Define Your Terms
By Associate Editor Pete Combs
From everything ANN has
been told by those involved, CBS News did a real hatchet job on
general aviation by taking at least one of the principle
interviewees out of context and making a story out of half-truths
and misconceptions.
So what else is new, right?
That's not exactly the point, however, and it behooves those of
us who are in aviation to not only point out the mistakes, but to
understand what happened and to do a better job of seeing that it
doesn't happen again.
As someone who has worked in every type of news media -- from
print to television to web to radio -- I can give you a pretty good
idea of what happened in the Eagle's Nest story. In addition, ANN
has talked with some of those who were involved in the making of
the CBS "Eye On America" story which blistered general aviation
over security measures that haven't been put in place since the
9/11 tragedies.
Based on something he read, something he heard or a theory he
had, Orr and/or his CBS producer came up with an idea to do a story
on lax conditions surrounding GA since the 9/11 attacks. That's
called "enterprise journalism" and, done right, it has a tremendous
value to us all. Done right, that is.
ANN's sources indicate Orr and/or his producer talked
with the TSA about this matter. Now, it would make a great
deal of sense to put someone from the TSA on camera, since that
agency is, of course, tasked with protecting us from terrorist
dangers that could eminate from air transportation. But a review of
the story and the transcript indicate no TSA source was quoted at
all. Sources tell ANN that CBS and TSA talked about doing a story,
but the network didn't bring TSA into the story. A TSA official
then suggested several aviation sources -- AOPA and
EAA among them -- but CBS reportedly didn't bring them into
the program.
The problems with this
particular piece of journalism don't end there. ANN has been told
that one of the people interviewed was asked a specific question.
The interviewee gave a specific answer. But when the tape aired,
the answer given was tacked onto a different question.
That's called "out of context."
Further, Trissel himself says, when he answered questions from
Orr, he gave much more complete responses than what aired.
Shortening an interviewee's answer to just a few seconds is quite
common in broadcast journalism.
That's called a "soundbite."
But the tricky part about soundbites is not to take the
shortened version out of context. Many of his answers went like
this: "No, BUT..." In shortening the answers to one or three second
soundbites, CBS missed the intent of Trissel's answers.
That's called "bad."
Now, the nature of the enterprise story has changed. It's called
an "agenda story." Someone connected with the production of the CBS
story wanted to hear something specific -- perhaps that GA really
is a threat -- and dug down until they found someone who agreed
with them. The crew involved in the story wasn't specific about
what it wanted from Trissel when the producer arranged the
interview. They led Trissel to believe that it was a feature story
on how "unique" it is to live right next to a runway and have a
hangar adjacent to the house (like John Travolta's spread in
Florida, pictured below). Instead, the interview was about supposed
problems with security at communities like Eagle's Nest.
That's called "ambush journalism."
John Trissel isn't the bad guy here. He's a victim. Even as
experienced as he is in doing media interviews, he was caught
off-guard. He was taken out of context. He was made the scapegoat
by aviation enthusiasts who incorrectly blame him for the story and
sent him flaming emails.
That's called "misdirected angst."
All of us in journalism face deadlines. All of us want our
stories to air. If we're in television, we all want to get our
stories on the news. That's called "face time." As much as we want
it, however, the vast majority of us won't compromise fair coverage
for face-time.
That's called "career-ending journalism."
But the vast majority of us in the business do our jobs
ethically, using the short amount of time we have to put a story
together to become as much of an expert on the topic as we can
before we go to air or to print with it.
That's called "prep."
Journalists aren't the
only ones who need to prep. Interview subjects do as well. Knowing
your material before you go on camera, sit before the microphone or
face a note-taking reporter is our responsibility. We can't control
what happens after the interview is conducted. Instead, we have to
make sure that our answers are as to-the-point and brief as
possible. If I'm being interviewed -- and it's happened a few times
-- I always make sure I have my mini-recorder going. It's a visual
reminder to the reporter that I'll be comparing what goes on the
air (or into print) with what was actually said. If there's a
dispute over the questions and the answers, I can then whip out my
own recording of the interview and settle it in a heartbeat.
That's called "covering your ass."
What Orr and his crew did was not properly prepped. If it had
been, they would have known that even the TSA considers general
aviation little, if any, threat to public safety (remember the
House Aviation Subcommittee hearing on October 16th, 2003? Remember
the TSA official who said as much in that hearing?). They should
have known, based on the response they received to their inquiries
of the TSA, about AOPA's Airport Watch program. Had they known, the
story would have included much more information.
That's called "fair and balanced," a term not to be confused
with the Fox News Network's copyrighted catch phrase.
But aside from what the CBS crew knew or didn't know, the story
was patently one-sided without any attempt at balanced. That's not
an "enterprise story." That's not "investigative reporting."
That's called "hack journalism."