Thursday, June 23, 2011
Media / News Bites Collaboration or collusion in Chicago TV news?
Posted by Michael Miner on Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:30 AM
Chicago was singled out. The basis of the SavetheNews.org case against this city's TV operations is a 2009 column describing, if not merged newsrooms then pooled resources, one justification being that this would free up camera crews to do more enterprise journalism. There's been precious little evidence of that. Evidence of layoffs and diminished journalism is easier to find.
SavetheNews.org is an arm of Free Press — "a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to reform the media," whose new national campaign, "Change the Channels," is intended to expose "covert consolidation and shared news operations." Libby Reinish, program coordinator of Free Press, was quoted as saying that “with the majority of Americans getting their news from local broadcast TV, and the lion’s share of local online news originating from local TV stations, we cannot afford to let media companies use covert consolidation to squat on our public airwaves.”
The problem is "far greater" than a recent FCC report acknowledges, says Free Press's own report, Outsourcing the News: How covert consolidation is destroying newsrooms and circumventing media ownership rules. "The FCC cites data from the Communications Workers of America and Media Council Hawai'i, identifying 'at least 25 television markets in the U.S. where stations have entered into "shared services agreements" (SSAs), in which one station effectively takes over the news operation of a second.' However, by broadening the scope of inquiry to include other similar agreements that also result in less competition, diversity and loyalism, the numbers increase significantly."
Free Press focuses on "local news service agreements," describing them as "an agreement among stations that allows multiple independent stations to pool and share journalists, editors, equipment, and content....We are most concerned with those that result in shared content appearing on a number of stations."
As, for example, in Chicago.
Savethenews.org has this to say about Chicago:
"In Chicago, a Local News Sharing Agreement between four stations (CBS, NBC, FOX and CW affiliates) combines journalists, crew and editorial staff to produce a single newscast. News crews from each station are coordinated by a single editor to ensure that no two stations cover the same story. The footage collected is shared between the stations."
When I asked for specifics, Savethenews.org pointed me to this May 2009 column by Phil Rosenthal, then and until the other day media beat writer for the Tribune. Rosenthal said the four channels — respectively 2, 5, 32, and 9 — would share resources "to provide pool coverage of non-exclusive events." Tony Capriolo, a WMAQ sports producer, would coordinate the coverage.
Execs of the stations defended themselves to Rosenthal.
Channel 5: "Rather than having four cameras at an event capturing the same thing, it makes sense to have one and figure out what to do with the cameras that don't have to be there."
Channel 2: "We can go out in the neighborhoods and talk to people who are affected by whatever the change will be, and we'll still have the mayor's remarks available."
Channel 32: "It's a more efficient method of gathering news video at a time when we have to look for every efficiency we possibly can."
Rosenthal pointed out that 32 and 5 were already sharing the same news helicopter.
One camera instead of four makes some sense in an era where there isn't endless money to throw around, at least to someone who believes local TV news has needed for a long time to wrench itself from the mindlessness of pack journalism. But one camera instead of four also means one reporter (at best) instead of four, which can be a godsend to a politician with a statement to make but no particular desire for questions. All four stations turn out on some occasions where you might suppose one camera would do — such as to catch Rod Blagojevich leaving the federal building after a day at trial — but that's because each station wants to be able to show its reporter doing a remote from the scene. That's not enterprise journalism. It's vanity and habit.
The most obvious benefit of local news sharing agreements has been to the career of Mike Renda. He pioneered the idea at the Fox station in Philadelphia, was hailed for it, and is now general manager of Channel 32 in Chicago.
Capriolo didn't want to comment on the report until he'd read it.
Comments (7)
Showing 1-7 of 7
Mr. Miner says,
"One camera instead of four makes some sense in an era where there isn't endless money to throw around, at least to someone who believes local TV news has needed for a long time to wrench itself from the mindlessness of pack journalism."
Are you sure about that Michael?
Here's a recent example of what happens when you share cameras! Check out what happens at the 00:51 second mark! WHOOPS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j27PE82-74o
like
dislike
"Local TV news operations across America got hammered Wednesday by a media reform group based in Washington, DC."
Well, I don't really know that "getting hammered" is the right phrase to use. At least not any more than one could say that an angry anonymous internet comment or e-mail towards a media organization results in it getting hammered. That's about the respect that this report is getting. I just did a Google News search and a Google Blog search and this was one of only two articles or posts that mention it. And clearly that is for a good reason.
" 'Across the country, hundreds of TV stations have quietly merged newsrooms, circumventing the Federal Communications Commission’s media ownership limits at the expense of independent, local journalism,' charged SavetheNews.org.
Chicago was singled out. The basis of the SavetheNews.org case against this city's TV operations is a 2009 column describing, if not merged newsrooms then pooled resources"
The phrase "if not merged newsrooms than pooled resources" strikes me as rather odd. That extraordinarily downplays and seems to excuse the fact that this report came to a completely inaccurate conclusion. There have been no merged newsrooms in Chicago. That is just a fact. Yet the report states that there were. There is no excuse for that false statement. There has been some pooling of resources. That is similar to what the practices of the networks in Washington D.C. for years and years. It is nothing unusual. And it also is inexcusable that the only thing the report apparently even cites is the 2009 Phil Rosenthal column. If savethenews.org thought this was such a huge deal they should have made an effort to find how the new practice has effected the results. I remember that column. It was very balanced and made clear that it was a pretty minor change that only affects the most routine news stories. Rosenthal clearly thought there were strong merits to the idea. Yet this organization apparently decided that for some reason it is a huge deal and has severe adverse effects.
"one justification being that this would free up camera crews to do more enterprise journalism. There's been precious little evidence of that. Evidence of layoffs and diminished journalism is easier to find."
Huh? This seems to come from the presumption that when there are two events the second event must always be the result of the first event. That has no basis. If there have been layoffs and diminished journalism at the stations involved we don't know whether this is in fact less than would have occurred if not for the pooling of resources. The economy has gone downhill in that time. And people are more and more doing other things besides watch local television. So you would expect there would be some layoffs. That certainly doesn't mean this hasn't helped.
Now unfortunately the folks at savethenews.org are going to think they accomplished something because their report merited a mention by the Chicago Reader. I wish that had not been the case. These type of people feed on conspiracy loons who think the media is out to get them and is engaging in some sort of nefarious behavior to hide the truth. Its not good for society when that type of thinking is enabled.
"Here's a recent example of what happens when you share cameras! Check out what happens at the 00:51 second mark! WHOOPS!"
That's excellent. And IAC, Miner's using "hammered" as a synonym for "slammed" which is a little more typical for angry op-eds attacking someone, etc. SaveTheNews probably means well, but I'll reserve my donations for paying off Steve Albini's mortgage so that he can concentrate more on his food blog.
"And IAC, Miner's using "hammered" as a synonym for "slammed" which is a little more typical for angry op-eds attacking someone, etc. "
Neither the words "hammered" nor "slammed" make sense here. I think the reason for this is that both of those words, as a result of their literal meaning, suggest that the thing being criticized is significantly affected by the criticism. The act of being "hammered" or "slammed" illicit an effect on the recipient. If I'm at a football game and I complain to a friend about Jay Cutler's tendency to throw interceptions someone wouldn't ordinarily say I am "hammering" or "slamming" him. This is because Jay Cutler isn't affected by the criticism. He isn't going to here it and even if he does I would be just one of thousands of fans with opinions. People might be more likely to use those words if a sports columnist criticizes Cutler because there would be a perception that he might be affected by it.
Here we have a report from a group that virtually nobody pays attention to (and likely ever even heard of) and after more than a day attracted a mere two news articles or blog posts. And it was obviously compiled haphazardly, makes a factually incorrect conclusion about Chicago's newsrooms, and doesn't make very much sense. I highly doubt that any of the executives at the TV stations involved care one iota about this. They are unlikely to have even heard about the study until Miner asked them about it or this was posted and probably never would have otherwise. Its not as if this is a well-known, reputable organization. So the criticism doesn't affect them to any significant degree. That is why "hammered" or "slammed" don't make sense. The words "attacked" or "criticized" are better choices.
Maybe it wasn't the best choice, but let me play OED for you.
http://www.google.com/search?q=fox+hammere…
Pawlenty Hammered on Unrealistic Economic Plan – on Fox News | FDL ...
Obama Hammered by AP Fact Check - State Of Union - Fox Nation
Holder Hammered on Hill Over 'Gunwalker' Scandal ... - Fox Nation
Double Whammy: Fox's Sean Hannity Hammered Away at Obama's
“with the majority of Americans getting their news from local broadcast TV, and the lion’s share of local online news originating from local TV stations…”
yes, but local broadcast TV (as well as radio) get much of their content from daily newspapers (they always have), so who gives a rat’s ass if stations pool camera resources just to shoot whatever the trib or sun-times reported.
Mr. Miner, Would you be able to get to the bottom of the source(s) used to report, very emphatically, that George Ryan was not at his wife's side when she died. Every report (man, there's no fact checking out there!) I saw said both that he was not there and that the warden would not let him be there. Of course, the Little Bugle and the Daily Planet would not touch that angle. Did Big Jim float the falsehood? Any ideas?
Latest in Bleader
-
Margaret: teach your children well
In Margaret, a teenager learns more than her teachers can ever convey
- Feb 22, 2012
-
Gig poster of the week
Francisco Ramirez's design for the Arluck Time benefit
- Feb 22, 2012
-
Kim Dotcom currently a free man
Flamboyant Megaupload founder out on bail
- Feb 22, 2012
- More »
Author Archives
-
Maybe they were thinking about the 48-hour-long tailgate parties
The presidential candidates' vague idea of what's going on in the world the rest of us live in
- Jan 8, 2012
-
Paul Varnell
Gay columnist Paul Varnell dies at 70.
- Dec 12, 2011
-
Do newspapers think we can't see who's missing?
When editors disappear, readers notice they're gone
- Feb 8, 2012
- More »
