via Giphy
"... No ... is the short answer. No is the short answer. To suggest that we are not interested in telling in microcosm a story about kerosene heaters and the use of various grades of kerosene ... Course we're interested in telling the story. And what we are saying to the public (is) 'Watch it, watch it, because though it is cheaper and though it is a space heater, there are dangers ...'"
1. Oh, if I had a nickel for how many times I've wanted to write an article explaining or defending my and my colleagues' reporting process. It's pointless, though. For starters, every article gives that explanation or defense. Every article serves as the record. From time to time, I get folksy and say things like "An article is singular, a story is ongoing." It's fair to say, though, that for some people, the story exists within the article.
2. Charles Nesson, Harvard Law School, moderates a four-part discussion-examination of how a segment for 60 Minutes (or "The Investigative Hour," as Nesson keeps calling it) is pitched and given a greenlight, produced including the research and interactions with everyday people, produced including the interactions with head honchos and reacted to, whether with approval or disapproval, by its audience. My summary is about as long as one of Nesson's setups. Those nine hours of discussion at Princeton must have flown by ...
3. It's funny that I watched Eye on the Media today, since I just finished an article on fire safety in the winter. The article came for a variety of reasons: a, I photographed firefighters responding to what turned out to be false alarms at two locations in town, but figured that I could still salvage the photos; a1, we needed a front page centerpiece article and/or photograph; b, this is the dead week before everything resumes in the new year, and I've been resisting writing articles about topics that are important in general but require a lot of facts and overall attention so as not to confuse or bore a reader (things like higher education funding in the 2023-25 biennium, or a school district's tax levy); c, I think fire safety is an important topic and I like reporting on it; and d, it's something of a tradition for us to do these kind of news you can use articles. Alas, those articles are not that much different than the filler we also run. I feel like today's issue is a bit like a big pamphlet.
Courtesy Charles Nesson
4. Part I, "On the Air?" (my titles, not the program's), deals with whether to report on possible hazards of space heaters. I'm certain that Nesson is making sure that as many facts as possible are presented, but he just comes across as hopelessly naive when he seems surprised that 60 Minutes segment producer Steve Glauber would consult with Mike Wallace and the show's creator-executive producer, Don Hewitt.
5. I will give a point for Nesson for leading the discussion to checkbook journalism. We're actually dealing with this right now at my paper. It's currently our policy that with for-profit events and even benefits, "No ad, no article." There are loopholes. The ad can be the size of a want ad. It doesn't have to be substantial. Still, this didn't sit well with one organizer and I suspect it won't sit well with others. I'm getting ahead of what happens in Eye on the Media, but in this situation, I let my publisher and her second in command respond.
6. We had another situation where people bought an ad for an event I planned to attend. It was a fundraiser for a planned arts center in the northern part of the county. I didn't go to the fundraiser because of a snow event. Last week, the center's supporters spoke in detail with the Fargo Forum. I was surprised, but I don't think there was any bad blood towards my paper. And I certainly don't feel like that ad guaranteed us exclusivity with the topic. On the other hand, I'm not in any particular rush to report on it myself.
7. A point for Hewitt, for getting onto the dangerous precedent when commerce occurs alongside reporting. I haven't watched North Dakota Today in a while, but I did appreciate that it would run disclaimers signifying when a segment was paid for. And yes, for some people, a morning show is still a news show.
8. For better or for worse, Geraldo Rivera, then with 20/20, makes his moment count. Who else would refer to pehaps excessive personal oversight as "masochistic self-inspection"? Still, though, Geraldo and I are in tune when it comes to covering your ass. "... The prudent thing to do is to wrap yourself in the mantle of the corporation ... for which you work. Why put your own individual career on the line when you can say, 'It's not me making this decision, it's ABC News, or indeed, ABC Inc., making this decision."
Courtesy Charles Nesson
9. Part II, "What Information Is Included?", starts with talking about what the public should know and if that information should be reinforced with footage of what shouldn't be done. This is interesting because in the last segment, Don Hewitt said 60 Minutes wasn't under any obligation to act as a consumer's advocate. Steve Glauber kind of continues with that idea, saying that he would film the consequences of using the wrong kerosene if it was discovered that this was a common practice among space heater users. Understandable.
10. The meat of Part II is Nesson questioning Mike Wallace. It should be noted that by December 1982, Mike was already well known as 60 Minutes' Great Inquisitor. But 1982 was something of a tough year for his professional reputation. It was the year he got in trouble for referring to "watermelon and tacos" being eaten by Black and Spanish-speaking bank customers who weren't paying attention to reportedly fraudlent banking contracts. It was also the year of The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception, which led to William Westmoreland suing for libel. According to Tom Shales, CBS News made a helluva lot more apologies for that documentary than Richard Nixon ever did for Watergate.
11. I should also mention that I used to own the book Tick ... Tick ... Tick ... The Long Life and Turbulent Times of 60 Minutes. One passage stands out: Morley Safer once did a segment on a home for retired opera singers. As it turns out, most residents enjoyed the environment, but couldn't understand why they were spending the rest of their lives with their inferiors. (The joke being that all of 60's on-air talent felt the same.)
12. Nesson analyzes Wallace's interview style, to Mike's growing discomfort. Mike's clearly against the idea that he would punch down and make the gas station employee selling kerosene, a potentially dangerous product, into a pariah in his community. He also insists that most people would not squirm in the face of direct questioning, while he himself is arguably squirming. He's definitely hand-jiving.
13. "It's a moment in which you understand quickly what the human factor is. You reach people, very well, that way, in a very -- I'm not afraid, not ashamed to use the word -- in a very dramatic way. To say, *snap* 'Wait a minute. This fellow is selling something that is potentially dangerous. He doesn't understand that it's potentially dangerous. Poor fellow's doing a job.' And it reaches all kinds of people in a very effective way."
14. I'm pretty sure the interview Dan Rather conducted in a meat locker was also a 60 Minutes segment, but I can't think of the context. Something about food safety? I also liked Dan making it clear that he doesn't work to get people. At the same time, at my most indulgent, I've mentally tweaked the Miranda rights. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of my pen."
15. William Agee participation in this is interesting to me. I can understand Bendix being represented, but Agee was then better known for his personal life. He married Mary Cunningham, his ex-executive assistant that he allegedly had an affair, earlier in 1982. Any publicity is good publicity?
Courtesy Charles Nesson
16. The executives finally get to make an impression in Part III, "How Accessible Are These Guys?" Naturally, they insist that they are available to the press. Dan Rather keeps insisting that's bullshit. One factor that I think should have been explored is that Dan Rather in 1982 would presumably have a better chance of getting to talk to a corporate leader than many other reporters at CBS. He's the evening news anchor, yet in his roleplaying, Dan does refer to himself as a 60 Minutes employee.
17. Nesson's naievete returns. I've always considered it good practice, when pitching or embarking on an interview, to at least let the person I'm interviewing have a general idea of what I'm interviewing them for. That said, I appreciate Nesson getting onto the topic of what the interviewed might expect vs. what the interviewer intends or accomplishes.
18. I did get a kick out of Herbert Schmertz, Mobil, saying that one way or another, Dan would get him. Going back to my star reporter fantasies, I once imagined a TV ad featuring various people not wanting to talk to me, damning themselves with their declining to comment.
19. Howard P. Allen, sporting an ugly sportcoat, brings up an interesting topic, one that had its roots in Mike Wallace's earlier comments. According to Howard, most businessmen would take Dan's call and would try to defend themselves. I agree with Howard to a point, but I think that John F. Lawrence, assistant managing editor of the Los Angeles Times, nailed it when he said that businessmen aren't as universally accessible as Howard insisted they are.
20. I also understand where Schmertz was coming from in pitching the idea of sharing positive information about space heaters, but I even more understand Don Hewitt's immediate refusal of that idea. Because, yeah, that's free advertising. Schmertz even said that all the advertising out there couldn't compare to the benefit that could come from time spent in the form of a 60 Minutes segment. Which comes back to my situation; an ad is nice, but when I write about something, it does bring a certain form of credibility.
21. Different Times! Lesley Stahl being described as someone who works "a different side of this business." That is true; it was still nine more years until she joined 60 Minutes. Nesson's question to Lesley brings up another interesting part of reporting. For some people, we're all the same. I can't tell you how often my paper is disparagingly compared to Valley News Live, a broadcast in Fargo.
Courtesy Charles Nesson
22. Finally, Part IV, "Was It Good Enough?" It opens with Don Hewitt giving his strongest thoughts on business seeming to expect reporters to act like spokespeople and copywriters. As I've mentioned, many of us have or do. Don, to his credit, implies his show is a counterpoint to that. Again, though, earlier in the discussion, he deliberately distanced 60 Minutes from a consumer affairs program.
23. The last significant bit of controversy comes from Frederick Taylor, The Wall Street Journal. Taylor distances his paper from 60 Minutes. "I think (the program) is marvelous drama. And has very little to do with journalism a good share of the time." Taylor actually called back to my star reporter fantasy, saying that Mike Wallace can achieve drama by reading the questions that he doesn't necessarily have to have William Agee answer. Mike's even more pissed by this, which I can understand. I'm sure that at the end of the day, he still considered himself a journalist much more than a TV personality.
24. Discussing the gap between journalism and show business actually got me thinking about gonzo journalism. CBS has arguably never gone all the way into Hunter S. Thompson land, but when you could watch 60 Minutes and feel like you understood Mike Wallace's personal feelings on what he was reporting about, things certainly weren't at the point of absolute objectivity.
25. From there, we get onto the topic of suing over how a story is presented. The most interesting part of this for me was CBS News Vice President Roger Coloff (once suggested by Shales as someone who could lose his job over the Vietnam Deception fiasco) sticking up for his reporters' rights to their intellectual property. "People can second guess us by going to court. People can second guess us in other ways. But they're not going to second guess us by substituting their editorial judgement for our editorial judgement."
No comments:
Post a Comment