Accentuating The Positive

Working in TV news can be a heavy, heavy job. Think about it -- if you're depressed by the doom and gloom you sometimes see on your nightly newscasts, think about how it must feel to report it!

I think a lot of stations are pushing hard these days to do a better job of telling people about positive things going on in their communities. Viewers need a break from the stories about crime and corruption. And so do reporters. I mean, everyone likes a reminder that there are indeed good things happening in the world around them.

But we still have to report on the shocking crimes and the stories that leave you shaking your head. Reporters learn pretty quickly that we have to detach ourselves from what we're reporting, especially when it's horrible, heartbreaking news.

To some extent, we have to desensitize ourselves in order to not become totally disillusioned by some of the stories we cover. However, I think truly great reporters also stay in touch with their humanity and never, ever lose sense of the gravity of the stories they cover -- and the impact these real-life events have on real-life people. Tapping into our own emotions helps us convey the raw, human condition in the stories we report.

That said, covering the Cody Richardson story a couple of weeks ago really got to me. I'm not sure why it bothered me so much. Perhaps it was the sheer fact that he was so upset (for whatever reason) that he thought the best resolution was to strangle his wife. Perhaps it was the fact that this couple was so young. Or perhaps it was his cool, calm demeanor when he called 911 two days after he killed his wife to confess. (Or perhaps even the fact that a source closely connected with the case tells me he slept in the same bed with her body for a couple of nights before calling the cops.)

Whatever the case may be, covering that story for three or four straight days really shook me and left me in a foul mood. Maybe I just lost a little faith in humanity.

But then come stories like today's that restore your faith in humanity, that remind you that there are great people doing great things in the world around us and that give you a true feeling of emotional blessing when you get to be a part of them.

I got to cover a homecoming at Cherry Point. I've probably covered a dozen of them by now, but they never get old. It's always refreshing to watch heroes come home -- and to see the reactions of their friends and families once they're reunited after months of worrying and waiting.

It's a cleansing experience -- a good time that washes away the negative energy from troubling stories. I'm glad that we cover these stories fairly often at WNCT, to give the men and women fighting for our country (and the families who also sacrifice so much) their due. They certainly deserve it.

And it gives all of us a chance to accentuate the positive going on in the world around us.

The Story Behind Story Selection

I really am thankful to everyone who stops by and reads my blog -- especially those who take the time to comment. I'm just sitting here rambling, so I appreciate it when other people throw their two cents in. On my last post, one commenter took me to task for not covering a story that was obviously quite important to them. The anonymous poster said:

"Beautiful Beaufort-by-the-Sea celebrated turning 300 years old. I should think that with THAT you had a new story. Were you guys in Beaufort this weekend? I know it was raining, but we had the Embers, Shrimp boats arrived at 6 pm. If you were there I missed it and I appreciate it if you were. If you were not there and you wonder why we are skeptical of the "local" news..this is why. We are fortuate to be alive while Beaufort was turning 300... I love Beaufort and wish that there were media truck lined up along Front Street to record this once in a lifetime event. Perhaps we should have scheduled a hurricane? Then it would have been newsworthy?"

Commenter, I wish you would have identified yourself, because I would love to have contacted you personally. But thanks again for commenting -- and for bringing up a good topic: just how do news organizations choose the stories they cover?

It's a question that is growing increasingly complicated in these economic times. To directly answer the commenter's concerns, I do not think anyone from WNCT was in Beaufort the Saturday in question. But, I know for a fact our station covered several of the 300th anniversary events. In particular, I remember watching a very well put together piece one of our photographers did the weekend "pyrates" invaded Beaufort and reenacted an assault on the town.

Beaufort is in the heart of my coverage area -- I am WNCT's coastal bureau reporter and primarily cover Carteret, Craven, Duplin, Jones, Onslow, Pamlico and Pender counties. I am committed to out-reporting, out-hustling and downright outperforming every reporter who covers the same area (though none in the market covers quite as wide a swath of ENC as I do). Just by looking at the list of my turf, it's easy to see that it's downright impossible for me to cover everything that happens in my own area. Being just one reporter, I have to choose to cover the one, two or three stories each day that will have the greatest impact or significance for the greatest number of viewers.

Imagine, then, coordinating the coverage of the largest designated market area in North Carolina -- nearly three dozen counties, all of which are filled with folks who want every event in their community covered. It's impossible! But the staff at WNCT strives to cover as much of it as possible and we have multiple editorial meetings each day to set our strategy for providing the best coverage we can.

Covering the news of the day can sometimes provide a challenge even when a station has a full staff. But thanks to our jolly old friend "the economy," WNCT doesn't have a full complement of reporters, producers or photographers anymore. The same goes for countless news organizations across the globe. And like every other business, we're making do the best we can, because we want to provide the best news product to viewers and web users as we can.

As I mentioned earlier, though, that involves choosing the stories that impact the greatest amount of people. Our commenter made mention of a hurricane. Obviously, an imposing storm would call for a considerable amount of WNCT's resources if it poses a risk to people's lives or property. Oftentimes, stories about crime, the economy, education, health or scams also draw a good bit of our attention because they impact or draw the most interest from nearly all our viewers. But because we don't want our newscasts full of doom and gloom, we do our best to showcase the good things happening in communities all over the east (with our Community Builders segment, for example) because we know that matters greatly to our viewers, as well.

Unfortunately, though, we just can't be everywhere all the time. I don't work on the weekends, for example (I may be a news junkie, but I do need some time off!), so someone from Greenville has to cover our ENTIRE viewing area on the weekends. Sometimes they can get down here to the coast. Sometimes they can't.

Because I live and work along the coast, I want the best coverage possible for this area. I try to provide it when I'm working. When I'm not, I pitch the stories to our news staff as hard as I can, but recognize that other events or stories elsewhere will take priority over something happening here if it's of greater significance -- just as if a story here along the coast would take greater priority than something happening in Greenville when it's of greater significance or impacts more people.

That's not to say Beaufort's 300th anniversary isn't significant. It is -- and as our commenter said, we're all lucky to have witnessed this once-in-a-lifetime event. But instead of growing skeptical, please grow more understanding of our position. In fact, please grow more vocal in telling us the significance and impact of the events you want covered -- and then give us a few days' notice so we can try to organize our coverage to include it. Because we truly care about the communities we serve and we want to cover what's important to you.

And, from where I'm sitting, that's the story behind story selection.

Off The Record?

When I first read Terry Moran's tweet about President Obama calling Kanye West a "jackass," my first thought wasn't whether the president had actually said so (after all, I think 98 percent of Americans, regardless of political belief, can agree on that). No, my first thought was of wonder about how Moran had heard about the quote so quickly ... and why a quote that involved such strong language from the president regarding a situation that drew so much attention was nowhere to be found when I searched the news wires and the internet.

When it came to light that the president made the remark minutes before a CNBC interview, I was even more confused about how ABC News employees had accidentally spilled the beans on the president's remark. At first I thought ABC had stumbled upon a CNBC satellite feed ... but this article clearly lays out how ABC Newsers heard the comment through a fiber optic line shared by the competing networks.

The article also addresses the journalistic concept of "off the record" ... something I wanted to address briefly here.

When it comes right down to it, the things that bind a journalist not to report something they've learned "off the record" are professional courtesy and personal/journalistic ethics. On any given story, a journalist only reports a fraction of the information they really know. In TV, part of that involves only being able to say so much in a 1:15 long story ... and part of it involves keeping your mouth shut.

Sources tell us things off the record for a number of reasons. Sometimes they're fearful of going "on the record" with it. Sometimes reporters just need a little taste of the back story to do a better job of telling the story at hand. And sometimes sources just like to run their mouths.

But anything that's ever said to a reporter is committed to memory, written down in a notebook or considered for use.

I don't really like talking to people "off the record" too often. In a way, knowing more of the story actually handcuffs a reporter ... and at times it can get confusing as to what is on the record and what is off.

When someone tells me something off the record, if it's pertinent to the story at hand and in the public interest, I'll do everything within my power to get them to go on the record with it ... or I'll do what I can to confirm it through another source.

Unless there's some clearly defined and overwhelming public and journalistic interest in publishing something a source told me off the record, then I'm not going to do it (and I can say to this day that I've never run with something I shouldn't run with before I got confirmation on it). The reason for that is simple ... journalists have to build trustful relationships with sources and with viewers/readers. It goes back to the professional courtesy I mentioned earlier.

If a reporter publishes information they learned off the record, they've likely just burned a bridge in a big way. You can't effectively do this job whilst going around and burning bridges. You'll betray the trust of your sources and you'll betray the trust of the people you're working for ... the viewers and readers.

Most reporters care greatly for their reputations ... I know I've worked extremely hard to build a reputation as a relatable, trustworthy and reliable reporter. I want to keep it that way ... and for better or for worse, that's where "off the record" comes in to play.