This inaugural entry could not have come at a better time …
An integral (and sometimes unfortunate) aspect of my job is to watch the local, Seattle-based TV newscasts at 5 PM. All three network affiliates blast their sounders and preview the stories they’re following – this is often a daily case study in the ‘what constitutes news’ question.
The CBS affiliate lead with a federal judge’s injunction that would allow Washington state pharmacists to refuse to sell any prescribed drug – including the morning-after pill.
The top story on the NBC affiliate was the state’s high court overturning a voter-approved Initiative that capped annual property tax increases to just one percent – angering voters and prompting fears that counties would exploit this to crank up property taxes.
And the ABC affiliate decided the lead story was thearrested on suspicion of homicide and sexual assault)
One story involving the less-than-mundane ‘morning-after pill.’ One story involving homeowners’ fears that property taxes could be jacked up, retroactively, by 20 percent. One story involving sexual assault, international exposure and murder.
Three stories. Three networks. Three different leads – to say nothing of the other stories passed up as potential leads (which included MRSA ’superbug’ cases reported in local schools).
The controversial. The outrageous. The sensational.
Which story should have been in the pole position? Where do the other two stories land in the rundown? What points should have been the deciding factors?
This journalist’s point of view: lead with the property tax story. It affects property owners throughout Washington state and could cost each of them thousands in the near future.
The morning-after pill story would only be the lead story on a slow day and the Italy murder story would NEVER see the top spot – it’s sensational, small in scale, caters only to society’s basest interests and is just one example of degrading newsroom judgment.
The Italy-murder story is NOT a socially-relevant story. It’s grimly intriguing in its best light – and just sick entertainment in its worst.
But it’s not enough just to say which one SHOULD have been the top story and which story should NEVER be near the top slot. Extrapolating this small case study across a larger number of broadcast stations theoretically means that a significant (probably between 1-in-4 or 1-in3) news directors would have made the decision to headline the Italy murder story. The mere possibility – and reality – of this theory is less than encouraging.
And it’s the primary reason for this blog.
