 |
By taking high road, KOMO ends up on low road of journalism
Tuesday, November 30, 1999
This was supposed to be a WTO-free zone, a sort of newsprint oasis where you could avoid reading about Fidel "Will He Or Won't He" Castro, where you could escape yet another mention of how many protesters will be occupying your parking space today. But we hadn't counted on KOMO/4 shooting itself in both feet over the weekend.
What on earth was KOMO thinking? Or was someone else doing the thinking for KOMO/4 news director Joe Barnes last weekend?
How else to explain the bizarre editorial in which Barnes told viewers that KOMO might not be covering certain aspects of the World Trade Organization meeting this week in Seattle? Specifically, he was talking about "illegal" protests designed to disrupt the proceedings and make life miserable for a lot of folks who right now are wishing San Diego had won the WTO sweepstakes.
"KOMO 4 News supports coverage of the critical issues raised by the conference, including legal protests," Barnes said, "but will not devote coverage to irresponsible or illegal activities of disruptive groups."
So if the Boston Tea Party were happening this week, KOMO wouldn't cover it? Or if Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus this week, KOMO would ignore it?
Maybe, maybe not.
Barnes' editorial said KOMO might cover such stories. It just wouldn't give free publicity to disruptive elements. "So if you see us doing a story on a disruption but we tell you we won't name the group or the cause," Barnes said in the editorial, "you'll know why."
Got that? In the who-what-where-when-why-how of responsible journalism, KOMO might skip the who and the why. Thus, to use the Rosa Parks example again, KOMO apparently would report it this way:
"Police today arrested an African American woman who refused to surrender her seat on a municipal bus when a white passenger demanded it. We're not identifying the woman or the organization to which she belongs because her act of civil disobedience was illegal and it is KOMO policy not to lend credibility to individuals or organizations that unlawfully disrupt the commerce of the city."
Now there's a case study for a Journalism 101 class. Is news "legitimate" only when it's promulgated by the establishment? Barnes, whose station is owned by the Fisher Companies, which is about as "establishment" as you can get in Seattle, seems to be suggesting as much.
"The WTO meetings are important and timely," his editorial said. "There is considerable and legitimate controversy surrounding the proceedings, the substance of which KOMO intends to cover responsibly. But disruption for disruption's sake will not be covered since it contributes little to our community's need for objective information about differing points of view."
Huh?
Hey, Joe. There's no such thing as objective information. The fact that someone decides what goes in this paper and what goes on your air makes it subjective by definition. The trick is to be fair to all sides while subjectively choosing what to cover. Your decision to ignore something because you've decided it's not newsworthy is certainly your prerogative, but to reject it out of hand because you don't like the way it's packaged is dumber than dumb.
Sure, some protesters are going to do loony things this week just to get their pictures in the paper and on TV. But your editorial said: "KOMO 4 News is taking a stand on not giving some protest groups the publicity they want -- the kind of groups that have unplanned, illegal protests with people and banners hanging from bridges and buildings. . . . It's easy to cover screaming people, but we don't think any debate should be decided by the people with the loudest voice. Just being disruptive and obnoxious shouldn't get you news media coverage in today's world."
True enough. But how will you know if something is newsworthy if you don't cover it?
Barnes' edict has already had a chilling effect in the KOMO newsroom. A staffer told me yesterday that the station chose not to cover a WTO protest in downtown Seattle last weekend because no one was sure how to interpret the new rules.
"It's very confusing for those of us in the newsroom," said the staffer, who understandably did not want to be identified. "We evaluate every decision case-by-case anyway. The frustrating thing about this statement is that it puts management in the position of second-guessing everything we do as a team."
Another KOMO staffer said Barnes' editorial "ties the hands" of news personnel and seems like a cheesy attempt to make KOMO seem like "the viewers' buddy" at the expense of practicing sound journalism.
Absent an explanation from Barnes -- I was unable to reach him before deadline yesterday -- I'd have to agree. His "high road" editorial, whether it's his own or something foisted on him from above, is bad policy -- and the worst sort of grandstanding -- that makes it look as if KOMO is taking sides. It's exactly the opposite of the "thoughtful and responsible" behavior Barnes says viewers should expect of KOMO.
John Levesque is the P-I's television critic. Call him at 206-448-8330 or send e-mail to tvguy@seattle-pi.com
By JOHN LEVESQUE 
POST-INTELLIGENCER TV CRITIC Update
· TV
· TV
· Weekend TV
· Getting ready for digital TV
· Sports Media: Siragusa a voice for Everyman
· TV
· On Radio: Stations experiment with technology
· TV
more
101 Elliott Ave. W.
Seattle, WA 98119
(206) 448-8000
Home Delivery: (206) 464-2121 or (800) 542-0820
seattlepi.com serves about 1.7 million unique visitors
and 30 million page views each month.
Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
Send investigative tips to iteam@seattlepi.com
©1996-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Terms of Use/Privacy Policy
