You Make the News Judgment Call

One reason I write this blog is to sometimes take you 'inside' the many issues our news organization must face.  Here's one.  After most every controversial story we air, I inevitably get a call or e-mail from someone connected to it in some way complaining about us doing the story at all.  They typically ask, "What about the impact on the family?"  Two recent e-mails were from a family member of 17-year-old Ethan Windom and also a friend of the family after we did an in-depth report on how Windom's actions in murdering his mother Judy closely mimicked those of the fiction serial killer in the movie "American Psycho."  We also explored the subject of the impact of extremely violent movies on teens and young adults.  You can see the story here by going to this page http://kivitv.com/Global/category.asp?C=87004&nav=menu536_2 and looking for "American Psycho Effect."

The family friend writes, "I thought the piece that you did about Ethan Windom ... was sensationalized and unnecessary. I know the Windom family, which includes two small children, and I also know Judy Windom's parents. This is a wonderful family that has been forever altered by this tragedy."

That was followed by an e-mail from a family member which stated, "I would like you to think for a moment about how you would feel if you were in my shoes ... having to deal with the loss of a loved one in a violent crime such as this."

Neither writer disputed the facts presented or public interest in the story.  Their complaints were centered on the impact to Windom's family.

While I can certainly sympathize on a personal level with all this family has endured, I cannot really put myself in the family's shoes nor can I allow our news organization to tilt our coverage based on family considerations.  Family impact is never a factor when we decide to cover a news story of public interest.  To explain why, let's play out some real-life scenarios and have you make the news judgment call.

#1.  A U.S. Senator is arrested in a gay sex sting in an airport bathroom.  While the Senator himself is a public figure, you know that news of the arrest itself will also have serious consequences for the Senator's family as there had been rumors for years (rumors that you do not know to be true) that the Senator entered into the marriage to deflect rumors he is gay.  Further, he is a popular Senator of the majority political party of your state and your realize that aggressive news coverage of his arrest will displease his supporters, possibly costing your news organization viewership.  It may also lead those around him to deny you access to the Senator in favor of other news organizations who may be seen as offering 'friendlier' coverage.  Do you cover the story, and if so, do you do so in aggressive manner so as to hold a public official accountable?  You make the news judgment call.

#2.  A violent fight involving several individuals ends with a serious injury stabbing outside a popular nightclub in an entertainment area of town.  The owner of the nightclub contacts you directly asking you not to identify that his club was involved, arguing while the men were patrons, he had no control over their actions and that reporting where the stabbing happened will hurt his business and his family's livelihood.  Further complicating the situation is the fact this man's nightclub is also an advertiser with your television station, so reporting the story fully would likely mean the loss of revenue to your television station.  Do you fully cover the story including saying where it happened?  You make the news judgment call.

#3.  One of the top executives in a company that becomes the biggest bankruptcy scandal in U.S. history is indicted on criminal fraud charges.  Covering this story will mean great embarrassment to his family members, one of whom just happens to be a prominent weather anchor on your very own television station.  Do you cover the story and name this executive, and do you also reveal his relationship to your anchor?  You make the news judgment call.

Each case actually happened, and in each case, the story was covered fully and completely by the TV station despite the 'collateral' impact on families.

The first obviously refers to our coverage of Senator Larry Craig's arrest.  The second happened to me while I worked at another television station in another city.  As it turned out, we discovered the club had a history of problems with violent incidents and our coverage helped compel the club to put in video cameras and beef up security.  The third happened to a television station in Chicago during the Enron bankruptcy scandal.

Had the impact on families been paramount, none of these stories would have been covered, at least not fully.  In fact, every day you watch the news, you see reports of events where the innocent family members of those in the news will be impacted in some way.  But if we consider that impact, we open ourselves up to accusations of unfairness, unobjectivity, preferential treatment and news bias.  For instance, had the nightclub story mentioned above not been done for 'impact on family' reasons, the station would have opened itself up to criticism that the real reason for not airing it was because the nightclub was an advertiser.

Unprejudiced detachment is critical to fairness in news coverage or in any situation where objectivity is demanded.  Think about it.  Should a judge hand down stiffer sentences to an orphan than someone with a large family because the impact to a larger group of innocent family members would be greater?  Should a referee call a bigger strike zone for a pitcher who happens to be bit wild but has a nice family whose livelihood depends on that pitcher's ability to get batters out?  Should game shows allow cheating in favor of contestants whose families could really use the money?  Should news organizations consider the embarrassment to certain families and not others when deciding what stories to cover?  The answer to all four questions is the same.

The Ethan Windom case is truly shocking, and it is also a cautionary tale for all parents about the dangers of allowing teens easy access to explicitly violent material.  "American Psycho" may not have motivated Windom to kill, but it certainly did impact his psyche in a negative manner, an element of this story we felt was important to tell.

As I told one caller complaining about the family impact of a different story we did a few weeks back, news is for people who want to know things and who also believe the benefit of having information in a free society far outweighs the potential embarrassment to those whose family member has been caught in the media's glare.

Comments

[Joe]

Pretty impressed with the blog here. Not just this entry, but many of them. I don't watch TV news (in my experience, TV spends the most time on things with the best visuals, and there isn't always a correlation between visuals and importance of the story), but if this is the direction KIVI is going, I may have to give the TV another shot...

Thanks,

[The REAL John Doe]

"people who want to know things and who also believe the benefit of having information in a free society far outweighs the potential embarrassment to those whose family member has been caught in the media's glare."

The Windom story was not about family embarassment though.
And TOO MUCH information in a free society is certainly NOT always a good thing. A murder scandal and a sex scandal involve totally different emotions. So the point here is...be emotionless if you want to be a success in the news-game!

[your a douche]

I don't mean to sound like a broken record but the MPAA sets movie ratings for a reason. Obviously the kid shouldn't have been watching it to begin with.