Inside Today's 6 News; The News Director's Blog

A Local Professor's Rant Against TV News

One of the first things you learn when you do my job is that everyone loves to complain about the media.  Even the media loves to complain about the media.  Add to that list College of Idaho Political Science Professor Jasper LiCalzi, who also helps us as a political analyst for KIVI-TV.

You can link to his blog entitled "The Poverty of TV News" here ...

http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2008/04/22/licalzi/the_poverty_of_tv_news

But here are some excerpts:

"I have seen the deterioration of local TV news in the Treasure Valley just in the last 15 years," LiCalzi writes.  "The Boise stations now have followed the mantra of other big-city stations: “If it bleeds, it leads.” The local television news has become little more than a reading of the police blotter. Why is it that every petty crime is considered newsworthy? And if it involves sex, and especially sex with minors, it has to be covered ad nauseum. Do we really have to hear about some pervert who was arrested for trying to videotape up women’s skirts in the mall? Is that really important? Luckily, there are plenty of car accidents and house fires to fill in the rest of the newscast, not to mention a good 10 minutes on the weather ... Where are the stories on issues that affect our lives? What are the state legislature, city councils and county commissioners doing? For that matter, what is going on in our schools? How is our tax money being spent? One story a month on these issues is not enough."

There's more from LiCalzi, but you get the idea.  Let me start by cleaning up some of his inaccuracies (or at least exaggerations).  I can't speak for the other stations, but we at 'Today's 6 News' don't spend 10 minutes on weather.  It's closer to 3-to-4 minutes in each half-hour newscast depending on weather conditions.  Every petty crime considered newsworthy?  We certainly cover significant crimes, and I would argue someone using a video camera in a public place to shoot up women's skirts is a notable crime if you happen to wear a skirt often (something I am aware LiCalzi does not do typically).

But there's a bigger issue here.  It is LiCalzi himself, who is unapologetically a bit of a political wonk.  He finds the nuances of politics fascinating, city council meetings intriguing, and much of government incredibly interesting.  There just aren't a lot of people who share his passion for what goes on in the public arena, especially when those activities don't really qualify as 'news of interest' to most.  Name the top three accomplishments of the year's legislature.  You probably can't, but LiCalzi can, and that's not the media's fault.  It's because it is something more interesting to him than it is to you.

Nothing wrong with that.  "Vive le difference," but it is unrealistic for Jasper to expect local TV newscasts to cater exclusively to his tastes no more than it is a good idea for the College of Idaho to cater to my concerns about the state of college education these days (As someone who often must employ college grads, I confess I do have a few).  And as I tell viewers all the time, to believe that every story we cover will appeal to every viewer is an unrealistic expectation.

But to say we don't cover the stories Jasper wants to see covered is just not true.  Lawmakers have told us our 'Highway Robbery' series helped bring the issue of highway funding to the forefront in the legislature.  As I mentioned in a previous blog, our investigation into the issue of transitional homes is used as a primer on the issue by the City of Boise.  As for schools, our investigation 'Child Interrogated' about police interrogations of children in schools brought a considerable response, and we've done many, many more.

'Today's 6 News' covers a wide variety of stories, and we also have a news agreement with the 'Idaho Statesman' to help us cover some of the issues that are more difficult for us to tell on television.  And of course, if we didn't care about politics and political issues, would we really need Jasper LiCalzi as a political expert?

And we will continue to do so.  That is if he'll have us.

Barack Obama vs. ABC News

ABC News may want to consider a computer upgrade, because reportedly, their inbox is filling up to overflowing with complaints about the network's primetime debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  At issue is what seemed to many to be a full-fledged frontal assault against Obama by moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.  In the first 45 minutes, Obama had to answer questions about his now infamous 'angry middle class' remarks, his association with his controversial minister, Rev. Wright, his patriotism, and even his decision to sit on a board with a man who was a former member of the radical and violent group the Weathermen.

The next day, Obama himself couldn't resist commenting on the relentlessness of it all. ''Last night I think we set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people.  Forty-five minutes before we heard about health care, 45 minutes before we heard about Iraq, 45 minutes before we heard about jobs, 45 minutes before we heard about gas prices.''  Or social security or the deficit or taxes or ... well, you get the idea.

What in the world were Charles and George and ABC News thinking?  I believe they were thinking like good journalists.  I really do.  Bear with me for a moment here.

First, I do think ABC made one tactical blunder, and that was putting Stephanopoulous on the stage.  ABC clearly has big plans for George and this was a chance to put him in the middle of the biggest political race in decades.  Just one problem.  Everyone knows he is a former major Clinton insider and I'm sure there are those who suspect his personal sympathies lie with her.  Having Stephanopoulous grilling Obama in a debate with Hillary Clinton is akin to having Karl Rove go after Obama were he debating Dick Cheney.  The fact Stephanopoulous was the one who brought up the bizarre 'Weathermen' connection, probably the low point of the debate, made the whole thing sort of surreal.

But let's give Obama credit.  He answered the question, and did it quite well.  He answered the next one too, and the next, and the next ... until those kind of questions melted away.

And that's my whole point about the good journalism part.  These weren't really the questions of Charlie Gibson or George Stephanolpoulous.  These were the questions of many Americans.  My inbox gets peppered all the time with people who have these kind of questions about Obama.  They wonder about his patriotism ... they wonder about his church ... they wonder about his background (some still erroneously believe he is Muslim) ... and what Obama does is he stands up there on a stage for all who own televisions to see and says "Bring it on!"

We all pretty much know where Obama stands on health care.  His views on Iraq are transparent.  He's offered enough specifics on the economy that I think most Americans have a general idea what he would do to try to fix it.  The biggest unknown for the American people when it comes to Barack Obama is the question of character.  Is this relatively young, somewhat inexperienced politician ready for the White House?

And so on the most watched debate of 2008, Barack Obama took a bit of a journalistic beating, walked off the stage, and his poll numbers shot up.  There's a lesson there.

I've been critical in past blogs of how Micron's Steve Appleton and Senator Larry Craig put themselves in situations during times of tremendous criticism of them where they don't have to answer tough questions.  Obama's experience reveals the folly of that strategy, because if you take tough questions and answer them well, it is the questioner who ends up looking bad ... but of course perhaps the problem with Appleton and Craig might be a lack of confidence they have good answers.

Barack Obama is proving more and more he does have good answers.  He comes off as 'apolitcal.'  A candidate not 'handled' by advisors ... but his own man, willing to be candid and speak his mind even under the hot glare of TV lights broadcasting to a national audience in the millions.  It might just be enough for him to win Pennsylvania and knock Clinton out of the race for good.

And if that happens, I think he should take Charle and George to lunch.  "Off the record" of course.

How Larry Grant Handed Bill Sali a Big Break

If Barack Obama wins the Democratic Presidential nomination and then goes on to win the Presidency, the person whom he should thank this most ... is Hillary Clinton.  Obama's nomination is likely but by no means certain, much less his election, but over time, we have seen him grow and mature politically because of his hard fought campaigning against Clinton ... not in spite of it.  There is no evidence in the polls or Obama's fundraising that this highly competitive race has hurt him.  The evidence is it has helped him.

I felt the same about Bill Sali two years ago.  Sali came out of nowhere in a 6 candidate field to win the Republican nomination for the 1st Congressional District, then beat Democrat Larry Grant in a tough race to claim the seat.  Sali's reputation heading into the race was not a good one.  We all remember the 'idiot's idiot' characterisation.

But Sali proved himself in a crowded field to be a good campaigner and an able enough debater to win over the confidence of a majority of voters.  There are many, including fellow Republicans, who argue the campaign tactics of Sali's supporters thrived on distortion and underhanded tactics, but that would not have been enough to get Sali elected if voters weren't comfortable enough with his overall performance and demeanor.  Those were skills Sali honed in a tough campaign.

So Sali must be thanking his lucky stars that Larry Grant has dropped out of the 1st Congressional Race and endorsed Democratic opponent Walt Minnick.  I understand why Grant did it.  He was being outraised by Minnick, and Democrats face a tough enough road in Idaho without trying to beat each other.

But that's old political thinking.  A vigorous Grant/Minnick primary would have raised the profile of both, kept Democrats energized, focused media attention on an interesting contested race, and if Minnick were to be the nominee, given him some needed battle-testing before he took on a tough opponent in Sali.  It also would have given Democrats a clear choice and helped insure the best man to take on Bill Sali would be the one chose to run against him.

I understand the money argument.  The mother's milk of politics is a precious commodity that Idaho Democrats rightly feel they must spend exceptionally wisely against Sali, not each other.  But Minnick's problem isn't money.  It's visibility.

Recently, I randomly asked some people to name the two Democratic candidates for Congress in the 1st District just to see if people were paying attention.  All could name Grant.  Most could name Minnick, but it was always "Grant/Minnick" in that order.  I'm told Minnick is planning an aggressive ad campaign, but with no contested primary, Minnick has lost the chance to increase his visibility through the so-called 'free media' that carries more weight with voters.

What a break for Bill Sali.

The Odd Logic of the Man at the Center of the Transitional Home Debate

Dennis Mansfield wants me to call him.  For those of you who don't know who he is, Mansfield is the head of a group that owns several transitional homes for ex-cons.  They are essentially halfway houses for prisoners who have been released but who are not yet quite ready for full integration into society.  The furious pace at which Mansfield's New Hope Ministries is buying up and creating these homes in suburban neighborhoods has generated a serious backlash from residents who don't want single family homes with anywhere from 8-12 ex-cons living down the street.

As we've covered the issue in recent weeks, my reporters have asked Mansfield for comment and he has refused.  But each time, he asks that I call him because he feels our news organization owes him an apology, and that we need to begin the 'healing process.'  It seems Mansfield blames KIVI-TV in part for the backlash against his transitional homes.  He may be right.

We sort of tripped over the issue more than a year ago when investigating a story about a camera in a neighborhood that was reportedly monitoring neighbors' activities.  We never did find the camera, but upon investigating learned the home was a transitional home where several ex-cons who were also sex offenders were living.  This puzzled us since zoning laws usually prohibit so many unrelated people from living in the same home.  We later learned these homes were protected by a federal court ruling and could pretty much be set up in any community without input or interference from neighbors or public officials.  Our news investigation into this issue is even now used by the City of Boise as a sort of primer for officials and communities.

Since our first stories, the topic of transitional homes has exploded with packed meetings and flaring tempers.  That in turn led to state legislation that attempts to regulate and control transitional homes.  And Dennis Mansfield doesn't like any of it.

He's even gone so far as to call the new legislation a form of 'red-lining.'  Red-lining is a practice designed to keep minorities out of certain communities.  Putting aside Mansfield's equating discrimination against ex-cons with discrimination against minorities, I think Mansfield has actually benefitted until now from a court ruling that permits a sort of 'reverse red-lining.'  Many communities still do not allow more than three unrelated people to live together in the same single family home, whether they be white, hispanic, black, college kids, priests, Culligan men or the Boise State Broncos wrestling team.  But if they are ex-cons, they are somehow protected.  Odd.

I don't deny that Mansfield's transitional home efforts can be beneficial.  If he can find a business model that makes these halfway houses both effective and profitable, then he's on the cutting edge of a cottage industry that makes money while doing good.

But Mansfield forgot one thing along the way.  He forgot that laws are primarily meant to protect those who don't break the law, not those who do.  Placing ex-cons who have violated society's trust into communities full of non-law-breakers is more than unfair ... it is morally wrong.  These neighborhoods are full of people who have worked hard, done their best to follow the rules, paid their taxes, are trying to raise children as successfully and safely as possible, and perhaps hoping that the biggest investment of their lives ... their home ... will rise in value over the years.  Placing a dozen ex-cons next door or down the street threatens much of that, especially when you consider 1-in-3 ex-cons in a transitional home will reoffend.  If there are 12 living in your neighborhood, knowing on average 4 will reoffend can be pretty scary odds.

But in Mansfield's mind, the rights of those who have broken the law but served their time are somehow equal or even greater to those who never committed a felony in the first place.  I don't agree with that logic, I don't think most people do, and I would tell Mansfield that ... that is if he ever decides to call and talk to me himself.  The number is 381-6650 Mr. Mansfield, but be warned.  You won't get any apology from me.