What it Takes to Get Attention!

Horrific images of blood soaked hands cover front pages of newspapers and magazines. They are all over the internet news sites. Who could imagine that people could commit such horrors? This must be an anomaly. Hopefully this will not grow from this one incident. Oh My!

Of course I am referring to Wednesday's attack in the Woolwich.

What if  Americans had just not heard of such crimes, particularly in the UK, in jolly old England? You might be interested to know that there is a rich history of knife crimes in Britain.

The number of knife crimes has dropped sharply in the past ten years, but according to a November 2012 House of Commons report written by Gavin Berman, “During the year to June 2012 there were approximately 29,513 recorded offences involving knives or other sharp instruments, The figure was twice as high back in the early 2000s.

That reduction could be at least partially due to an ever increasing number of knife laws. One of those is the 2007 Custodial Sentences and Weapons Act, in Scotland, requiring “knife dealer licenses.” These laws have been ratcheted up in acts from 1997, 1996, 1988, and of course the switchblade banning laws of 1958. This has been a big story for many years in the United Kingdom.

So, why have we not been seeing any of that British horror on the screen here in the USA? I mean after all, we get plenty of reporting from Britain: Royal weddings, Royal funerals and memorials, Royals in the military, and media scandals.

Were there no media resources (pictures and video) available from any of these 60,000 per year knife crimes a few years ago, or the 30,000 last year? I am sure that these butchers in Woolwich have seen the blood, and perhaps lived among the gangs that make street war, the werewolves of London.

It seems that the US Media, who tend to look at the UK in a starburst filter on the shiny objects of medieval institutions, are missing what is in the shadows. And it takes a public beheading, and a butcher who is willing to stick around and be photographed, for us to even take notice. 

Freaking out about Justice tapping AP?

We arrived at the north Lakeland, FL, low-income nursing home in the heat of the day, perhaps 1pm. It was blistering' hot. The old man whom we came to meet, a former farmworker, and the woman who ran the place, greeted us in the courtyard. She suggested that we do the interview sitting at a concrete table in the sun. I, the cameraman, was soaked in sweat already, from carrying the gear from the car, so I didn't really care. No lights needed here, so I sat up my sticks, and clipped on the mic. Suddenly a man in a suit walked up.

"I need to talk to this man before you get started."

I did not like his abrupt style. What is wrong with, good afternoon, or excuse me?

I turned toward him and said, "Who the fuck are YOU?" Better for the cameraman than the reporter to be direct. I was more blunt back then, in my mid-twenties.

He presented a wallet from his jacket pocket and introduced himself, adding "F-B-I," separating the letters like that.

I smiled, "You fucking followed us here, didn't you! All the way from Tampa?"

He smirked, very irritated. I did not let him respond. I continued softly, "You know if you listen while we are interviewing the gentleman, then you will know what to ask. I am sure that if you followed us here, then you really don't even know his name." He inhaled deeply. I continued, "Do you!" I pointed behind him. "There is a chair in the shade over there." He deferred. I was helping him. We proceeded with the interview.

We, a two-man local investigative television team, the WTSP-TV Action News I-Team, had been busting the US Attorney's … back, let's say, and were continuing to build a case, after a series and a documentary, that proved that a family was violating slavery laws. Someone at Justice, or in the US Attorney's office in Tampa, specifically, was convinced that we had inside sources. How did they know we were heading to Lakeland? Were they listening in on my reporter's phone calls? Were they literally following us out of the station? I DID have the only unmarked car at the station, a white Caprice wagon, albeit with five radio antennae sticking out of the roof, so it would not be hard to tail. I know that we, in our mid twenties, were proud that the FBI was apparently taking our lead.

Why would we be proud? I've said it many times; if you are really doing your job as a reporter, then the government, or a corporation, or a “target,” will be surveilling you.

Now, to today's point. I have hundreds of journalism friends. Many of them are flabbergasted, beside themselves, shocked, over the Justice Department monitoring the Associate Press. I do not like the shotgun approach that they apparently took with the AP reporters, but I maintain that if you are doing a good job, doing YOUR job, as a journalist, a real member of the fourth estate, then the government will be listening to you, tailing you, even trying to interfere with you.

To be truthful, in my investigative career, I was disappointed in government officials who had not been prepared for my arrival, like a California Health Department bureaucrat we questioned on a series about deaths at state mental hospitals. We fricasseed her. She thought that her pat answers would suffice, and they didn't, because we were prepared.

Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates, on the other hand, knew how to get info on reporters. When I interviewed him on an investigation into LAPD police dog bites, that included several cases of children killed by their dogs, he and his Public Affairs Officer, William Booth, who I think was a Commander then, had prepared well. They seemed to know which lawyers I had interviewed and had prepped for cases that they thought I might want to discuss. Again, I was impressed, yet, I still managed to surprise him by presenting a deposition that Gates had done a couple of years earlier. He looked at Booth who said, “I told you about this guy.” My source on the deposition had been very careful, because he was very experienced with LAPD, and consequently, even though I too had apparently been under investigation, we still managed to surprise the “J. Edgar Hoover” of local law enforcement. That source refused to talk on the phone, for instance.

So I look at the exasperation of those in news, about the government monitoring reporters. I ask myself why, and who the journos are who so upset, and I quickly realize that they are news managers, breaking news reporters, or virtual spokespeople for those whom they cover, and at the same time investigative journalists are sitting back wondering “What the fuck do you think they have been doing, all along?”

And yes, former farmworker, Edward Chestnut, DID eventually interview with the FBI agent, there in Lakeland, and later he testified along with a dozen other interviewees in our stories, at the trial that resulted in four convictions on slavery charges in US Federal Court, in Tampa.  

Credibility as Precedence

What does it say about the fourth estate that the network with the best reviews in their election coverage had low ratings?

The Washington Post's media reporter Erik Wemple praised CNN's coverage with a column headlined “CNN destroys cable competition on election night.” Among other kudos, he pointed out the detail within CNN's coverage, presented by reporter John King, “He breezed from counties in Florida to counties in Ohio to counties in Virginia, each time contextualizing precisely what was going on in the race,” Wemple wrote. He praised the investment CNN has made in their new studio.

Wemple excoriated FOX News for serving “pablum” of interviewing Sarah Palin, and mocked them for the Karl Rove meltdown.

But who wound up with the numbers, the bottom line of The Fourth Estate Sale? Well, it is hard to compare broadcast channels to cable channels, and NBC had the most prime time viewers with 12.1 million viewers (8p-11p). And sure enough, FOX News was number 2 with 11.45-million, then ABC at 10.52 million and CNN with 9.25 million. MSNBC, with their talkative host Rachel Maddow, was an also ran, in this race.

I pray that management at CNN decides, for the first time in years, that praise by those who professionally report on the journalism takes precedence over the ratings. CNN has greater revenue no matter, but hopefully they can hold up the Wemple column, among others, to answer taunts about ratings in election coverage.

Lord knows many of us former CNN editorial types have been, for many years, hoping that they would see the light. When FOX News first started leading in some ratings, I asked why we were trying to compete with their nonsense. After all, at that time, Anna Nicole Smith had higher ratings than either of us, and we were not trying to emulate her. Credibility and good reporting was all we had, so why sell it?  

Warning to News Managers!

News mangers, you are warned. In the coverage of hurricane Sandy, you allowed your reporters to put themselves in harm's way, senselessly. There is plenty of video evidence that numerous networks, just about all of them, including The Weather Channel/NBC, let their employees take idiotic chances.

I do not blame those who are out there, in the field. They are trying to make a name for themselves. Management has them on edge, insecure in their jobs, to the point where they will do anything to either please their bosses, or attract other job offers. That is the nature of the business and why people will do absolutely stupid things while they work. To hear them afterward rationalize their actions by indicating that their foolish acts show why people should not do it is ridiculous, and shows a certain amount of embarrassment. Why not tell the audience why you are inland, how dangerous it is at the beach, etc., and warn them not to venture into the danger zone?

As for the news managers, those who should know better, but are profiting off of the risk taken by their employees, again, you are warned. You can no longer act like you have no idea what is going on, or that you don't know that such coverage, standing out in the elements in a storm, is dangerous. You are aware. Any harm that comes to your employees, stringers, freelancers, etc., is now on your head. Read up on your local civil and criminal law, reckless endangerment, for example, could put your company out of business, when the inevitable happens. 

These two pictures represent video of two very close calls. 

   

Weather, you're on my mind.

It was around my brother's birthday, August 13, 2004. I remember because I was at his wife's family cabin in north Georgia. It was midnight and we were watching a 24-hour news cable channel. The host had a substitute. One of the questions that she asked was what the “mb” was on the pressure reading, “Is it megabytes?”

My problem with the coverage though, had nothing to do with their anchor. It was that at midnight it was a taped broadcast from 9pm! This hurricane, powerful enough that it would eventually cause $14.6-billion dollars in damage (note: not damages), had been ripping up Florida all day, and the domestic “broadcast” decision makers ran a taped show. At 9pm, the storm was slamming the Orlando area. At midnight, it was knocking down trees in Jacksonville, but we were looking at it hitting Orlando.

That was then, this is eight years later and I am wondering how far we have come.

Local stations have been hyping Isaac in south Florida, according to my long-time colleagues who live there. “Freaking out the population.” Better safe than sorry, but do it wisely.

There is a tropical storm that is forecasted to become a category two hurricane and make landfall in populated areas. From there, stick with the latest facts. There is no need to hype. The reality is interesting enough.

The information that one needs, including news producers, is readily available online. You can look at regular reports from the National Hurricane Center, every three hours, and more often as it approaches land. They have simple graphics. Perhaps the availability of information sources outside television, especially local, is what leads them to need the hype.

Keep it current: If you are producing the 11pm show, you can get the 11pm update with plenty of time to alter your show. The weather guys know it. The producers and EPs also need to know. Most do, but some of the cable news outlets have been slipping.

People learn to like nerdy weather information. They become addicted to it. They don't want your cliché shots of people buying stuff because you have hyped them into going out and clearing the store shelves. Show them more of the tracking maps, with less BS on the screen with the graph. We know what channel we are watching! Show them the best satellite images and the dance the storm is doing out there.

A word about cheerleading. “Don't.” I got a screen grab of a national weather person writing “Let's get this party started.” In the case of bad weather, perhaps you shouldn't say such things until after you know how the party turns out.

You hear it all the time, and it is understandable, “This is a great storm.” But, keep it real and you won't have to worry about cheering for the atmosphere. See, seems weird, right?

Once this thing is forecasted to be a Cat 2 making landfall in populated areas, whether it ever verifies or not, you have to step it up a bit, in terms of detail, for public service. Remember public service? Break out of your habits. Not all storms are the same.

An Example: On a network weekly news show today, they were talking about the potential impact of Isaac on the Republican convention in Tampa. They went to a beach live shot with their weather wing's reporter. It was a great opportunity to keep his answer, with advanced preparation, about the convention, what's the impact there if the current forecast verifies. Perhaps give a three days out snapshot of landfall forecasts, but why commit on that in the context of that show, at that time?

And as it moves to the northern gulf coast, as it is currently forecast to do, I am sure that we will be inundated with ill-advised copycat bait, on 200 different channels, with reporters trying to get street cred, or remain viable, fake-leaning into the wind, crew members throwing debris in the background so that it flies by the reporter, standing where no one should be.

Then, we'll see the aftermath, and how the party turned out.  

Sell Out to Tyranny

Funny how those candidates who spout off the most about "freedom" and "liberty" are the people who are proud to vilify the one institution that guarantees that freedom, the free press. The questionable way that press has been conducting itself at times jeopardizes its duty. But, then again, it is the free market pressure, touted by those same candidates, that makes the news media do those questionable things. In order for the fourth estate to work, its leaders must be dedicated to the principle and not to the stockholders.

Saul Alinsky Should be the Tea Party Darling!

Newt Gingrich is now constantly using the name Saul Alinsky to describe what we'll get if President Obama is re-elected. Media pundits are saying that most people don't know what he means by that. Some in the media say that the Russian name is meant to get those ignorant of Alinsky to think of Obama as very far left and radical, without even understanding who Alinsky was.

Gingrich's stump speech includes this about Obama, “If you look at his background he is really a lot more Saul Alinsky and radicalism than he is with traditional American models.”

So, who is this Saul Alinsky character anyway?

It might surprise many, including Gingrich, that Alinsky was vehemently opposed to welfare handouts to the poor. In fact he said, in an interview with William F. Buckley Jr. on his show Firing Line, “... the Poverty Program was a prize piece of political pornography. “ He was talking about the War on Poverty. My take on those comments is that Alinsky actually thought that welfare handouts were a counterproductive force for the poor community and were instituted so that politicians could act like they were doing something about poverty.

In that same interview with Buckley, Alinsky said, “I find myself very much in agreement with the thinking of the early revolutionary leaders. I'm thinking of men like Madison, Jay, Hamilton et cetera, who I think were extraordinarily politically sophisticated and very well read and very thoughtful in terms of implications of their actions.”

He went on to describe how the founding fathers were very aware that the situation would change over time and that society would need to adjust. “Whatever future there was, the future of an open society, it rested in the fact of having as many people involved as citizens being able to act as citizens, able to have power.”

Alinsky's community organizing was based on getting people to participate in democracy and the political process. “I'm using political strictly in the Greek sense here, whereby through getting together, through having a convention, through having an election of officers, agreement on policies, and so forth, they can turn to other sectors of society and say: here are our representatives; these are the men for you to deal with in the democratic give and take and decision making, et cetera. Without this, which I think is a primary element in the democratic mix, the whole democratic society begins to founder.”

So what in all of this could the Tea Party and Newt Gingrich have a problem? Is it that when these principles are denied people, when their voting rights are not honored, when their voices are not heard, that they show up at city hall in Chicago and shut down the city government until they are heard? Is that Gingrich's problem with Alinsky? Perhaps the people could show up at the US Capitol lawn, or the tea ships in Boston harbor to demonstrate. See, we are right back to the Tea Party.

I went to a learned friend to try and understand how Newt Gingrich could benefit from comparing someone to Alinsky. Alan Abramowitz, Political Science Professor at Emory University, a Stanford PhD in Poli Sci wrote to me “I think Republicans like to use people like Alinsky as punching bags because it goes over well with their conservative base, even when it doesn't really make sense. Very few of them know anything about Alinsky but it's easy to pigeon-hole him as a left-wing rabble-rouser. The words 'community organizer' are enough to set these people off, as we saw when Palin used them to go after Obama.”

But perhaps we are being too easy on Gingrich here, perhaps we are not giving him enough credit. Yes, it could be that the Russian name, Alinsky, is enough to attract the most ignorant voters to support Gingrich. There could be more to it though, as Alinsky's powerless, whom he organized, on the most part were poor and even more so that they were minorities, people of color. Perhaps it is not the radicalism of Alinsky's methods that Gingrich is using for political gain, but rather subliminal racism to attract those who, otherwise, totally agree with and emulate the democratic theories espoused by the son of Jewish Russian immigrants, Saul Alinsky.