Easy Story Idea: Airline Battery Ban

Well here's a story idea that virtually any market can use-- and package-- on a slow news day.
Airlines are going to ban certain types of loose batteries in luggage starting January 1st.

The US Department of Transportation's press office explains in a press release:

Passengers will no longer be able to pack loose lithium batteries in checked luggage beginning January 1, 2008 once new federal safety rules take effect. The new regulation, designed to reduce the risk of lithium battery fires, will continue to allow lithium batteries in checked baggage if they are installed in electronic devices, or in carry-on baggage if stored in plastic bags.

This is a story that a station looking for a hard-news angle can chase on a slow holiday weekend (like this one). There's always an airport within a news market and there are always travelers to get sound with. And if no airport officials are available to talk on-camera, you can always pull quotes from the press release and have them pre-pro'd.

If you're really hot on this story- consider linking over to a March 15, 2007 document explaining the concerns. It turns out there have been a handful of incidents that can be traced back to batteries:

Since 1991, PHMSA and FAA have received approximately 75 reports of transportation incidents involving various kinds of batteries and battery-powered devices. These reports, along with information about battery-related incidents outside of transportation and product recalls and warnings, have raised concerns about the potential for device- and battery-related fires aboard aircraft.

Meantime, if you do PR for a travel agency, an airport or an airline-- what are you doing to maximize exposure for your clients? If they can be made to speak on-camera for a news organization on a holiday weekend, you most likely will make the 6 & 11 pm news.

Surveillance Tape Feed

Surveillance video is hot stuff in TV newsrooms.
This is true for many reasons:
More often than not, it catches people in the act.
Whether it's a store clerk swinging a baseball bat to thwart an armed robber, or an armed robber dressed up like a clown, the reality-based surveillance video makes great TV.
It can also generate valuable leads to local law enforcement agencies who are hoping to solve the case and make an arrest.

So I have set up a surveillance video feed at the bottom of this blog. It's way out of sight down there because it's the only place I can get it to render correctly within the limits of Blogger. But it has a string of surveillance video tapes being shown in some of the country's largest markets. Chances are, through your network affiliation (or affiliation with CNN or NNS), you too can probably bring this video into your newsroom to spice up the B-Block and give producers something to tease.

Is this for Real

As if there isn't enough tension already between journalists and law enforcement, then this happens.

It turns out that when Mel Gibson was pulled over and started on an anti-semitic rampage, those comments were written up in a file never made public. Fortunately it was leaked to TMZ.com

According to the Associated Press by way of ABCNews.com,

After he was stopped, Gibson launched into an anti-Semitic rant. According to the report from the Office of Independent Review, a supervisor tried to delete his inflammatory remarks from his arrest report but was overruled by a captain. Instead, the remarks were detailed in a supplemental report that was forwarded to county prosecutors but officially shielded from public scrutiny.

Ok, is this for real? How do police officers expect the general public to believe anything they have to say on the witness stand if they won't even let fundamental details of a police pull-over become public? As always, the cover-up is worse than the crime.

And this apparently is not an isolated incident according to the Society of Professional Journalists:

This is an increasingly used technique to hide facts from the public, including facts embarrasing to the police -- put them in a separate file and don't tell anyone it even exists.

Thank goodness for leaks. And this is why we need a shield law to protect journalists and their sources who can tell right from wrong and would want to leak such a report.

More:

Storm Coverage

One of the things TV news does well is weather coverage.
Weather is always visual, which lends itself perfectly to TV images.
When people are snowed in, people love to sit in front of the TV and see just how bad it is outside.
It's especially fun to watch other people (ie: the TV reporters) suffer in the elements.
And it is easy to get sound on.
Who doesn't have an opinion about the weather?
Who, while shoveling their driveway, won't talk to a reporter in the neighborhood?
Which kids, off from school, won't tell a reporter how much fun it is to have a snow day?

And for those of us involved in round-the-clock storm coverage, the TV station usually pays for a hotel room so we can stay at it overnight.

Fun!

Breaking News = Premium News

There is an interesting article in PaidContent.org where they got a few minutes one-on-one with the CEO of the Associated Press, Tom Curley. He has been in a lot of the trade magazines lately talking about new structures and reforms the news industry should take to stay in business.

He has argued that content from the AP should no longer have its headlines or first graph of a story lifted by other web sites. He no longer wants to see other sites using AP photos without paying for them. And he also believes that the new cash cow is breaking news.

“We believe that breaking news is worth more these days than it ever was. So breaking news is a premium business.”

I agree with him. In television news, we are in a constant rush to be the first to break the news, the first to get the best pictures on the air, and the first to chase new angles on a breaking news story. We, as news organizations, believe that to the the best (and beat the competitors) we have to consistently let people know the information first. So this statement that Breaking News content is a premium is quite obvious. But I think Curley is the first to articulate it so well.

Few newsrooms in America today function without content from the AP. The AP already has the infastructure in place to get member stations/papers breaking news first. Any enhancement to that IS a premium that is worth the money. And as each of these stations/papers provide the late-breaking details to their audiences, they are attracting eyeballs which will help them make money. Hopefully a rising tide will lift all boats (apologies in advance for the cliche!)

Killing the Messenger

In the aftermath of the shooting at a mall in Omaha, Nebraska, reaction has been varied. I want to hone in on one troubling bit of feedback I have heard from some viewers and seen in various comment sections and blog postings on the Internet.

One of the ones that sums up this the best comes from CrimeRant.com's author who wrote,

Maybe all of us in the media should make a promise: not to report on any of these mass-shootings, not to print the photos or names of the killers and take away from these people the power of being famous.

It’s a first step, anyway.

My opinion is this is a highly flawed argument, and a scary slope to go down.
Here's an outline of my concerns:

1. Once the suspect is dead, they are not around to revel in the glory of having their act broadcast on the news. There is no evidence I've been able to find that supports the nation that simply stopping the practice of showing the photos or names now would prevent something like this in the future.
2. The public has an absolute right to know who the nut-job is that went on this rampage. I'd argue that most people want to know who could be responsible for such a heinous act. They don't want to be left wondering who the anonymous killer was. Part of the healing process includes getting as much information as possible to help one come to an understanding of who this person is, and how they could do such a thing.
3. News reporting over the past few days has revealed all the places where things went wrong in this case, including the government's inept job at getting him proper and effective help when he first started showing the cliche red flags. If there is to be even a shred of hope of preventing another nut job from falling through the cracks, then this open reporting is necessary to bring forth accountability and reform.
4. Any responsible news organization can't "not report on any of these mass shootings." What happened in Omaha will have a profound effect on that community for some time. Could you imagine, for a moment, that someone comes into your community and shoots down eight people. When you got home to turn on the TV news, there would no mention of it. Simply because some high-minded person has decided that you should not be allowed to learn about it because it might give the killer "what he wants." That is inconceivable and an unrealistic suggestion.

Yet again, the media becomes the target people go after because it is where the bad news comes from. And when people don't like bad news, or they hear things they don't want to hear, they blame the news organizations for having the audacity to share it.