Chris Kirby

January 22, 1997

Watching the news on television has always been a wearisome chore for me. There is constant competition for my attention between the presentation of the news and the actual facts reported. At times, I question the accuracy of the news presented. I don't believe the reporters purposely broadcast stories which are untrue - but I believe some stories are either reported before getting all the information, which could result in a false story, or are slanted towards a certain major corporation or political candidate, and I mistrust the motive of the network. In addition, I feel television news has become concerned with being entertaining. In my opinion, the news is not the forum for entertainment. A news show is intended for providing information that at most may affect the viewer, or in the least provide informative facts. We do not need to coincide this with entertainment. On January 14, 1997, I watched Channel 7's 5:00 pm ABC Eyewitness News Local Broadcasting with Diane Burtone and Alan Krashesky. For 30 minutes I was charmed by these two suave, sophisticated acting, professional looking, young news reporters. This politically correct, racially balanced Caucasian male and African-American female duo teamed up to present the local news.

The news started out immediately with the first story about a woman who was found dead in her burned down house. What appeared to have been an "open and shut case" turned into a mystery. Evidenced surfaced that indicated this woman may have been killed before the house was set on fire. While this story was being reported, shots of the fireman rifling through the debris was shown as a background to a near full screen picture of the deceased woman with the words "home torched" across the bottom. After a few minutes, the words were changed to "woman murdered?", as the woman's haunting eyes looked out at the viewers. Police would not discuss this story, so words like "alleged" and "rumored" drenched the news story like a liable security blanket. Then, shots of the burned down house appeared on the screen. The camera leaned into the house through a broken window, showing the bedroom closet where the fire reportedly started. This should have been the end of the story. Obviously the police are not ready for the story to be broadcast in full, or they would have given more information. The alleged murderer hasn't been caught yet, and giving too much information in a broadcast could interfere with the apprehension of this murderer. This has been an ongoing complaint from the police in the past. There is a fine line here between what is actually news, and what is sensationalism. I am NOT saying that the police should regulate what is news. But they have every right to protect their case, which in turn protects us.

Instead of ending this story with what the police were ready to divulge, sensationalism set in and wasted five minutes of the news cast. The next shot showed an interview with the deceased woman's neighbor, so shocked by the alleged murder that she didn't realize she was on television with curlers in her hair or that she forgot to put in her false teeth. This woman spoke broken English with a heavy Hispanic accent. This interview, coupled with shots of the run down neighborhood and the "hard luck story" of the deceased, seemed to be an attempt to solicit pity for the woman from the viewers. I was given too much information on this story. I did not need to see the neighborhood unless it was pertinent to the story - which it wasn't. The interview with the neighbor was unnecessary as well. Yes, it is a sad story, but I do not need that reiterated by a neighbor. I think it is an important story. I think it needed to be carried on the local news as a top story, but with not so much information. Knowing everything about her doesn't catch the killer, nor help the situation.

The next story was an update on Operation Broken Star - the police corruption scandal on Chicago's west side Austin district. This is an ongoing story that seems to have astonished the reporters, who tsked tsked each other and shook their heads throughout the newscast. New developments indicated the former commander of that district was in on the corruption. While interviewing this former commander, the camera was angled upward, looking up at him. Then, cameras moved outside, showing police squads driving around. The camera cut to the police superintendent in a crowd of reporters giving an interview. The next shot showed the former commander once again, walking down the hall way with a woman, smiling. This former commander did not seem to be worried about the allegations. This story was covered well, was informative and I appreciated the information. This was a story worth covering; corruption is an important issue to me and it affects me. I don't feel reporters should influence a story with their personal feelings. A slight show of emotion is one thing --- but judging someone is another. I did not appreciate the way the news reporters were making judgments with their silent signs of objection - shaking their head, tsk tsk. These are supposed to be professional news reporters - not morality judges.

The following two stories totaled 3 minutes. The first was about an accident at O'Hare Airport in which a Continental Airlines van transporting employees across the airport ran into a pole. The camera showed the outside of the airport, showing cars driving around. No people were interviewed. The reporter said seven employees were injured; one woman was seriously injured. No mention was made of the consequences to the driver. I wondered how this accident could have happened. My critical mind wondered if Continental Airlines is an advertiser on the network; maybe that is why this story seemed to slip by us quickly. I'm not complaining --- I got the information without additional, unnecessary interviews. But if this was a slow news day, and if Continental Airlines was not an advertiser on the network, the reporters may have had more time and inclination to manipulate the viewers into believing Continental Airlines is a reckless airlines. I realize there are many "IF"s in this premise, but it is a good demonstration of slanting stories in the media, and that certainly would not be fair journalism. In any case, this story did not cause any traffic tie ups or delayed flights, so I do not believe it needed to be broadcast on television.

The next story was about a shooting at a Cicero high school. Three students were shot, but not seriously injured. During the report we saw the school but no people. No one was interviewed. I believe a story about three students who were shot required more coverage. The Chicago news reaches out to a very large, diverse audience. Someone sitting in their living room watching the news in northern Illinois needs to know about teen violence in nearby Cicero. This story could possibly effect this person -- trends tend to move from the city out to the suburbs. If there is a problem with teen violence in Cicero, people need to know this in order to prevent it from happening in their neighborhood. But, because teen violence is not the hot topic of the moment, this story was glossed over. Additionally, because this incident happened in a bad neighborhood, the story did not get the attention it deserved. People tend to try to ignore bad neighborhoods in an attempt to pretend they aren't there.

The next story was given a much longer and more intense coverage. This was about the CTA trouble experienced that morning. A map was flashed on the screen indicating the route that was affected by this trouble. A chart with bullets indicated the current status of the situation (no heat, CTA running 20 minutes late). People were stopped and interviewed on what the ride was like. Of course, the people interviewed said it was long and crowded. Clips showed trains moving, people rushing, and more trains moving. Another reporter went live to the scene and reiterate exactly what the previous network reporter had just said. Clips were even shown of city workers checking underground cable system. This story certainly did not need all the attention it received, but I feel it needed to be reported. This story affected a lot of people. This story was a rating booster. If I was on the CTA and walked passed the Channel 7 news crew, I would be tuning in to see if I was seen on TV. Hundreds of people walked by in the camera shot. These people all have friends and relatives --- which again relates to boosted ratings.

Following that story was about a building the Chicago Board of Education recently purchased from Com Ed. Pictures of the new building were on the screen, showing a hustling, busy area. Then pictures of the old building were on the screen showing a deserted neighborhood. Based on the "old, run down building in a deserted area shots" versus the "newer building in a happening area shots", as a viewer I am being made to believe it was a good choice. But, I wondered if these pictures taken at the same time of day, or if one was taken during rush hour and the other in the middle of the night. This could be further manipulation, perhaps to cover up the unnecessary purchase of the new building. This story was covered in an appropriate length, but I don't think it should have been on the air. This is the type of news that belongs in a newspaper, not in a 30 minute news cast. Time is limited and only the top stories should be aired.

The next story reported that Amtrak trains would still be rolling between Chicago and the down state cities. Apparently, there was a possibility that Amtrack would stop rolling between Chicago and the down state cities. Throughout the story it showed people riding on the train. This story was the perfect length. It gave me the information and didn't have unnecessary interviews with the reporter asking people on the train, "How will this affect you". However, this didn't seem to be a news story that deserved air time. I played back the tape to see if I missed something - I did not. This was the story. We did see people riding on the train; and as I mentioned in the previous section, this is a ratings booster.

This newscast apparently has a daily Consumer Corner which today discussed the best frozen pizzas. This story was very short, showing clips of people in lab coats eating pizza. Lab coats makes it authentic. Who exactly performed these tests, we don't know. But they had lab coats. Which pizza won? Dijourno's Rising Crust pizza. Healthy Choice was found to have two times more fat than reported on the label. False advertising seems important to me and this should have been given more attention, maybe as in an interview with a Healthy Choice spokesperson explaining the discrepancy between the fat content. An explanation for this oversight may be that Healthy Choice may be another advertiser.

The "warm fuzzy" section came next with the "Someone you should know" story. This was about a woman who opened a soup kitchen for homeless people. I hate to admit it, but watching the homeless people warming up in the shelter with their cup of soup got to me. So did the woman who ran the soup kitchen. Listening to the reporter speak, though, the woman was practically a saint. I played back this portion of the tape. First, I listened to the segment without watching the news. Then, I played back this portion with the sound off and just watched the news. With just the sound, the words were too sappy and sentimental. This is an instant concentration turn off for me when it comes to the news. But, watching this woman "do her thing", showed me she was authentic. She cared; you could see that in her eyes. No camera magic or reporter could convey this. But, it still isn't news and probably shouldn't be on a network broadcast.

Then, a married couple who just celebrated their 80th wedding anniversary was interviewed. This was a nice story and rightfully short. And it gave me the warm fuzziness again. But, it was not necessary to send out a news crew to the couple's house and interview this couple. I don't think it deserved air time. Perhaps the investigative reporters and news crew that was sent out on this story could have spent their time looking into the shootings at the Cicero high school, which was a true news story.

The final story was about a woman who won the lottery. This woman had been evicted from her apartment the month before. She was interviewed briefly in her new apartment. To me this is not news, and it is not a story that needs to be aired on television. The only thing this story accomplished was that it ended the news on a happy note.

All three closing stories were happy endings. To me, this is the network's attempt at manipulating me into feeling good about watching this news cast, and encouraging me to watch again. I am insulted by this because I feel the network doesn't think I am capable of raw, plain, simple news that hasn't been glorified, spiced up, or manipulated. In other words, just the facts.

If I seem cynical about the news it is because I do not like being emotionally forced, and I feel this news cast tried to force me into feeling a certain way - remorse for the deceased woman, warm for the "person I should know", cozy at the end of the broadcast with three happy stories shoved down my throat. That is why I prefer to read my news. I just want the facts, not the decoration. And I don't need a laugh track to tell me when to laugh, or a deceased woman's picture flashed across the screen when I should be sad. Reading the news seems to be more professional, less social, and more informative. When I watch the news I find myself watching the reporters, paying less attention to the actual news. The forced camaraderie between the reporters overpowers the news.

Besides, if I want to be entertained during the news, I can always watch reruns of Ted Baxter doing the Minneapolis news.