Global – Ryerson Review of Journalism :: The Ryerson School of Journalism http://rrj.ca Canada's Watchdog on the watchdogs Sat, 30 Apr 2016 14:26:17 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Can Leslie Roberts return to journalism? http://rrj.ca/can-leslie-roberts-return-to-journalism/ http://rrj.ca/can-leslie-roberts-return-to-journalism/#comments Fri, 16 Jan 2015 17:14:34 +0000 http://rrj.ca/?p=5648 leslie roberts Most people entering journalism school have big dreams for themselves in the media—anchor, lead foreign correspondent, daily political columnist. As we near the end of our four years here, many have tweaked their goals, taking positions at advertising and public relations firms that promise a salary large enough to pay rent and put food on [...]]]> leslie roberts

Most people entering journalism school have big dreams for themselves in the media—anchor, lead foreign correspondent, daily political columnist. As we near the end of our four years here, many have tweaked their goals, taking positions at advertising and public relations firms that promise a salary large enough to pay rent and put food on the table (these people have either given up or smartened up, depending on who you ask). Throughout our time in school, we’re taught how to work around the strong line between journalists and PR agents to get what we need. Apparently—untaught to us—straddling it is one of them.

Last week the Toronto Star reported that Global News suspended lead anchor Leslie Roberts indefinitely after Kevin Donovan uncovered he co-owned BuzzPR, a firm whose clients have appeared on Roberts’s shows. Roberts hosts The Morning Show and Toronto News Hour and is the executive editor of Global News. Yesterday, Roberts resigned from Global.

Various BuzzPR clients, such as Jacque Somerville, have appeared on The Morning Show and other Global segments. Others, like the app Checkout 51, have garnered praise from Roberts on air. Roberts told the Star that although he is creative director and has an “equity” stake in BuzzPR, he has never taken a salary or payment for having clients on the show and credits their appearances to the work of other employees.

But what Roberts didn’t do was tell his colleagues or viewers that he was reading pitches and giving media training to clients of BuzzPR, possibly the same companies that wound up on Global.

Global spokesperson Rishma Govani said the network takes “matters of journalistic integrity very seriously.” We’ve seen other networks try to protect their stars until it’s no longer possible—most recently with the Ghomeshi affair—and that’s probably the worst thing Global could have done. Roberts was groomed to be the centerpiece of the network’s news coverage, and with him as anchor, it pushed passed CityNews into Toronto’s top three most viewed dinner hour newscasts. But that doesn’t seem to have phased Global, whose two internal investigations were swift.

So what does Roberts do now? He initially told the Star he’d resign from BuzzPR, and that at the anchor desk, nothing becomes between him and a story. But if his work at BuzzPR didn’t affect Global, why keep it a secret?

Even if Roberts works as a journalist again, he’ll always be the newscaster who brought on his own clients. It will be difficult for anyone to trust him—if that’s fair or not—whether he’s doing lifestyle or hard news.

Integrity is the toughest thing gained and easiest lost in journalism, but it’s the most essential to producing any piece of quality work. Even if this conflict of interest didn’t affect 95 percent of Roberts’s coverage, viewers aren’t obliged to trust him anywhere, as we often feel when someone’s behind the anchor desk.

Roberts told the Star, “I agree this doesn’t look very good.” And it probably won’t ever, even if he somehow gets back on television.

 

Thanks for Damien D. for the photo. 

]]>
http://rrj.ca/can-leslie-roberts-return-to-journalism/feed/ 21
Selling the second-screen experience http://rrj.ca/selling-the-second-screen-experience/ http://rrj.ca/selling-the-second-screen-experience/#respond Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:35:18 +0000 http://rrj.journalism.ryerson.ca/?p=282 Selling the second-screen experience By  Harriet Luke Five medical experts enter the Ideas Room on the third floor of the Canadian Broadcasting Centre in downtown Toronto. They’ve flown in from Saskatchewan, Wisconsin and England to help tackle some complex data. It’s 9 a.m., and the glass-walled room provides a sense of openness as Anita Elash, an associate producer at The [...]]]> Selling the second-screen experience

Illustration by Jeesoo Shim

By  Harriet Luke

Five medical experts enter the Ideas Room on the third floor of the Canadian Broadcasting Centre in downtown Toronto. They’ve flown in from Saskatchewan, Wisconsin and England to help tackle some complex data. It’s 9 a.m., and the glass-walled room provides a sense of openness as Anita Elash, an associate producer at The Fifth Estate, passes the experts notepads, and five-page booklets containing a few questions to consider. Their mission is to create the first national online rating system for Canadian hospitals. The idea is to give viewers the opportunity to go online and rate their hospitals in five categories: respect, communication, timeliness, cleanliness and whether or not they would recommend them.

There’s a quick demonstration of a similar Irish website, then the conversation flourishes between the experts and the CBC team. They discuss the availability and limitations of medical data. After 5 p.m., the meeting comes to a close, but the discussion doesn’t end there, as Elash will continue to relay emails and phone the experts with questions.

Rate My Hospital required one of the largest teams Jim Williamson, executive producer of The Fifth Estate, has ever assembled. Within 24 hours of the website’s premiere in April 2013, the online rating system had over 23,000 responses and plenty of comments—some positive, some negative. Along with the rating tool, CBC assigned letter grades to 239 facilities across the country. This was the part of Rate My Hospital designed to ignite conversation about the state of Canadian healthcare. Indeed, the grading system sparked the most controversy; the hospital report card was the bait that hooked Canadians and reeled them in to the website.

Creating new experiences that differ from passive TV watching keeps viewers interested and entertained—and news organizations relevant. Multiplatform stories are a matter of survival for broadcasters, says Williamson. But they’re also an opportunity: data-led investigative projects engage audiences and offer a chance to stand out in a noisy online world. Since stories can live longer outside the television set, producers are turning to interactive features and online experiences to capture and keep a loyal audience.

***

With the average Canadian spending 45 hours per month online, broadcasters face the challenge of keeping their audience’s attention. One way they can do this is by taking advantage of the fact that 50 percent of Canadians have a smartphone or tablet with them while watching television, and offering a “second screen” experience that lets viewers interact with a show via social media or a website. Broadcasters can also create interactive and multiplatform stories that offer audiences a way to consume information before or after the show. Interactive features encourage viewers to take part in the story, allowing them to leave the passenger’s seat and put both hands on the steering wheel.

As television audiences move online, the ability to connect with viewers means greater engagement and a larger community for the broadcaster. “The vast majority of creators, producers and broadcasters now embrace the fact that you cannot tell a story in a screen-based industry without reaching out on all platforms,” says Catalina Briceno, director of industry and market trends for the Canada Media Fund. The CMF is a public-private partnership created in 2010 by the Department of Canadian Heritage to fund and promote productions.

Over the past few years, the CMF has seen a steady increase in the number of applications from digital media. According to the organization, “funding to English documentary digital media components has grown . . . from $0.7 million in 2011–2012 to $5.5 million in 2012–2013.” Its 2013–14 budget is $360.7 million.

Rate My Hospital is one example of a multiplatform project. CBC aired the documentary segment two days after launching the online rating system. Throughout the show, host Bob McKeown reminded viewers to check the site and rate their hospitals, then see how the broadcaster graded each facility. This allowed the show to live past its air date, drawing viewers back to the website to see how other Canadians rated various hospitals.

What was different about this project was that the website acted as the first screen. Williamson says getting important information about hospitals out there was the priority. “For months I resisted assigning people to do the television show,” he says, noting that he wanted it to be largely an online story. Marissa Nelson, senior director of digital media for CBC news and Centres, wants her staff to continue to challenge the standard storytelling format. “I don’t think there’s enough of that in Canada,” she says. From a business perspective, this type of tool is about creating loyal viewers and an audience that will want to tune in week after week—and about getting people to stay on the site longer. “Maybe they stay 10 minutes instead of two,” says Nelson. “And they’re more likely to remember CBC news than any other competitor.”

***

Anna Mehler Paperny, senior producer of data desk investigations at Global News, works two desktop computer monitors, scrupulously analyzing Excel spreadsheets. What looks like the equivalent of an unfinished Rubik’s Cube is, to Paperny, a collection of patterns to be discovered and puzzles to be solved.

Senior web co-ordinators Patrick Cain and Leslie Young sit across from her. Cain is soft-spoken, but his hands animate as he talks about analyzing the data he deals with. He can tolerate repetitive work, but admits that when handling multiple spreadsheets, “It can be really easy to screw up.”

A bigger problem, though, is gaining access to data from governments and private companies. “When those bastards make it hard for me to get something, it motivates me even more,” says Cain, adding that the information he usually wants comes in PDF files—making it difficult to transfer the data into an Excel document so he can analyze it. But the team saves time by using software and templates from previous pieces.

The results are often worth the headaches. Young’s series The Gardiner: Trouble Overhead won the 2012 Radio Television Digital News Association awards for best in-depth and investigative series and best digital media series. For that look at Toronto’s slowly crumbling Gardiner Expressway, she created an interactive map that showed where concrete was falling. Along with the map, Global wrote a series of articles with embedded links via DocumentCloud to show that the city “downplayed Gardiner structural concerns.”

The data desk posts as much of the original data as it can. “People want to know where this information comes from,” says Paperny. David Weisz, a freelance digital journalist who has done work for Global, says, “You can run a print story with unnamed sources, but you just can’t do that for data.”

Created in 2010 to produce original pieces for the web and provide additional context for news stories, the data team originally worked at Global’s satellite office in downtown Toronto, but now sits in the centre of the main newsroom in the suburbs. The move came after executives realized just how important the team’s work is. “If we want to distinguish ourselves from other news organizations,” says Ron Waksman, a senior online director at Global News, “it is not enough to take what we do on the broadcast side and push it across to online.”

He says there’s a gold mine of undiscovered information that has sat untouched and he wants his team to dig into it. “Oxycontin’s gone, but Canada’s pill-popping problem is worse than ever” went up on Global’s website in March 2013 with graphs and charts that viewers could click for more information. This led the team to the November 2013 data-led story that showed deaths from opioid use had declined while those from other painkiller prescriptions had drastically increased. “Data can change from year to year,” says Paperny. “This means you can continue a story a month or a year later and people will still be interested.”

***

Armed with leaked financial documents that exposed offshore tax havens, CBC’s Special Investigations Unit decided to produce an interactive to make the complicated information accessible to everyone. But during the first couple of meetings for Stashing Their Cash, the journalists and tech team were speaking different languages. “I had no idea what was going on,” says Harvey Cashore, senior producer of the unit, and it took a few meetings for the two groups to understand each other as they brainstormed ideas. “We realized that my idea was far too complex and would have taken probably two years to build.”

This is not unusual. “A lot of the time I’m trying to get the person making the TV show to let go of their preconceived notions,” says Sean Embury, principal and creative director at Fulscrn, a company that helps networks with creative development and accessing funds. He believes this type of storytelling provides another level of comprehension that television can’t always provide, but broadcasters often underestimate how long it takes to produce a complex interactive story. Even the research for these ambitious investigative stories can take a lot of time; Rate My Hospital, for example, took about nine months to create.

Multi-screen experiences can be costly and can require hiring experts, as Rate My Hospital and Stashing Their Cash did. Fortunately, a lot of material and research that goes into a television show can also be used for its accompanying online interactive piece. Embury cites Truth and Lies: The Last Days of Osama bin Laden as an example of how CBC maximized its content. Interviews gathered for The Fifth Estate episode were incorporated into the online story. “I don’t want to spend twice as much telling my story five different ways or on five different platforms,” says Embury, “so a lot of it has to do with planning.”

Williamson’s team now has weekly meetings to discuss how best to communicate stories and on what platform. CBC won’t be able to do big projects all the time—Nelson says the network will focus on one or two a year and try to knock them out of the park—but the numbers make them attractive. Rate My Hospital has drawn more than two million page views and nearly 64,000 ratings on the patient rating tool. During the 2011 federal election, the Vote Compass tool, which asks users a series of questions and matches them with the most appropriate party platform, had almost two million respondents. And Stashing Their Cash, one of CBC’s most successful interactive stories, was shared on websites such as NYTimes.com.

***

Alex Bottle, an associate professor of medical statistics, arrived from London the night before the Rate My Hospital expert panel meeting. CBC wanted his advice on measuring and presenting the information gathered to rate the hospitals. Bottle spent weeks researching the Canadian healthcare system to prepare. While eager to be a part of the project, and knowing that CBC wanted to get it right, his initial concern was that this was being done for the first time in Canada—and by journalists.

Gary Teare, director of Quality Measure and Analysis with Health Quality Council Saskatchewan, was worried the journalists didn’t truly understand the limitations of the data they were looking at. “I’ve been doing this for years,” he says, “so I’m aware of how difficult it is.”

The holes in the data were not CBC’s fault; individual hospitals record information such as infection rates differently, and some hospitals aren’t required to report much at all. Elash was surprised by how little information is available to the public, and by the secrecy surrounding hospital data. Teare says CBC did the best it could with the information it had, but the “fundamental weakness in the analysis is the reliability of the underlying data to begin with.”

Because of this, some of the experts worried about the plan to rank the hospitals A through D. “I was less thrilled about the grading system,” says Teare, who attempted to put together an Ontario hospital report card 10 years ago. Back then, he and other medical experts had the same questions as CBC but didn’t create a “multiple-level grading system because the data wouldn’t support it.”

Elash says the report card was a way to start a conversation, and it did a good job of that. But some experts thought it was a way to get attention with controversial content. Sholom Glouberman, president of Patients Canada, says, “I thought the project was very dangerous. . . . What it did was it eroded people’s confidence in the healthcare system unnecessarily.”

He believes it also reinforced the notion that healthcare issues are the fault of individual hospitals and acute care, when the public should be focusing on chronic conditions and how well our system manages them. Yet it did start a conversation between the public and healthcare providers, and got people thinking about the way Canada’s system works.

Vote Compass also generated discussion. Heather O’Brien, a professor at the School of Library, Archival and Information Studies at the university of British Columbia, used Vote Compass during the last B.C. election and says finding out which political party the tool assigns you became a hot topic among her colleagues. “It was sort of a game around the lunch table,” says O’Brien. “‘So what did you turn out to be?’”

Part of her research looks at what motivates people to use a particular website. When it comes to news sites, visitors value the various aspects of multiplatform stories differently. “For some people, the value added is the content, and other people really think about the value in the interactive components,” she says. “It’s a really complex puzzle of different users with different motivations.”

Some users had a problem with Vote Compass’s content. Brian Kelcey, a Toronto public policy consultant and former Conservative aide, argues the tool assigns values for voters based on their opinion of a party rather than on the party’s actual accomplishments; it shows platforms but doesn’t provide any links to past performance. “The CBC has access to this information,” he says. The interactive also doesn’t account for changes in policy during campaigns, which can cover decisive issues. Kelcey believes the tool is put up in a rush come election time, adding, “There’s such a race to get the Vote Compass engine out to draw clicks and users and page views into the CBC website and get everyone hooked on their election coverage.”

***

Technology lets producers link to more information and add more depth to the stories they tell, but interactive, data-led investigations are also changing the editorial direction. “The force used to be from broadcast to online,” says Waksman. But that isn’t what viewers want now; they want original reporting. “The future is not about commodity news, what happened today,” he says. It’s about going deeper into stories, investigating and providing analysis and context.

News organizations realize that smartphones, tablets and laptops aren’t necessarily second screens anymore. Waksman sees Global as a network, not a broadcaster, and it needs to provide its audience with a variety of ways to consume and interact with news. “You apply the medium that makes the most sense.”

Waksman plans to add to his data desk team and Elash plans to keep Rate My Hospital going. “It was a call to hospitals to be accountable, to be open, and I think you can’t call for that and go away,” Elash says. “You have to stay on the story.”

The former freelance health reporter and Toronto Sun staffer is working on meeting with her experts again. CBC will launch a new version of Rate My Hospital in the fall, and this time, the team will have a better sense of the challenges, says Elash. “We didn’t fully understand what we were up against.”

]]>
http://rrj.ca/selling-the-second-screen-experience/feed/ 0
Under the Gun http://rrj.ca/under-the-gun/ http://rrj.ca/under-the-gun/#respond Sat, 11 Jan 1986 20:59:14 +0000 http://rrj.journalism.ryerson.ca/?p=1247
For 17 days during the TWA hijacking in beirut last June, terrorists took over the airwaves as the networks battled each other for the inside story. In the months that followed, American networks came under fire for giving up their editorial control in exchange for drama. Meanwhile, networks that relied heavily on the American footage, including those in Canada, were able to avoid the heat. George Bain, who writesMaclean’s “Media Watch,” says this troubles him. “It’s the handling of the story by American networks that everyone talks about,” he says. “Even if we had nobody in Beirut at the time, we’d still pick up the tape from ABC, NBC or whoever had the best stuff. I don’t think Canadian networks can fob off the problem by saying, ‘It’s an American problem.'”

It indeed has become a big American problem. Competition and modern technology have become dangerous partners in the broadcasting of international political terrorism. Terrorists seek a plat-form for their causes and demands, and television gives them that platform-on a global scale. Adds Bain: “It’s a triumph for the terrorists when they are able to command the attention of the major networks that feed the world. The more terrorism succeeds, and I think publicity helps it to succeed, the more of your citizens you’re putting in jeopardy. You’re giving terrorists incentive to do it again.”

By giving a platform to terrorists, television journalists are giving away their editorial control. Handcuffed by the violence, they are handing over their microphones and saying, “Speak to the world.”

And they do. During the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, West Germany, Arab terrorists kidnapped and murdered 11 Israeli athletes. This action and the fact that all eyes were on Munich was no coincidence. Today, terrorists no longer have to go where the cameras are. The cameras will come to them. That was the case on June 14 when hundreds of journalists flocked to the Middle East after Shi’ite gunmen hijacked TWA Flight 847, demanding Israel free 766 Lebanese prisoners. In their own backyard, the terrorists effectively controlled the situation. Information was hard to come by and even harder to confirm. But this only added to the competition as the U.S. networks sacrificed more and more of their editorial control in order to fill the evening newscast. The networks, for example, aired a Visnews tape even after the Shi’ites had seized and deleted the parts they didn’t endorse.

There appeared to be no limit to how far the U.S. networks would go to get a story. Ann Medina, CBC’s correspondent in Beirut at the time, was amazed at what went on. Recalls Medina: “I was a witness to one of the network people really doing a con job on one of the hostages. He was saying, ‘Stick with us, we’ll phone your family for you.’ In this type of situation, a letter or a call home is much more valuable than money.”

Viewers got a chance to see this competition in action on the sixth day of the crisis. Members of the Amal militia, the Lebanese ruling faction at the time, actually held a press conference for the media to meet five of the hostages. When these hostages were first brought out, the approximately 150 journalists present became so unruly that the Amal threatened to cancel the conference. After a 20-minute delay, the journalists promised to play by the Amal rules and the conference continued. That evening, the event was given extensive coverage. It was the first chance to see that some of the hostages were still alive, but the networks kept the cameras rolling as the hostages repeated the demands of the hijackers. The networks said later that the terrorists were not getting equal airtime. But as Newsweek‘s Jonathan Alter wrote, “As the hostages increasingly conveyed the terrorists’ message the Amal didn’t need its own air time.” For almost two weeks, the same hostages were repeatedly brought before the cameras by the Amal. What made the situation worse was the fact the networks, whenever it was possible, broadcast these press conferences live.

The overexuberance of the U.S. networks extended far beyond the broadcasting of terrorist propaganda. As the crisis dragged on, the networks clearly crossed the line between covering the story and becoming part of it. ABC’s David Hartman, anchorman for Good Morning America, played the part of mediator during an interview when he asked Amal leader Nabih Berri, “Any final words to President Reagan this morning?” NBC and ABC were both criticized for broadcasting the movements of Delta Force, the U.S. anti-terrorist commando team, only hours after the hijacking began. Besides this possible threat to American contingency plans, the constant interviews with hostages acted as an emotional plea to U.S. and Israeli officials to do something quickly to end the crisis. In one interview, Berri himself told Americans they should write their president to seek the release of the 766 Shi’ite prisoners in Israel. But perhaps the most ridiculous example of how far competition drove U.S. journalists was ABC’s correspondent Charles Glass’ interview with John Testrake, the captain of the hijacked plane. As Testrake leaned out of his cockpit window, a gun held to his head, Glass inquired: “Captain, many people in America are calling for some kind of a rescue operation or some kind of retaliation. Do you have any thoughts on that?” One has to wonder what Glass, a veteran Middle East correspondent, expected the pilot to say or, worse, what he hoped he would say. Glass later admitted he was unprepared for the interview. But that didn’t stop ABC from getting the exclusive.

By keeping the cameras rolling whenever the Shi’ites spoke or acted, the real news became lost in the drama and the editorial control was further surrendered. It was, as former president of CBS News Fred Friendly put it, “like handing over the front page to one side and saying, ‘Fill in the headline.'” For their part, the Shi’ites even went so far as to post a notice in one of the hotels that all film footage should be pooled.

Enter the Canadian networks. With only a handful of reporters in Beirut at the time, Canadian television news was filled with pooled footage, much of it American. And like their counterparts to the south, Canadian network executives failed to separate the news from the drama. They, too, were held hostage by the terrorists.

On one Global newscast, three Amal officials demanded that the U.S. remove its navy aircraft carrier from the waters outside Beirut. If they didn’t, the officials said they could do nothing about getting the hostages freed. It was like the Amal Broadcasting Corporation. When the Amal spoke, the cameras rolled. Global, which relied totally on foreign footage for its reports, also aired an interview with Testrake (gun to his head) and possibly served to generate sympathy for the Shi’ite cause by’ calling Israel’s roundup of prisoners a “so-called iron-fist sweep through Lebanon.”

During the 17-day ordeal, Canadian networks repeatedly showed film of the same few hostages making the same few demands-that Israel free the prisoners and that the U.S. avoid any rescue attempt. The terrorists’ message was coming through as loud and clear on Canadian television as it was on U.S. television. On CBC’s The National, hostage spokesman Allyn Conwell repeated substantially the same message on five separate nights.

“You have to report it in context,” says David Bazay, executive producer of The National. “We know they’re going in there seeking some type of a platform. Our job is to reflect reality and report the news-what’s going on.”

During that chaotic first press conference, CBC did not do a very good job of reflecting reality. The footage of the conference showed a group of hostages who appeared to be more frightened by the unruly mob of reporters than they were by their captors. When things settled down, Conwell, clean shaven and wearing a neatly pressed Ocean Pacific T-shirt, calmly and with apparent sincerity, urged Israel to free the prisoners. He was sitting at a table neatly covered in white linen and plates of sliced cake. Reality, in this case, had been distorted. Nowhere in the newscast did the CBC try to cut through the guise of civility of the conference.

As for putting it into context, the CBC missed the mark again. Said anchorman Peter Mansbridge in his lead: “The hostages did manage to get their message across. They said the 40 Americans are being well-treated by their Shi’ite Muslem captors. They again warned Ronald Reagan not to try and rescue them. And they asked Israel to free the 766 prisoners so that they, the hostages, could go home.” Again, it wasn’t the hostages’ message but the terrorists’. And almost forgotten were the Americans who hadn’t been well-treated, including Robert Stethem, the murdered hostage who was buried that same day.

Later in the week, after Barbara Frum chatted with Nabih Berri on The Journal and reporter Paul Workman announced that Delta Force was on its way, CBC went so far as to air, on two occasions, a videotape made by the terrorists. The film wasn’t very dramatic; two men in a room with little light. “How do you feel?” asked a member of the Shi’ite militia. “I feel good,” replied the hostage.

“People have to judge,” argues The National‘s Bazay. “We’re giving people information. Based on that information, they have to judge.”

A former correspondent who has seen terrorism first hand, Bazay doesn’t believe the CBC acted irresponsibly last June. But the truth is, following the wild press conference, Shi’ites were parading the streets of Beirut over what they considered a major propaganda coup. CBC’s own John Scully was there to report it.

Bazay does admit there is a problem to be dealt with. “There is a gun at the media’s head, I suppose,” he says. “The real question is not that they’re holding a gun to the heads of the hostages, but that they’re pointing it at the media. They’re saying, `You guys cover this.’ And we do.”

None of the Canadian networks have any written guidelines specifically dealing with the coverage of terrorism. But this could change. “I think there is a need for guidelines,” adds Bazay. “We’re working on some here. We need to make sure that we do not become part of the event, that we’re not taken over by the terrorists, spewing out raw propaganda.”

Internal guidelines, however, are limited by the instincts of competition. One network is not going to impose restrictions on itself while its competitors continue to report everything. It comes down to drama, once again, and drama sells.

“Competition in the media is so incredible it does cause people to do things they wouldn’t normally do,” says Wendy Dey, executive producer of Global’s World Report. “Let’s face it, news coverage can be very dramatic and you want to make it dramatic on the air. That’s just the natural given thing when you’re in the news media. You have to balance that with being responsible.” Like Bazay, Dey recognizes that there is a problem. “I really think that the media have recognized, in the last two years, how much of a part they are playing in terrorism events. I’m saying-rather optimistically-that the media realize the dangers involved and that some members of the media are becoming aware that they can get caught up in and directly affect the outcome of a terrorist event. I think that in a little bit of time you’ll see everybody saying, ‘I don’t want ‘ to get directly involved. Let’s just do our job and report it.’ I definitely think that if the senior news executives got together and decided what was responsible, most media outlets would abide by certain guidelines. But it hasn’t been done yet. Who would initiate it? Somebody who felt really strong about it.”

But herein lies the catch. Not all of the top network executives would want to get together. Some don’t even think there’s a problem.

“I think this media and terrorism thing can be excessively exaggerated,” says Mark Starowicz, executive producer of The Journal. “I don’t think the media causes terrorism. I don’t agree with that at all. We’ve got nothing to complain about here in Canada. What we’ve got is a pretty damned responsible press. This attempt to import American hysteria into Canada, just so we can feel like grown-up journalists, is really nonsense.” Adds Tim Kotcheff, CTV National News executive producer: “I never forget about my responsibilities. In fact, they’re heightened during these types of situations.”

Bain, for one, is not reassured by such pronouncements. “That attitude doesn’t surprise me at all. Television is so chronically self-satisfied in this country. At some point journalists will have to take a broader look at this thing. Even when it’s not their own coverage Canadian networks are buying the most dramatic stuff from the American networks, so you can’t divorce yourself from it completely.”

Walter Stewart, former editor of Today magazine and now director of the School of Journalism at King’s College in Halifax, shares Bain’s concern. “It’s not just an American problem,” he says. “It’s a worldwide problem. In print, you can give the reader background. When you’re on TV, you simply turn the cameras on a subject and you become his captive. Television, apparently, is saying there are no rules when it comes to covering terrorism. There’s a very real danger in journalists saying they’re neutral. If television journalists don’t take the responsibility to set up some rules, then sure as hell someone else will do it. The time is now due, if not overdue, for TV executives to sit down and work something out.”

By “someone else” Stewart means the government. In the 1970s, governments in Italy and West Germany were forced to initiate restrictive legislation to deal with terrorism. And in Britain, the government and media made a voluntary agreement on guidelines for coverage of terrorism.

Recently, hardline politicians in the U.S. have been calling for government intervention in order to control the coverage of terrorism. In a country where the word freedom is sacred, this will likely never happen. But the fact it has come to this extreme may be a warning signal for journalists throughout the Western world to reassess how they’re covering the news.

]]>
http://rrj.ca/under-the-gun/feed/ 0