How Involved to Get?

KSN-TV in Wichita, Kansas did a routine story about a fire in the city. It described the family having a difficult time getting by a week after a fire destroyed everything they owned.

The piece closed by saying,

The family is hoping to set up a fund for donations. If you'd like to help you can contact the family through KSN. Simply email our assignment desk at news@ksn.com

My question in whether or not this direct involvement is appropriate for a TV station. It is one thing to have a foundation set up and to put a full-screen graphic up directing viewers to a bank account. But this KSN offer seems directly involved. If you want to "contact the family," you should mail the desk directly.

I worry about a few things here:
1.- Why is the TV station acting as a bridge between the family and viewers? It is one thing if a viewer sees a story and calls the station on his or her own to find out if contact information is available to help. But directly offering to be the "point person" seems a little strange.

2.- How does the station know what the family will do with the money? Viewers trust their local newscasters. If KSN goes on TV and says "you should help this family," viewers have the natural assumption that the station has done its homework and that the family is a worthy charitable cause. How does the station know where the help will go? Will there be follow up reports to ensure the family doesn't misuse any resources donated to them? Does the station even want to go down that route?

3.- Why not offer help through an intermediary? I have to assume that the American Red Cross or other reputable charity will be assisting the family in the immediate aftermath. Why not direct viewers to contact the local charity who- in turn- is in the business of helping people?

I do not doubt the sincerity of the assignment desk or the management at KSN that they sincerely want to help this family out. It is in a midsized market where there is probably much more reporting on community-based issues than one would see in the big markets. But the question is how far should a station go to actively recruit resources to help the
people it covers? It seems to me that they should still be keeping a distance.

Newsroom Swearing

People in television news have some of the most foul mouths I have ever encountered. And in my time reporting, I have dealt with plenty of potty-mouths ranging from cops to DPW workers.

But newsrooms are an anomoly in corporate culture. We are under constant deadline pressure and there are strong personalities, so sometimes swearing and temper tantrums are common. In a corporate bank environment, for instance, swearing and tirades would probably not be tolerated.

In a TV newsroom, they are the norm and even expected.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's OK to start throwing the F-Bomb around, but rather it is generally viewed as a necessary evil to let stressed out personnel let off some steam.

That's why this blog entry by Terry Heaton is so interesting. It describes how he created a swear jar and made his employees put a quarter into it every time they swore in the newsroom.

The funds were then used for parties for the whole newsroom.

The best. Line. Ever. involves an assignment editor, of course!

One day, my assignment editor arrived in an especially foul mood and announced she was putting $5 in the jar, so that we all should be prepared. I’ll never forget that.

Turns out that assignment editor has since cooled down and is now a news director. Fun!

This whole subject has gotten a lot of chatter on the internet because of a discussion going on over at the Poynter web site which has people discussing whether they have ever been reprimanded in a newsroom for vulgar language.

Assignment Editor's Nightmare

Sometimes people call the assignment desk of a local TV station in great distress. I assume the reason is because desperate people seek attention. In my years as an assignment editor, I have not had a suicidal person call or had to talk to someone who claimed they were holding people hostage. Other assignment editors have had to do that.

I came across a story at WTKR, and you can read the full story here:

It details a rough marriage break-up, which led to:

The divorce was finalized in November. But little over a month later, on the morning of January 3rd, the NewsChannel 3 assignment desk would get a frightening call.

"She said that my husband is standing here with a gun to my head and he asked me to call the media. We called you first," recalls Latoya Lee, who was on her second day on the job at NewsChannel 3 when Jeanette's panicked call came to the station.

"The woman said I'm involved in a hostage situation."

The article did go on to say that the wife worked in media, and that might have been why they were "media savvy" enough to call an assignment desk. And the situation ended without anyone getting hurt.

Nonetheless, these situations are scary. Assignment editors are "jacks of all trades" -- we can pretty much roll with the punches. But we generally have zero training in what to do if a troubled person calls our newsroom.

I think our gut would be to try and keep the person on the other end of the line calm and on the line, all the while summoning help from other people in the newsroom (woe to the assignment editor working alone on a weekend or overnight shift) to get in contact with emergency personnel.

I hope I never have to deal with a situation like this, but reading other examples helps me prepare.

MySpace Settlement

The story most editor missed in this week's headlines about the MySpace settlement with 49 sates is quite simple: users are shifting away from MySpace!

According to the New York Times, the settlement with MySpace will:

classify as private all profiles of users under the age of 18, strengthen its response to complaints of inappropriate content on the site; and organize a task force of Internet businesses, nonprofit organizations and technology companies to review and develop online safety tools. The site will also accept independent monitoring. The agreement is not a binding legal document, and users will likely be able to circumvent some of the changes.

Ok, great. But here's the problem with how slow government works. Buried in the article, the Times noted:

The states had been in talks with MySpace for almost two years.

Two years. Unbelievable. Two years ago, Facebook was barely a blip on the radar. Now, it is making a serious run at MySpace. I understand that MySpace claims 70 million users. But I doubt they are all active users, and most of the people I know from MySpace are now my friends on Facebook.

So in the rush to combat online predators, the government focused on the bogeyman of 2006: MySpace. Problem is, an argument could be made that Facebook or other sites are the new "it" place for teens.

Someone could make an excellent story by looking at how proud the politicians are for this agreement . . . and then go out and talk to kids and find out who's actually using MySpace anymore, and whether they think these changes MySpace will implement will actually make anyone safer.

My bet is that there is a tremendous disconnect that's worth throwing a spotlight on.

NH Primary

The New Hampshire presidential primary is quickly becoming a distant memory. But there are a handful of broadcasters who blogged about their experience up there.

First, over at Massachusetts Mom, the blogger writes:

Forget about money, these days an election could not take place without Blackberries and Ugg boots. Virtually every - no I take that back forget virtually - every campaign operative and press person has both.

Then, a WSYR reporter (Kelly McPherson) wrote about her station's trip up to the Granite State:

As a local news station, we had a different mission than network news: find out what it's really like here on one of the most important days in the Presidential races. Who knows about this? Voters. We looked up polling places to see all of the hustle-bustle. We stumbled across Mitt Romney, John Edwards, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Candidates were on practically every corner.

And I thought this was a fun photoset over on Flickr which shows just how much media was up in NH at any given time.

NASA's Bureaucracy

Back in October, I wrote about how NASA refused to release data from its $8.5-million study of airline pilots that concluded the number of near-misses in the airline industry is far greater than known. The agency had apparently been afraid that the results would undermine public confidence in the air travel and hurt airline profits.

Well, Chapter Two of the story has begun. Under mounting political pressure, administrators at NASA have apparently released all the data. And while that should be applauded, the way in which the agency did it was little more than a data dump as the Associated Press explained:

NASA published the findings — contained in 16,208 pages — but did not provide a roadmap to understand them, making it cumbersome for any thorough analysis by outsiders. Released on New Year's Eve, the unprecedented research conducted over nearly four years relates to safety problems identified by some 25,000 commercial pilots and more than 4,000 private pilots interviewed by telephone.

Worse still- the information is so scattered, USA Today reported:

The NASA data were difficult to analyze because efforts to ensure that none of the pilots interviewed was identifiable prompted the agency to delete detailed information about incidents described in the report.

The data contain hundreds of cryptic comments taken from pilot interviews on safety concerns such as fatigue, the potential for collisions with other planes and air traffic procedures.

There is no context for the comments. One record says only that "air crew falling asleep." In another, a pilot complains about the danger of a midair collision at a specific airport, which was identified as "airport x."

This arrogance- and refusal to use taxpayer money judiciously- is a leading reason why NASA is a major bureaucratic has-been. I have personally always been interested and fascinated by outer space. But judging by this bureaucratic read-tape, it appears NASA is no longer capable of functioning.