was and is not 'REAL news' no matter how you stretch it.  This war
> started with CNN running all this 'unedited Army footage' and it
> continues with US sound bites constantly being delievered during prime
> time.  I think a quarter of a million peace marchers are more news than
> a 'gas jockey' any day of the week.

Then I'm afraid you don't have a very clear picture of what television
defines as "news".  As has already been stated, the television concept
of "news" is *not* necessarily what is "important" on some (nonexistant)
absolute scale.  "News" is what the viewers want to see.  And quite
frankly, right now in America, more viewers want to see their
boys-on-the-line as they're doing their job than .25meg peace marchers.
Most of America, in case you ain't noticed, still thinks that this war
is a good idea--either because they honestly believe Bush's rhetoric or
because they feel (as I do) that now that we're IN it we'd best win it.
All a peace march is going to do is make several million viewers find
another station (say, CNN) to which to turn.

And finally, utilizing a more generalized definition of news as "what's
important", neither your march nor the story they 'cast instead are
qualify as real news.  You are correct--the film of the gas-jockey was
undoubtedly encouraged by the Army PR folks.  However, the march was an
equally staged pseudo-event, whether you're in favor of it or not.
Thus, utilizing this definition, *neither* story should get coverage.

MSS

eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (02/05/91)

I don't think you can say (sweeping generalization) that monetary
concerns drive those decisions.  Growing up with journalists both in
print and broadcast media, everybody has limitations (cartoonists as
well as writers, directors, etc.).  All have tried to keep some degree
of professional idealism.  I also know this from correspondence with
various people in the field.  You only need write them (hardcopy:  Don
Hewitt, Paul Conrad, etc.):  they all read their mail, and if you aren't
too hostile, if you remain rational, they will write back.  The better
journalists would quit (I know one who did) if they thought news was
being compromised.  I have had extended correspondence with some of
these people, and in Conrad's case an offer for lunch should I ever
visit the LA Times.  I am certain as you get older you will run into
more and more media people.  Ask them.

If you want to get a feel for some of this, the husband of an old boss
wrote some fiction novels:  "Freeze Frame" and "The Face Out Front"
which make light of some of these decisions (Robert R.  Irvine) (also
lite humor as well).  He used to work for KNXT and KABC News in Los
Angeles.  Old episodes of various TV programs gave hints (but limited by
story lines) of some of these problems.  Bob cites "Lou Grant" as a
reasonable example.

We are getting a bit away from computers, but I doubt networks can do
much better.  They have some advantages where speed is concern, but they
can be less accurate.  The broadcast media do have their advantages in
events like earthquakes, radio more so than TV up to a point.  But I
doubt people would worry quite so much about a soap than say historical
events.  This is getting away from computers.

e. nobuo miya

gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) (02/07/91)

Dave McCrady writes:

> Mr. Taylor says he is a journalist.  Then he must know that coverage 
> decisions are based on an editor's (or producer's) perception of what 
> is of interest to the viewer.

The primary purpose of a news organization today seems to be to generate
the most money for itself.  (Profit rates, in fact, have increased
substantially over the last 10 or 20 years.  They are off over the
last year or so because of the recession).  The most money is generated
by getting advertisers to pay the most while not hurting itself.  Thus,
if a news organization were owned by a large toxic polluter, it might
have incentives not to publish articles about that pollution.  Even in
takeover fights, it is not uncommon for competitors to report the news
better.

Anyway, the primary responsibility of a news organization, seeking to
maximize profits, is to its advertisers.  The viewers only come in
to the extent that lack of viewers could mean lower advertising revenues.
An advertiser, however, can also put pressure on a news organization not
to cover a certain story.  In this case, if the advertiser is big enough,
the story can be killed.  Remember that TV gets its revenues from
advertisers, not directly from viewersm and that even in the case of the
print media, a substantial portion of revenue comes from advertisers and
not subscribers.

I have purposely avoided mentioning cases, but there are many examples.
One can get further information by reading the magazine FAIR.

> But the program also needs the things that make television
> work:  pacing, a mix and hard news and feature stuff, analysis.

Well, I could do without the pacing, mix, and feature stuff as well as
the inane conversations among the anchor people, the trivia questions,
the advertisements masquerading as news, etc.

> I don't care if somebody managed to get a quarter million people out 
> to a rally in S.F.  Does anyone who wasn't there really care?  That's 
> a drop in the NBC audience bucket.  I can well understand their decision 
> to pass on it, given the REAL news that's happening in this world of 
> ours right now.

Presumably one is not showing the news of a rally because only the people
who were there could be interested.  If that were the case, the Super Bowl
would not be reported because only the people in the stands would care
about it.  The war would not be reported because no one here is actively
fighting.  Now you may be saying that in the whole country only 250,000
people are interested in a rally, but I disagree with that statement as
well.

The REAL news is that the U.S. is fighting a war and that the public is
not being given the truth about this war.  The REAL news covers all topics
of the massacre, not just the propaganda approved by the military.  The
REAL news is not a Nintendo game night after night.  (The Nintendo game
is great propaganda in part because the TV camera self-destructs and
the viewer is not permitted to see the damage to the buildings and the
people inside and the censors can decide which Nintendo to show.  They
would never show the errant missile attacking humans, for example.)

The REAL news is how many people have been killed or maimed.  Gen.
Schwarzkopf says that body counts are unimportant, but they are
terribly important to the people killed and maimed and there families.
(But pictures of fatalities may lessen our resolve to fight to the finish
so they aren't shown).  The REAL news is the damage we have done to Iraqi
cities.

The REAL news is that S.H. bought most of technology from the West.
The REAL news is the U.S. supported S.H. when he was using chemical
weapons against Iran.  If chemical weapons are so bad (I don't doubt
that they are), then why did we support him when he was using them?

The REAL news is that we are fighting a war over oil, and Bush's budget
contains little to reduce our consumption of oil.  The REAL news is
that we have billions to spend on high-tech weapons, but we can't find
enough money to reduce infant mortality.

In spite of this REAL news, the Nova last week shows a repeat of a
program on camouflage but with a few updates to praise our stealth
fighter.  Who makes that?  Would you believe one of the major sponsors
of the program?  Isn't it great that ``Viewers like you'' can support
this advertisment?  What happened to the REAL news?

David Gast