TexasCHLforum.com

doejohn

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=101&aid=133469

Feel free to add comments to the link above

Tough Questions: Deciding When a Story Has 'Gone Too Far'
TV newsroom leaders share their take on the Aguilar video. PLUS: Forrest Carr, news director at WFTX-TV offers ethical guidelines to follow when covering stories in ways viewers may find controversial.

By Mallary Jean Tenore (more by author)
Naughton Fellow

E-mail this item
Print this Page
Add/View Comments on this Article (3)

In the month since Rebecca Aguilar, a reporter at KDFW-TV, was suspended, TV reporters and newsroom leaders have revisited the question of how to handle stories involving aggressive reporting that viewers might find offensive.

RELATED
Q&A with Forrest Carr about the Aguilar interview and newsroom ethics.

YouTube video of Aguilar interview with Walton.

NAHJ's response to Aguilar's suspension and related comments on NAHJ's blog.

"Rebecca Aguilar: Speaking out after a Draining 'in Limbo,'" Uncle Barky's Bytes.

"Putting Aguilar in Perspective, and Ready to Take the Heat," Uncle Barky's Bytes.

" 'I'm Bruised, Honey. Yeah, I'm Bruised,' " Richard Prince's Journal-isms.

"Rebecca Aguilar Responds: You Took My Story the Wrong Way!" Hot Air blog.

"Mark Davis: Suspension the Proper Punishment for Fox 4 Reporter," The Dallas Morning News.

Breitbart TV segment on the Aguilar interview and related comments.

The video that preceded Aguilar's suspension featured an interview with 70-year-old James Walton, who killed two people within a period of three weeks after they tried breaking into his home, which is also his business. Reactions to the interview varied, with some saying Aguilar's interview was fair and balanced, while others in forums and on blogs called it "despicable" and "disgraceful."

Breitbart TV, a Web site featuring local news video, aired a segment about the interview, which generated nearly 300 comments. Rafael Olmeda, president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) wrote to Kathy Saunders, vice president and general manager of KDFW, asking that she reinstate Aguilar as a reporter. Saunders responded (as did readers of NAHJ's blog), saying the matter was being investigated and that appropriate action would be taken.

When Poynter contacted Maria Barrs, news director of KDFW, a Fox owned-and-operated station in Dallas, she said she could not comment on the situation and would not reveal the length of Aguilar's suspension or the reasons she was suspended. The station's human resources department would not say if others from the station were disciplined as a result of the interview.

Aguilar spoke out about the suspension in an Oct. 24 interview on Uncle Barky's Bytes, a blog by TV critic Ed Bark. "I'm a role model for other journalists in the market," said Aguilar during the interview. "I show that it doesn't matter that you're close to 50 years old. And it doesn't matter how many awards you get. The big thing in TV news is what have you done for me lately. How can I teach others to be motivated and go out there and kick ass every day if I myself am not doing it?" Aguilar did not respond to Poynter's attempts to reach her.

In the aftermath of Aguilar's suspension, some news directors said they didn't think the interview seemed out of line, particularly because of Aguilar's tone of voice and the way she balanced her questions. Tom Bier, station manager of WISC-TV in Madison, Wisc., said he didn't have a problem with the interview as a first-time viewer.

Tom Bier
"I thought she treated [Walton] with respect. She gave him the benefit of the doubt," Bier said. "She offered the trigger-happy comment but balanced it with the 'Were you scared?' question. It just seemed to be a good piece to me. Her tone wasn't accusatory, and she was polite."

Before deeming a story inappropriate for the air, Bier said it's important to consider both the approach the reporter took and the response of the subject being interviewed: "If you're going to beat up on [Augilar] on the one side, you better look at the other side and say, 'Well, at least she offered him the opportunity to say he was scared.' He pointed out that the same story may very well have run in a newspaper, but that the camera dramatized the interview, revealing what newspaper articles can't capture in the same way: facial expressions, tone of voice and dispositions.

Wayne Lynch
Wayne Lynch, news director of Northwest Cable News, said that generally speaking, he believes "ambush" interviews should be reserved for public officials who have avoided a significant issue. Ambushing a citizen, he said, is a tougher call, and requires a talk with a newsroom manager to decide if it's the most appropriate course of action. Though Lynch said he did not think Aguilar was discourteous or disrespectful during the interview, he suggested that a better story would have been to look at the issue of self defense, protecting one's home and running gun checks on people whose weapons have been confiscated in the past.

Jim Ogle, general manager of WIBW-TV in Topeka, Kan., agreed that reporters should be careful about whom they decide to ambush. "If this 70-year-old man had been a spokesperson for a gun lobby, maybe you can find a scenario that would justify ambushing him in a parking lot and doing the whole cameras-rolling thing," Ogle said. "I can justify the level of aggressiveness of an interview like that where you ambush them, but to do that to a man and turn him into the equivalent of a criminal when no such finding has been made by the police to me is just appalling."
Jim Ogle

Getting the story first is important, but not when it jeopardizes a discussion about the story and the way viewers might perceive it, Ogle said. "We often fail to derail something getting to air," he noted. "It's hard to stop a story when you're an hour away from deadline." One question he sometimes asks when trying to determine if something should go on the air is, "Would you show this to your grandma?" Apologizing on air for an error or a story that, in retrospect, editors didn't think should have run, is an important practice that doesn't happen enough, Ogle said.

"Go on the air and say you're sorry. If you really expect the public to treat you in a credible manner, you can't only be there to accept the awards," he said. "Sometimes what keeps you clear from a legal standpoint isn't the right thing to do. If you have a relationship with individual members of the public, and you're asking for their trust, you better be ready to expose your wrongdoings."

Steve Ackermann
Steve Ackermann, news director for WXIX-TV in Cincinnati, suggested that reporters should empower producers to be risk takers. "Empower producers to be risk-takers. We lament producers who are show-stackers, but stories like this one can encourage producers to take the wrong risks," Ackermann said. "When you have a big story and your reporter comes back with something controversial that may be exclusive, will your producer take the risk of holding it (or just floating it) in the rundown until there is time to discuss how it is being reported? That is a producer who is empowered. After we empower them, it is up to us to help those producers learn how to take the right kinds of risks.

Reinforcing a culture of dialogue means not forgetting about a story after it has aired. This post-airtime dialogue, Ackermann said, is often just as important as the discussions that take place before a story airs.

Marci Burdick
Marci Burdick, senior vice president of Schurz Communications, Inc., said that bloggers' comments accusing Aguilar of verbally attacking Walton seemed too harsh. Though she thought the report seemed "very even handed," Burdick said there are steps Aguilar could have taken to make the interview seem like less of an ambush and more of a purposeful interview.

Burdick suggested Aguilar could have added a line of copy explaining that Walton had agreed to the interview as long as he wasn't on camera; knelt down beside Walton's car rather than standing in front of it and giving off the impression that she was blocking him inside of it; and asked more open-ended questions such as "Can you tell me why you were crying?" instead of "Are those tears of remorse?"

"The perception created here was that a frail, older man was trapped in his car by an aggressive reporter," said Burdick. "I suspect that's not true and [that it's] unfair to Ms. Aguilar."

"The main thing is to remember your journalistic purpose ... The purpose is not, 'Get the blockbuster interview or get fired.' The purpose really needs to be framed in some way that serves the viewer, reader or online user." Excerpt from Q&A with Forrest Carr, news director at WFTX-TV.When figuring out where to draw the line between what is and isn't appropriate for the air, Burdick said it's helpful to talk with editors before the interview process and run through a series of questions such as, "How important is the story, overall? Is there any other way to get the information I need? What information might I potentially obtain, and what does the public need to know or will they learn from my actions? What are the risks? Am I doing this to get important information, or am I motivated by 'good TV,' and can I defend my actions to my bosses, my viewers and the public at large?"

Bob Steele, the Nelson Poynter Scholar for Journalism Values, poses a similar list of ethical questions.

When trying to be aggressive, but not too offensive or obtrusive, journalists should remember that they're not the story, Burdick said. She cited Tim Russert and Leslie Stahl as good reporters who ask tough questions without being offensive.

"Reporters should talk less and listen more. Silence on a reporters' part often motivates an interview subject to talk more," Burdick said. "I'm not a Pollyanna. Reporters need to be obtrusive and aggressive in their reporting, but it shouldn't be their starting point."

What guidelines does your newsroom follow when dealing with interviews similar to the one Aguilar conducted?