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

The Importance of Reporting Disturbing Information in the Duncan Death Penalty Case

Inevitably, whenever we put disturbing information of some sort in a newscast, I get calls and e-mails, and nothing I can remember has been more disturbing than the details in the Joseph Duncan death sentencing hearing.  One particularly articulate woman called me giving her reasons why, "You don't have to air this type of information."  Well, yes we do ... within reason ... and here's why.

The federal government is pursuing this case because they want to commit the most serious act they can outside of warfare.  The government that represents you and me wants to take a man's life.  This is a very serious matter on an issue that is very controversial in our society.  There are probably people you know who oppose the death penalty in all forms.  They believe society should lock up certain people for life, but does not have the moral justification to take a life in a planned, pre-meditated matter.  Maybe you agree, maybe you disagree, but the point is that if we do not objectively communicate information the government believes justifies putting Joseph Duncan to death, we are misleading you.  We are distorting what's really going on and not reporting the truth on a matter of great controversy and importance.

We can't do that.  Here's an example as to why.  Years ago, I was getting frequent complaints about coverage of the Iraqi war when things were going very badly.  Viewers told me the media, including us, was giving a negatively distorted picture.  As it turned out, the facts were dead on.  What followed was a change in tactics and a dramatic drop in U.S. casualties.  It's an example of how the truth can help Americans make sound decisions that bring positive change and even save lives.

Difficult stories like the Duncan case impact us too.  Many on our staff were deeply troubled after the revelations.  Some had to endure things we would never report on TV.  One staff member made a point of going home at the end of the day and hugging her child.  Personally, there's a part of me that wishes the federal charges against Joseph Duncan had never been pursued.  That prosecutors would have just let things be knowing Duncan would spend the rest of his life behind bars.  I don't object to the federal death penalty in deserving cases (like Timothy McVeigh), but this all seems so unnecessary simply to put a man to death (who I think wants to be put to death) who would otherwise spend the rest of his life in a maximum security prison.

But that wasn't my call.  The decision to use the disturbing video as evidence wasn't my call.  Once those decisions were made, we at 'Today's 6 News' had only one option ... to tell you the truth about it as best we can so you can know what's really happening and can make an informed decision as to whether your government is acting appropriately.  Sure, we use discretion, but we cannot simply ignore facts that the government believes are critical to their argument for death.

I understand some people disagree with that decision.  Some say we shouldn't be covering it at all.  The woman I spoke about earlier believes our coverage will cost us viewers.  Perhaps, but what's the alternative?  To 'sugarcoat' the information to the point of being misleading?  To ignore critical information that is the very heart of a death penalty case?  To avoid stories or certain important information because some viewers might find it offensive?

That's not journalism, that is the very definition of 'ignorance' ... as in to willingly 'ignor.'  People can make personal decisions to ignore certain important events like a death penalty trial because they find it too distasteful, but a free press in America exists for those who want the freedom of choice to choose a different course.

How 'Big Oil' Companies are the New 'Big Tobacco' Companies

Big Oil is just like Big Tobacco in one important way.  An oil company, like a tobacco company and other businesses exists to make money ... as much money as possible off (in this case) the limited product it provides.  It is not built to be sympathetic, moral, caring or patriotic.  An oil company is a capitalist entity focused on ways to maximize profits.  So the last people we should be asking about how to solve our current energy crisis are oil company executives.  They won't give us the answers that makes the most sense ... they will give us the answers that makes them the most money.

I watched with great interest Jacqueline Bennett's recent interview with the Chief Marketing Executive of the American Petroleum Institute.  He says oil companies have done a poor job getting their message out, then proceeded to give every predictable answer you would expect from an oil executive.  (You can find a link to one of her stories at the end of this blog).  Here's why his answers on three controversial topics are good for oil company executives and not so good for the rest of us.

Domestic drilling:  Oil companies' hope that today's high prices will put political pressure on Democrats open more domestic oil fields to them and make them lots more money.  The problem is this would have virtually no impact on prices right now because the actual drilling couldn't take place for years.  Oil companies want access to U.S. offshore oil because it eventually means more money for them, not less pain at the pump for you right now.

Why no new refineries?:  A new gas refinery hasn't been built in the U.S. since the 1970's (although ABC reports one is being built now).  The oil expert we spoke with blames environmental laws, but there's something else going on.  The profits for big oil are in drilling it, not refining it.  If an energy company builds a refinery, it is laying out a lot of cost for not a whole lot of return.  What's worse, more refined fuel would increase the supply of gasoline, potentially sending gas prices lower.  For an oil company, that's a lose-lose.

Investing in Stock Buybacks vs. Drilling:  ABC News made the point the other day that oil companies are using more of their record profits to buy back their own stock than they are to expand drilling.  That's because oil company executives are not paid based on how much they drill but by how much their stock goes up.  By buying back stock, they are using their profits to enrich their stockholders and themselves even if it does nothing to help you their customer.

And finally, like tobacco companies, oil companies have no interest in supporting positions that might cost them money.  That's why oil companies have bankrolled scientists who question whether fuel emissions are contributing to global warming and contributed to political candidates who support greater fossil fuel use no matter what the cost to our air quality.

Oil companies are not the solution to our energy problems.  The good news is there are two other forces that could be.

The first is our capitalist system itself.  $4 gas has billions now being pumped into alternative energy sources like wind, solar, hydrogen and nuclear power by companies and venture capitalists who hope finding cheap, clean energy will pay them back several times over.  Some oil companies (the smart ones) are even looking to transform themselves into 'energy' companies that can provide many different forms of cheaper, cleaner power.

The second is government.  Just as the government broke up the infamous Standard Oil trust nearly 100 years ago and later mandated lead be removed from gasoline for health reasons, government can play an important role in creating a national energy policy and aiding in the development of new clean fuel technologies.

But right now, too many in government are focused on propping up what we've done in the past rather than investing in the future.  Just like the telegraph gave way to the telephone and VCR's and tape were replaced by DVR's and DVD's, Big Oil will give way to new energy companies employing new energy technologies whether politicians like it or not.  Those new technologies that can end our 'addiction to oil' is where our government's efforts need to be focused, but of course, the oil companies aren't going to tell us that.

http://www.kivitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8845566

How Brandi Swindell in China Exposes Our Problem with Messengers and Messages

Sometimes, I use this blog to elaborate on e-mail exchanges I have with viewers.  One wrote me yesterday incensed at our coverage of Brandi Swindell's protest and subsequent detainment by police in China.  I think it is reflective of a problem we have in America, which is we sometimes discount messages because of our personal feelings about the messenger.

First, here's the e-mail exchange (without identifying the viewer).

Her e-mail:  Why on earth are you giving air time to Brandi Swindel and her illegal activities in China?  She obviously hasn't gotten the message that China does not approve of her antics.  To publicize the fact that Brandi not only did not get the message but she and her cohorts are going to continue doing what they want is irresponsible on your part.  She is an embarrassment to the United States and I hope you are as willing to publicize the fact she is being kicked out when that happens.

My response: Thank you for your note, and giving me the opportunity to respond. The ‘illegal’ thing Ms. Swindell did in China was unfurl a banner and protest against Communist Chinese policies, including religious persecution, and she was detained for speaking out.  Exactly what about this do you object to?  If you agree with China’s policies, that is your right, but I don’t believe that is the viewpoint of the majority of Idahoans or Americans, who consider freedom of religion and speech ‘inalienable rights’ that should transcend national boundaries.

I understand Ms. Swindell is controversial figure, and I have personally criticized some of her viewpoints in my blog on our website in the past.  Nonetheless, the arrest of a Boisean in Beijing for advocating human rights is certainly newsworthy.  Not covering it would be reflective of some sort of bias and that would be irresponsible.

Her reply to my response: You seem unclear on laws of the other countries.  What she did was illegal.  She entered a foreign country with a U.S. passort with the intent to break the law. What part of that do you not understand?

My response:  I’m not unclear on the laws of other countries, just as I am not unclear on the past laws of this country that got Rosa Parks arrested when she illegally refused to sit in the back of the bus.  The two are analogous.  Just because a nation has laws doesn’t make them right. 

Ms. Swindell, like Rosa Parks, is making news because she practicing civil disobedience, a practice that is firmly rooted in American history with everything from the Boston Tea Party to the Civil Rights Movement.  In both those cases, Americans broke laws and in time were heralded for having the courage to protest in the name of freedom and equality.

Many like Ms. Swindell believe the Chinese should have the opportunity to hear voices that are divergent from the heavily censored message they get from their government, and whether you agree or disagree, her open civil disobedience in a land notorious for human rights abuses is newsworthy.

I don't for a moment believe this viewer does not support human rights or religious freedom, either here or in China.  I just think she dislikes Brandi Swindell, and therefore feels anything Swindell does must in some way be wrong.

People do the same thing politically.  Democrats who despise President Bush wince when you point out the U.S. hasn't had a terrorist attack since 9-11, as if he has been incapable of accomplishing anything good during his two terms in office.  Some Republicans shut down when Al Gore lays out the case that the earth is undergoing man-made climate change despite overwhelming non-political evidence it is true.  Our feelings for the messenger make us ignore the message.

We really can't afford to do that anymore, especially when it comes to the critical decision of choosing our next President.  I suspect Barack Obama got to where he is today in part because he has some good ideas.  I suspect John McCain got to where he is today because he has some good ideas.  Their messages should define how we feel about these messengers, not the other way around.

Yet I fear too many Americans aren't going to listen to them.  They'll reject Obama's or McCain's arguments outright ... not because the arguments don't have merit ... but because they don't for some reason like the man who is giving them ... just like the woman who finds herself defending Communist Chinese laws because of her personal feelings for Brandi Swindell.

But that's what can happen when you reflexively reject the message based on the messenger.  That's why I'm doing my best to listen to both with an open mind so I can make the best possible decisions on election day.