This month marks the beginning of the eighth year in a row that the organization I work for, the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy, has been monitoring local news media. During these years of watching and reading local news we have had a limited amount of interaction with the local news agencies, but not because we weren’t trying. We have sent letters, copies of reports, invitations to events, and participated in numerous community functions in order to hold the local news accountable. For years we participated in the Grand Rapids Summit on Racism’s Media Action Team to work on improving the coverage racism, those working against it, and representation of the community.
In 2004, I participated in a panel discussion organized by Michigan Radio on election coverage, along with a GVSU professor and a local TV reporter. When I pointed out that the local TV stations have failed the public miserably on election coverage the reporter basically agreed and then made some comment about how they need to improve. That was over a year ago and we haven’t seen it. Once the Grand Rapids Press published a short piece on one of our election studies in that ridiculous Sunday column called Political Potpourri. They got a response from each of the managers at the stations we monitor, but my favorite was from WOOD TV 8 manager Diane Kniowski who said “Smith didn’t account for the combined effect of TV and newspaper coverage. You guys (The Press) provide the details and analysis, while we show the images and give the highlights. It’s good to have people like Jeff Smith who hold you accountable, but I’d wish he’d come up with a way to stimulate his age demographic 18 to 49 to get to the polls.” OK, so they really don’t do news, the just “show the images.” And when is it my responsibility to get 18 to 49 year olds to vote? They are the ones with a TV station that broadcasts to thousands of households in the area. They have the power to inform people way more than I do. Nonetheless, the response was quite instructive.
More recently I corresponded with one of the local news directors. This was prompted by the fact that we had sent out a media alert on a story that was done about a breaking and entering case in Florida, where a man broke into the homes of senior women, entered their bedrooms naked and tickled their feet. Granted this is a bizarre story, but it is a crime and imagine how you would feel if a stranger broke into your home during the night and touched you slept? What was so disturbing about the story was that the news readers laughed and made jokes about this, even though the video footage showed people at a senior housing complex putting up public safety warnings. When asked about the behavior of the news readers, the news director said he would inquire, but then said “Do you think local media do anything right? All I seem to read is negative reviews of everyone's product. I think we all can do better. But I also think many of our stories serve the community well.” Here is my response, “I find it interesting that this is the question that all news people ask from a Media Watchdog. We critique the news, our job is not primarily to provide news outlets, which have tremendous power in influencing the public's perception, with affirmation. We monitor you all, offer up some critical analysis and work with the community to hold you accountable, since you use the public airwaves. It seems to me that the awards you all get from the Michigan Association of Broadcasters would be enough to satisfy any need for positive feedback. However, if you have read any previous reports we have published, when there are good stories, we acknowledge them and have on many occasions. We have worked for years with the Summit on Racism and WZZM 13 that led to the Healing the Racial Divide segment, which we applauded as a good first step. However, if you think that any of our criticisms are unwarranted I would be happy to discuss any of them with you.”
Just days later WZZM 13 did a story entitled CAFTA 101. We had been tracking local news coverage about CAFTA since it was a close vote in both the House and the Senate. The story that channel 13 did was a day after the vote, so I contacted the reporter to ask why they had waited until after the vote to inform the public about such an important issue. Here is what he had to say, “You raise very good and important points. In retrospect, we have been remiss in front-end reporting on this issue. It's one of those big international things with compelling local impact that went unreported in the daily grind of local events. My apologies for that. On a vote that close, clearly it was a divisive, and important issue, one which we could have served our viewers better on.” No shit. When you consider how many jobs have been lost in Michigan to NAFTA, you’d think that a similar trade agreement like CAFTA would have merited numerous stories by all the local news agencies prior to the vote, so that the public could weigh in. Unfortunately, this was not the case.
Years ago, before media de-regulation, broadcasters used to be required to hold community ascertainment meetings, as a way of soliciting public input on how well they were serving the public interest. These community ascertainment requirements were done away with in the 80’s, along with the Fairness Doctrine. Well, some of us still take seriously the idea that the airwaves belong to the Public. Therefore, we have organized a Public Hearing on Tuesday, September 13 at 7pm in the Wealthy Theatre. This hearing is to allow the public to weigh in on how the local TV stations are serving the public interest on issues like election coverage, war coverage, Race, Gender & Class representation, and Children’s Educational TV Requirements. The FCC and the local TV stations have been invited, but the hearing is designed for the public to submit written or spoken testimony on how well the TV stations are serving the Public Interest. For information about our campaign to hold the local broadcasters accountable.
