I’ve been contemplating perceived bias, recently, and I think people see bias in reports or information that doesn’t match their personal stance, belief system, political beliefs, etc.  Even when the facts support a story, if it doesn’t agree with a viewer’s beliefs, they are likely to see that story as biased.  That’s unfortunate, but a reality.

We recently received the following e-mail in the newsrom:

On today’s news, you reported on the Bi-State group working on trying to save the Aresenal.  You gave an interview to a Union leader and cited speaking with Dick Durbin.  Why was there no interview with Bobby Schilling?  He stepped up, formed this committee, and brught all of the local leaders together from both sides of the river.

If you want to be perceived as a credible news organization, then give the truthful story to the public and not credit to those who do not deserve it.

The viewer brings up some seemingly valid points, actually.  However, the facts do not support his stance.  Here is the response one of my colleagues sent to the viewer:

I’m unaware whether or not anyone else from WQAD has gotten back to you on this, so I’ve taken time to do a little research specifically for you and would appreciate a response:

I’ll look forward to hearing back from you and hope you have a nice weekend.

At this point, the viewer has yet to respond.

Posted: February 6th, 2012 under Journalism, Viewer Response.
Comments: none

One of the most common comments on WQAD’s Facebook page is, roughly, “This isn’t news.  It’s not worth reporting.  It must be a slow news day.”

First, it got the person who made the comment to comment, so it’s worth posting.

Second, whatever the story is, someone is likely interested in it.  Thus, it’s worth reporting.

And, third, it’s on a Facebook page, for goodness sake!  Facebook is not WQAD’s main news outlet.  Stories are not created for WQAD’s Facebook page.  The page is used predominantly to interact with viewers by posting links to news articles, be they on wqad.com or another news source, such as ABC News.  It takes just seconds to post a link to a news article and ask for comments.  It’s not like WQAD is ignoring other newsworthy items to post a link and ask for comments on a specific story that some might not find newsworthy.  It’s a stupid, unnecessary, overly critical criticism.

Every time I see a comment saying, “It must me a slow news day if this is your news” I just want to reply, “Yep.  It’s a slow news day.  We’re not covering anything else whatsoever except this link to this ABC News story about a boy with pink toenails!”

Posted: April 13th, 2011 under Facebook.
Comments: 1

 This questions was recently posted to WQAD’s Facebook page:

The budget stalemate in Washington could mean that soldiers at war could not get paid if the government shuts down this weekend. Do you think this is fair? Tell us your comments and thoughts.

It prompted quit a bit of discussion, which is the goal of such a question.  But, it also prompted some nasty, uncalled for comments from some people.

It started with Karene:

I heard that THIS IS NOT the CASE — that even if there is a Govt shutdown — soldiers pay would NOT be involved!? … You might want to check YOUR NEWS first — before spreading false info!?

Eric followed later with:

That is false. You are reporting lies. The U.S. Military will get paid, The SS entitlements will be handed out. Do some research before you report things.

And from Tony:

I don’t want to see a shutdown however the idea that the military won’t get paid is simply untrue. Why a [news] service would post an inflammatory question like this when they should know it is untrue is beyond me.

Okay.  It’s valid to question news content.  While those of us reporting the news at WQAD strive to be accurate, we are, each of us, human.  We an fallible.  We can and do make mistakes.  However, I fail to see the need to bash WQAD for a mistake in such a cruel and condescending manner.  And, this isn’t a mistake!

I did some research and discovered military pay, indeed, is threatened by a government shutdown.  If the government shuts down this weekend, military personnel likely will not receive a paycheck until the budget issue is resolved.  That’s a fact.  It is not a “lie,” nor “false info.”  The person who posted the question did “check YOUR NEWS first” and did “some research before you report things.”  These accusations from those commenting are flat out wrong and inappropriate.

So, please, keep WQAD in check on its reports, but be respectful about it.

Posted: April 6th, 2011 under Facebook, Journalism, Viewer Response.
Comments: none

This morning, the GMQC crew posted this show tease on WQAD’s Facebook page:

Allegations of cheating last season prompt changes to voting on tonight’s premiere of Dancing with the Stars. What you need to know before you vote…on GMQC.

To which someone named “Dave” replied:

No one cares

This kind of comment fascinates me.  For one, Dave cared enough to leave a comment.  If he didn’t care at all, he would’ve ignored the post about DWTS.  Dave actually justified the tease post because it garnered a reaction, which is the goal of any WQAD post.

Of greater interest is the fact Dave is flat out wrong.  Dave used a definitive statement, which is inaccurate.  If “no one” truly cared, then 21 million people would not have tuned in to watch last season’s opening episode.  Dave is either guilty of believing that everyone thinks like him or uses words which he doesn’t actually mean.  A true statement would have been “I don’t care” or “Some people don’t care.”  “No one cares” is just flat out wrong and diminishes Dave’s credibility.

Okay.  It seems like I’m picking on Dave.  That is not my intent.  Dave’s comment serves as an example of what’s wrong with public rhetoric.  All too often, people use words and phrases as absolute statements for things that are not absolute.  It often comes from a place of “I’m right and you’re wrong” or can contribute to that mentality in others.  It’s easy to believe the majority thinks like I do.   When passionate about something, it’s even harder to recognize that I might share a minority opinion.  That, too, is a sign of perceived self-importance and superiority, which contributes to the “us vs. them” mentality that may be the worst part of current public rhetoric and is not reflective of a respect for a democratic society.  It falls more in line with dictatorship.

Or, everybody hates Dancing With the Stars.

Posted: March 21st, 2011 under Viewer Response.
Comments: none

One of today’s headlines is the resignation for the CEO of National Public Radio.  Vivian Schiller stepped down after NPR’s former senior vice president for fundraising was caught on undercover video calling the Tea Party “racist” and “scary”.  Ron Schiller, who is not related to Vivian Schiller, also questioned NPR’s need for federal funding.

The blogosphere is up in arms, with the right wing using this as an argument to pull federal funding for NPR.  I’m not going to argue that point.  What bothers me is the misconception that being unbiased in media means not having personal opinions.  As a journalist, I have political convictions.  As a voter, I need to have political convictions.  However, in my work, I make the effort to avoid allowing my political convictions to bias how I cover news stories.  I am capable of having an opinion and not letting that opinion affect the news I write.

It is unreasonable that anyone could be expected to be unbiased about all things.  Yes, it is appropriate to report news in an unbiased manner.  However, can any reporter avoid having personal biases outside of their news coverage?  That’s an unreasonable expectation.

Do I think that Ron Schiller should have said what he said?  Not necessarily.  I do not agree that anyone should be fired over it, especially since Schiller did not make the statement in a public manner as an official report.  This was not a statement intended to represent NPR and should not be taken as such.  I say things in the newsroom that would anger some viewers.  Should I be fired for making statements as an individual even though my bias is not evident in my newscasts?

Posted: March 9th, 2011 under Journalism.
Comments: none

The new “Dancing With the Stars” case was announced last night.  Today, we asked for feedback on our Facebook page and got some very common responses that prove the question was worth asking. Among other examples, these comments point to a verbalized disinterest in something that warranted a comment to verbalize disinterest.

Krissy writes, “i don’t think about it - EVER.”  And yet, Krissy took time to comment.  Aside from it eliciting a comment from Krissy, I also find it interesting that anyone feels the need to comment to the negative.  Why take part in the conversation if the topic is not of interest to you?  Just wondering.

Scott writes, “Noone cares, its time for real tv. No more reality type crap.” Ah, the overused absolute generalization.  Obviously, it’s not true that “no one” cares.  DWTS gets great ratings, so millions of people care.  Also, reality TV continues because it is popular.  So, again, people care.

Elaine writes, “I usually love to watch but it looks like they had a hard time finding “known” stars this year. Not so sure I’ll be watching this season. Yeah… more free time!!!” I disagree.  I think there have been past seasons with fewer “known” stars.  Just because Elaine doesn’t know most of them doesn’t mean most people don’t know them.  Kirstie Alley, Chris Jericho, Lil’ Romeo, Chelsea Kane, Wendy Williams, Sugar Ray Leonard and Ralph Macchio are well known, or at least once enjoyed popularity. That’s seven of the 11 cast members. And, the case could be made that Kendra Wilkinson and Hines Ward are well known.  So, two people are lesser known.  Hmm.

Posted: March 1st, 2011 under Facebook, Viewer Response.
Comments: none

I just received an odd call.  Now, odd calls are actually fairly common to the newsroom.  Still, I’m baffled every time I receive such a call, wondering why the caller thought this call was the correct course of action to take.

Me: WQAD Newsroom.

Caller: Yes, can you tell the Illinois Department of Transportation that their two workers are doing a great job patching Andalusia Road.

Me (intending to appease the caller with no intention of calling IDOT for him):  Okay.

Caller: Now, will you do that for me?

Me (refusing to out and out lie): No, sir.  We are not a messenger service, but I can give you IDOT’s number so you can call them yourself.

Caller (baffled): Um, okay.

Okay, I was a bit rude by saying we’re not a messenger service.  However, I was so taken aback that this person was able to look up the phone number to WQAD, but couldn’t look up the number to IDOT.  Why would someone think that the newsroom is the proper place to call to convey a message to a state department?  Weird.

Posted: February 15th, 2011 under Behind the Scenes.
Comments: none

The newsroom received a very angry e-mail last night on a topic that’s come up more often during President Barack Obama’s presidency than it did during the presidency of President George W. Bush.  The viewer is quite upset that Mr. Obama was referred to as Mr. Obama.

HE is NOT Mr. Obama…and in fact — EVEN before he became OUR PRESIDENT…he was NOT then Mr. Obama…but

rather he WAS SENATOR OBAMA…and now that he is OUR PRESIDENT…he should ALWAYS be REFERRED to as

PRESIDENT OBAMA…or President Barack Obama…those are the ONLY ways to refer to him!!!

First, let me note that I did not change any capitalization in that sentence.  Her e-mail is filled with shouted words.  Second, she’s wrong.

It is proper journalistic procedure to refer to the president by his full name at first reference.  Thus, the first mention in a story would be President Barack Obama.  It is then proper on second reference to refer to him as Mr. Obama.  Thereafter, it doesn’t matter, although that’s not agreed upon by all.  At third reference and beyond, he may be referred to as “the president” or simply as Obama as long as the first two references are used already.

Here’s the thing.  I understand the belief that referring to the president as Mr. anything seems disrespectful.  However, the president is the only person afforded this honor.  All other lawmakers, for instance, as referred to at first reference by their full name.  For example, Senator John McCain.  For second reference and beyond, only the last name is used.  Thus, it would never be Mr. McCain, as the use of Mr. is only used for the president.  It would simply be McCain or the senator or perhaps Senator McCain.

CBS White House correspondent puts it better than I in this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_162-2265934-500803.html?source=search_story&tag=contentMain%3bcontentBody

Interestingly, I started my career in journalism at the start of Mr. Bush’s presidency.  I wrote about him often and each and every time used the proper first and second references.  I don’t recall once receiving an e-mail to the newsroom regarding references to him as Mr. Bush.  Why is it more of an issue with viewers and the current president?

Posted: February 15th, 2011 under Journalism.
Comments: none

Last night, WQAD presented News 8 at 10 without commercial interruption.  It was 35 minutes of news, weather and sports without a break from 10:00 to 10:35, roughly.  A huge pat on the back goes to producer Lee Ann Watson for putting together an interesting newscast that presented quite a producing challenge.  Well done, Lee Ann!

Last week, our Internet Content Manager posted the announcement of the break-less newscast on our facebook page.  One of our viewers had this to say:

I don’t get the value in that. I could appreciate fewer commercials, for sure, especially if it meant that the newscast was shortened. But unless there is some important breaking news, it’s going to be 30 minutes of fluff and 5 minutes of weather.

Wow.  Pessimistic much?

I took some offense at this comment and remembered it well looking at Lee Ann’s rundown for last night’s newscast.  I was so impressed to see that Lee Ann had 19 minutes of “real” news without anything that could be considered fluff.  At 19 minutes, she included an interesting story about a Chicago man getting revenge on a snow shovel thief.  The video is viral and, therefore, it’s easily argued that the story is not fluff.  However, I can see how some (like the pessimistic commenter, perhaps) might label it as such.  Regardless, it didn’t air until 19 minutes into the newscast!  And, it was followed by weather and sports and no more fluff stuff!

So, 30 minutes of fluff and 5 minutes of weather?  Nope!  Way to go, Lee Ann!

Posted: February 8th, 2011 under Behind the Scenes, News 8 at 10.
Comments: none

And so it begins.

Today, Storm Team 8 forecasts a major winter storm to begin, with a few inches falling today and then a foot or more falling tomorrow afternoon into Wednesday.  That’s a lot of snow!

It also makes for a lot of phone calls.  As if handling the dozens and dozens of cancellations that’ll be phoned in tomorrow AND Wednesday, people are already calling the newsroom today - before a single flake has fallen!  They’re preparing, of course, for the pending snowstorm and a potential cancellation.  It stands to reason. However, on this end, it’s annoying!

It’s a struggle to deal with the phone calls for cancellations and then the angry phone calls when the cancellation doesn’t show up within 30 seconds.  Doubling the phone calls by adding today’s pre-prep calls just prolongs the struggle. Ugh. And, we don’t have a receptionist dedicated to taking these calls (though we should!)  So, right now, I’m the only person in the newsroom picking up the phone to answer “Do we need a password?” while also trying to put together today’s newscast.  It’s not going well.  And, the snow hasn’t even started!  Sigh.

Posted: January 31st, 2011 under Behind the Scenes.
Comments: none