I think I’ll use ‘Riding the news tide’ as the name for blog posts where I try to explain a bit how us reporter-types work, in TV, online or anywhere else. It ties back to my way of telling that my job is “riding the tide of the daily news.”
Case in point: Tonight, a provocative story on a bobcat trapped close to a popular hiking tail. We were made aware, and tonight had that hiker’s side, and the side of those who wish to ban traps, along with info – but no on-camera interview – about the state rules that allow such trapping, but not within 50 feet of certain publicly used trails.
OK, our usual package – the reporter-tracked stories – is 1 minute, 30 seconds. That may sound like a lot, but try picking up any written material and reading it aloud for a minute-30 – see how far you get into the newspaper, magazine article or book.
When folks cheer that we tell both sides of a story, I say something like, “Well we were lucky — this time there were only two sides.”
On the trapping issue, just for example, along with the hiker worried about his dog getting snared in a trap and the folks trying to restrict trapping, there are: the sheriff’s office or OSP investigating the possibly illegal trapping method, the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife for perspective on trapping regulations and the role of trapping in wildlife management, and of course — the trappers themselves.
There are probably more sides I haven’t thought of, beyond the general public and their views, based on whatever facts or misconceptions you might see or imagine.
Now, get that all in a minute-30. That’d be like half a sound-bite per side. Without any reporter-provided facts, stats etc.
That’s our challenge. We only get to scratch the surface. We cannot really do Dateline NBC hour-long specials, or 20-minute segments. It’s just not what we’re able to do.
So hopefully, in this case, in the next few days, we’ll tell more perspectives. And those who see one piece or the other will be sure as heck that we’re slanted this way or that.
Or, as with many issues, we will try to tell several perspectives as we follow the path of a public debate over a period of weeks, months, even years. That’s a big-picture kind of balance that one might not see (or believe) looking at any one individual segment or piece of the puzzle.
Add in that many people watch or listen to the news out of the “corner of their ear” while doing other things that involve … living one’s life, and the “did you hear?” partially accurate versions of what we say that can get misunderstood in second- or third-generation retelling, and … well, the opportunities for unintentionally upsetting someone or other expand exponentially.
I’m blessed – or cursed – with an ‘infinite amount of rope to hang myself” (heh) on the Web, where space is, basically, without limitation. But time, and a reader’s willingness to keep going, are limitations that come into play on even the most fascinating (to me) online story.
All this is not meant as an excuse, or a defense of not trying to be objective in every outing. But it’s a bit of the reality we face – just an explanation of things that might not be obvious at first glance.
I have another one to write in a moment. But that’s why I often say – not, again, to get away with anything, but just stating the facts: that “there’s always more to the story.” Always!
The nice thing about that is, that means there’s always more to talk about the next time, whenever that may be.
Leave it to Barney 