A Defense of “Behind the Scenes At West Wing” and Other Audience Flow Stories
by Henry
Tennenbaum, KRON-TV
GTN: How do you justify such stories? What's their news value and why
is it so peculiar to a specific night?
HENRY: Actually, it is a total coincidence. Kidding.
The scheduling issue is obviously promotion-oriented. We happen to have the
convergence of several factors which encourage such "flow" stories:
¾Networks,
at considerable inconvenience, provide access to actors and production sets
because they believe such news stories will promote their shows' ratings.
This is like any company or agency which provides behind-the-scenes access
and interviews because it believes the resulting story will be in its own
best interest. And we're not doing these stories just because we're NBC affiliates,
either. All the networks gladly invite (read "beg for") such coverage
from non-affiliated TV operations like "Entertainment Tonight" and
"E!"
¾Certain
shows like "West Wing" and "ER" have attracted loyal,
intelligent viewers that really do seem to want information about the programs
and actors. As you know, the key to advertising is "targeting,"
the ability to have the right audience hear the right message. It's why one
so rarely hears ads for The San Francisco Opera on Live105 radio. But
if there's a Limp Bizkit concert coming up, it's all over their airwaves.
Viewers of such shows as "West Wing" represent an irresistible target
audience. They care about the show, and we can provide some unique coverage.
It's an obvious benefit to find an audience that is already watching and tell
them about a story about which they already care.
This confluence of subject, audience and access is easiest to achieve on our
own station. But, believe me, if we had a good behind-the-scenes story about
"Survivor" and KPIX would let us buy an ad on their news, I'll bet
we would!
As for the "news value" of such stories, that's very much in the
eye of the beholder. Was our interview with Martin Sheen less worthy than
our recent chat with Itzhak Perlman, who was also promoting his performance
("TV News Panders To Perlman Fans!!!")? This is an issue that we
feature reporters struggle with on a daily ... make that hourly... basis.
Especially with producers and assignment editors. And spouses ("You covered
...what?!). In this case, you've asked about two groundbreaking programs
that really do deserve news coverage (at least Time and Newsweek
have thought so over the years).
So I'm asking for a leap here: Acknowledge that these stories might actually
be worth covering (they're influential cultural components) and accept the
ugly reality that promotion will be used to promote TV news ratings. All of
which leads to your most difficult question:
GTN: Do you have any concern that such stories make you and KRON look
manipulative to intelligent viewers?
HENRY: Actually, it's not the intelligent ones I worry about. I think
they intuitively understand all this stuff. I trust that they will judge us
by the key component - the story.
And that's my job. To take what may sound like a puff piece and turn it into
an interesting, intelligent, even insightful story. It's why I dread these
assignments - because they're TOUGH. Harder than most people realize. Eking
out soundbites from talked-out stars. Finding insights that viewers haven't
already heard. Capturing spontaneity in a rigidly controlled environment (sounds
like covering politics, huh?). Like any reporter, I don't always succeed
in overcoming the obstacles. But I do my best to fulfill the viewer expectations
that our promotion may raise.
So, no. It's not the intelligent viewers I worry about. It's the less perceptive
watchers who can turn to the spouse and say "See, another piece of crummy
TV" before they've seen MY crummy piece of TV. Because I believe
that a good story should speak for itself.
Sorry for the length. That's what happens when you let a TV reporter go longer
than two minutes.
Want a printer-friendly copy?