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