Grading the New NBC 3 Local News:

Must-See TV?

• A reporter stood “live” in a desolate Brisbane field telling of a police officer who thought he spotted Oregon family-murderer Chris Longo. But, both local police and the FBI told reporter Sandy Castelblanco they thought the cop was mistaken. It was apparently a false alarm. Yet it still ran in the top half of the newscast. A repudiated sighting of a killer plays to fear, but does nothing to advance an otherwise legitimate story.

• A tree fell on a house in Redwood City leaving a resident grateful for life, but we didn’t learn what kinds of trees, or age of trees, or condition of trees might make others vulnerable. The story served only to raise fears.

• The station led its Friday, January 4 report with a replay of an emotional plea from parents that had already aired on a previous newscast. Stoking fears of another gut-wrenching child abduction, the tearful parents begged for the safe return of their son. Turned out, the 11-year-old boy was merely at his cousin’s house a half-mile away.

At best the story was premature. But rather than apologizing for crying wolf, the station took credit for the boy’s discovery and promised live coverage of the reunion with his parents. It was one of two reunions Channel 11 presented among its top stories. The other was a two-part series on a local woman meeting her long-lost brother. Great material for home movies, but not news for a mass audience.

While the absence and return of a son to parents who apparently hadn’t bothered to check with nearby relatives, makes for dramatic television, it does little to address events and issues that matter to many Bay Area residents. On the same night, only 16 seconds were allotted to a report that unemployment had reached a six-year high; 33 seconds were spent on the failure of many divorced men to pay support for their children; falling home prices rated a half minute; a new state tax form that promises much faster filing merited 15 seconds.  

Typically, sources who speak on camera are almost always identified either in the reporter’s narrative or in an on-screen label. But not on Channel 11. Again and again nameless sources appeared and spoke. Others spoke without appearing. Once a strange new voice joined the narrative during a shot of a terminally ill man receiving care from his family. Another time, several unidentified voices chatted while the camera panned a rockslide threatening a San Francisco condominium complex.

Failing to identify sources isn’t an issue when those sources are volunteering quick reactions from a crowd, or when a trustworthy source seeks anonymity to avoid retribution. But when a source goes on the record and appears to be an authority, particularly when he or she is quoted more than once, it’s helpful to know who they are. Without that, we don’t know whose side they represent, or how much to credit their comments.  

Sometimes the news writing gave viewers pause:

• Weatherman John Farley reported on January 4, “What you’re going to notice is that it’s cool outside.” I’m not sure where he’s from, but that’s not too unusual in the Bay Area for January evenings.

• Anchor Denton announced: “There is some good news tonight for those of you who bought a home last year. According to a new report by the California Association of Realtors, home prices were slightly down during the month of November, compared to the year before.” Why would word that the house you just bought is losing value be good news?

• Business/technology reporter Scott Budman broke the following news: “Get ready for a big shift in the chip industry. Spearheaded by Intel, the world’s biggest chip company, your computer is about to get more powerful and less expensive at the same time.” It may be snide to point out that neither the power nor price of my computer has changed since I bought it two years ago. But, more substantively, is the trend to cheaper, more powerful computers really a “big shift”? Or has it been going on for years?

On the other hand, Budman and KNTV focused on local stocks and technology issues every night, appropriate for Silicon Valley, and unmatched by other stations.

KNTV’s sports reporter Chris Flanagan turned a hockey story into an advertisement for incoming owner NBC. 

“The Sharks cannot live without must-see TV,” he reported using the network’s advertising slogan for its entertainment line-up. In an obviously coached interview in the Sharks locker room that was interspersed with footage of NBC comedian Jay Leno, the reporter coaxed one player (who was not identified) to say: “I watch Jay.”  Another player couldn’t remember the title of his “NBC favorite” but after some deliberation, blurted “the English Lady.” The hostess of “The Weakest Link” flashed on the screen. After another cut of Leno, a third player answered the favorite NBC show question: “Uh…Letterman? He’s at NBC?” Mr. Flanagan’s riposte that the player had taken “too many hits to the head” convulsed the anchors with mirth.

“We try to brand as much as possible,” Mr. Flanagan said explaining the purpose of the piece. The story was meant to be light and humorous, but also emphasize the connection between Channel 11 and NBC, he said. He saw no ethical issue.

Sports news is certainly less important to society than news of government, politics, business, etc. Sports at the professional level, after all, is only entertainment. So there may be little real harm when a report abandons the journalistic function of helping viewers make sense of current issues and events and substitutes the narrow corporate goals of getting people to watch NBC programs or connecting Channel 11 with the network in the public consciousness. Nevertheless, the Radio-Television News Directors Association Code of Ethics recommends against it: “Professional electronic journalists should understand that any commitment other than service to the public undermines trust and credibility.”

When reporters are encouraged to “brand as much as possible” rather than maximize public understanding of the community, and when they are unaware of the conflict between branding and reporting, it does nothing to reduce the mistrust that polls show Americans harbor of the messenger.

According to NBC, more than 200,000 Bay Area households can’t get a clear signal from Channel 11’s transmitter, located south of San Jose. Those without cable may be denied the winter Olympics and some fine entertainment programs, but so far, they’re missing little in terms of local news.

What do you think?

    Email this article to someone