LA freeway car chase...

[Kevin M.]

Happening live during morning rush hour traffic. Suspect just entered Hollywood.

KTLA feed:

http://tv.trb.com/extras/ktla/video/live-morningnews.html

KNBC feed:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/LA-Pursuit-Freeway-171796531.html

Nothing starts a morning off right quite like a freeway pursuit.
--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Jon Delfin]

Between weather (rain/heat/fire) news and car chases, it's amazing
your local news teams can get anything else done.

> --
> TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en

[Kevin M.]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Jon Delfin <jond...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Between weather (rain/heat/fire) news and car chases, it's amazing
> your local news teams can get anything else done.

In LA, aside from celebrity gossip, there is nothing else the stations
deem worthy of covering.

Chase is over, by the way. Driver couldn't handle the traffic. F-ing tourists.

--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Kevin M.]

By the way, a reporter for the Orange County Register posted on his
Facebook that FoxNews just televised the ending of a car chase in
Arizona where the suspect killed himself. He seemed to be indicating
Shephard Smith and his crew were to blame. My response to him was:

I think all the LA stations did this a few years back, which is why
their sky reporters now immediately pull to a wide shot upon the
conclusion of any car chase. I don't know how many televised pursuits
are done in AZ or if they have protocols in place like LA. But you
don't time delay the news, so sometimes people watching will see
something graphic. This isn't a FoxNews thing. This is a broadcast
standards thing. There are many other reasons to fault the cable
network. This isn't one of them.

--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

[David Bruggeman]

There apparently was an issue with the delay that FNC had been using during the chase (this is news to me, as I was operating under the basic assumption Kevin mentions below - don't delay the news).  Regardless, Shep apologized, as I think he should. 

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/09/shep-smith-apologizes-fox-news-airing-suicide/57414/

David

---

From: Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] LA freeway car chase...

[PGage]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:20 PM, David Bruggeman <bru...@yahoo.com> wrote:

There apparently was an issue with the delay that FNC had been using during the chase (this is news to me, as I was operating under the basic assumption Kevin mentions below - don't delay the news).  Regardless, Shep apologized, as I think he should. 

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/09/shep-smith-apologizes-fox-news-airing-suicide/57414/

I have been at a few sessions at psychology conferences devoted to this and similar issues, and my understanding has been that they do go to a delay at a certain point while covering a chase (not sure if it is always, and from the beginning, or just as it becomes clear that the driver is about to get out of the car, which is when suicides, or officer shots, are most likely).

The issue here of course is not just one of taste and offending the audience; the concern is glamorizing or reinforcing with attention suicides, which may increase various forms of imitation. I agree with the linked piece, I am less bothered by FNC, which seemed to make an honest mistake, than by sites that are circulating the footage online after the fact.

[Kevin M.]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:20 PM, David Bruggeman <bru...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> There apparently was an issue with the delay that FNC had been using during
> the chase (this is news to me, as I was operating under the basic assumption
> Kevin mentions below - don't delay the news). Regardless, Shep apologized,
> as I think he should.

The comment was also made on Gary Lycan's Facebook, hence my rebuttal:

"the only need for any delay in news programing is if those producing
it can't do their jobs effectively. Years ago I lived in Washington
state when it experienced a 5.0 earthquake and local stations had no
clue how to cover the story. Had they simply called an LA station,
somebody could have faxed them the playbook. Same with car chases. My
guess is FoxNews borrowed a local feed and the Arizonans don't own a
car chase playbook. If someone is to be blamed here, it is the people
on the job who don't know their metaphorical ass from their
metaphorical elbow. Hire skilled people and this never sees air."
--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

[PGage]

I would be interested to get confirmation of this. As I say, I have heard local news producers from Los Angeles report at a conference that it was part of their "playbook" (I don't recall if that was the actual term used) did include switching to a delay in the end stage of SOCAL car chases.

[Kevin M.]

Not to go all "Studio 60" but if the news is being delayed for any
reason, it would only underscore how wretched they have become at
their jobs. The only reason to delay programing is to censor it, and
the only reason to censor the news is... well... can't think of any
reason to censor the news -- if the news is being produced well. If
the director can't call the shots, if the switcher can't cut away, if
the cameraman can't pull wide, if the anchor can't cover, and if
something tragic occurs, then you have a problem... that is four
preventable levels of professionally handling the same situation
without resorting to censorship.

> --
> TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en

--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Joe Coughlin]

What do you mean? All of those things are the same thing as a delay.
Self-censorship. It's perfectly fine for a news organization to decide
that they don't want to be broadcasting live suicides, How they choose
to not do it is irrelevant to me.

And there's nothing wrong with self-censorship, restraint, in these
cases. All news programs are curated.

+++++++++++++++
Joe Coughlin
http://www.twitter.com/inturnaround

[Kevin M.]

The means do matter in this instance, because of the precedent it
sets. Deciding content is not quite the same as censorship, at least
it shouldn't be.

Is now a good time to throw my head into the fire and state I believe
murder should be televised on the news in proper context?

[PGage]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not to go all "Studio 60" but if the news is being delayed for any
reason, it would only underscore how wretched they have become at
their jobs. The only reason to delay programing is to censor it, and
the only reason to censor the news is... well... can't think of any
reason to censor the news -- if the news is being produced well. If
the director can't call the shots, if the switcher can't cut away, if
the cameraman can't pull wide, if the anchor can't cover, and if
something tragic occurs, then you have a problem... that is four
preventable levels of professionally handling the same situation
without resorting to censorship.

I think this confuses several things. The use of the word "censor" in this context implies either the government deciding what can and cannot be shown, or non-news personnel exercising judgement that prevents newsworthy material from being broadcast. Neither of those apply here. The government is not requiring that suicides not be broadcast, nor are account executives pressuring news professionals to not broadcast suicides. In this case, news professionals have made their own professional news judgement that suicides should not be broadcast. If the mechanisms you note are adequate to ensure that this judgement can be enforced, then of course there is no problem. But I don't see how putting a 5 second delay on the footage from a police car chase is somehow any more "censorship", just because it might be more effective.

Beyond the points that a time-delay is no more inherently censorship than cutting away from a live shot, and the point that the judgement to not air a suicide is being made by internal news professionals, not external government authority or internal non-news professionals, I am going to dispute the implied claim here that the "liveness" of an event has any inherent relationship to its "newsiness". This seems very curious to me. The ability to show any event live on television is relatively recent, so I am not sure how live broadcasting ever got equated with the integrity of news coverage. Indeed, if anything I think the argument could be better made in the reverse. Most events are probably better covered from a journalistic point of view if they are not live, and the news professionals have a chance to exercise their news judgement in preparing their reports. One of the biggest problems with both local news and cable news is the fetish they have made with "going live" when it is either not necessary or contraindicated (e.g. not enough facts are known to provide context or confirmation). How many times have we heard a CNN anchor cut to live footage from some event by saying something like: "I don't know what we are seeing, or where it is from, or what it means, but let's watch it".

[Kevin M.]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 2:35 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:


> I think this confuses several things.

Admittedly, several tangents have sprung up

> The use of the word "censor" in this
> context implies either the government deciding what can and cannot be shown,
> or non-news personnel exercising judgement that prevents newsworthy material
> from being broadcast. Neither of those apply here. The government is not
> requiring that suicides not be broadcast, nor are account executives
> pressuring news professionals to not broadcast suicides.

Yet, but if they knew the means were in place... Remember last year a
few members of Congress tried to create legislation for the so-called
internet panic button that could, in an "emergency," shut down all
internet access across the nation. I don't want to ever come close to
a system that could allow that to happen for any reason.

> In this case, news
> professionals have made their own professional news judgement that suicides
> should not be broadcast. If the mechanisms you note are adequate to ensure
> that this judgement can be enforced, then of course there is no problem. But
> I don't see how putting a 5 second delay on the footage from a police car
> chase is somehow any more "censorship", just because it might be more
> effective.

Terminology aside, time delaying sports or an awards show has no
underlying ethical ramifications because both are events of no
consequence to anybody. The same cannot be said of news broadcasts.
Let us say we delay car chases seven seconds, then maybe press
conferences 10 seconds because sometimes people can utter a bad word,
then maybe we delay footage of a war zone by several minutes to an
hour for reasons of security. Where does that delay end? And the news
would undoubtedly still have the word "live" in the corner of
something delayed 10 seconds (even though it isn't), so at what point
is the word "live" a lie? There is something to be said for your
argument that any effective means is fine, but my argument is that
honesty/truth is vital to journalism, and a delay can compromise that.

> ... I am going to

> dispute the implied claim here that the "liveness" of an event has any
> inherent relationship to its "newsiness". This seems very curious to me. The
> ability to show any event live on television is relatively recent, so I am
> not sure how live broadcasting ever got equated with the integrity of news
> coverage. Indeed, if anything I think the argument could be better made in
> the reverse. Most events are probably better covered from a journalistic
> point of view if they are not live, and the news professionals have a chance
> to exercise their news judgement in preparing their reports. One of the
> biggest problems with both local news and cable news is the fetish they have
> made with "going live" when it is either not necessary or contraindicated
> (e.g. not enough facts are known to provide context or confirmation). How
> many times have we heard a CNN anchor cut to live footage from some event by
> saying something like: "I don't know what we are seeing, or where it is
> from, or what it means, but let's watch it".

I agree with you for the most part, obvious exceptions being severe
weather or other potentially dangerous events unfolding in real time.
The thing is that I don't want to have to guess what aspect of my news
broadcast is live and what isn't. The reason media outlets cite for
covering car chases live is as a public safety concern, allowing
residents to know what is happening in their area -- this is, of
course, bullsh*t, but that is their claim. However, in the unlikely
event TV news actually becomes about something again, I don't want it
to be handicapped by ideas created during a period when journalism did
not exist and ethics went out the window. The solution for dealing
with people who are f*cking up the news is not to create technological
band-aids -- it is to get rid of the people f*cking up the news and
replace them with people who can serve the public.

--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

[PGage]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 2:35 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The use of the word "censor" in this
> context implies either the government deciding what can and cannot be shown,
> or non-news personnel exercising judgement that prevents newsworthy material
> from being broadcast. Neither of those apply here. The government is not
> requiring that suicides not be broadcast, nor are account executives
> pressuring news professionals to not broadcast suicides.

Yet, but if they knew the means were in place... Remember last year a
few members of Congress tried to create legislation for the so-called
internet panic button that could, in an "emergency," shut down all
internet access across the nation. I don't want to ever come close to
a system that could allow that to happen for any reason.

I can imagine the potential for abuse - but the technology for delaying live broadcasts already exists; I don't think using it on occasion makes it more likely that it will one day be abused.

Terminology aside, time delaying sports or an awards show has no
underlying ethical ramifications because both are events of no
consequence to anybody. The same cannot be said of news broadcasts.
Let us say we delay car chases seven seconds, then maybe press
conferences 10 seconds because sometimes people can utter a bad word,
then maybe we delay footage of a war zone by several minutes to an
hour for reasons of security. Where does that delay end? And the news
would undoubtedly still have the word "live" in the corner of
something delayed 10 seconds (even though it isn't), so at what point
is the word "live" a lie? There is something to be said for your
argument that any effective means is fine, but my argument is that
honesty/truth is vital to journalism, and a delay can compromise that.

Well, I will stipulate as given that if they are delaying the feed by 5 seconds, they should no longer label it as live. But when did it become the norm for war news to be broadcast live? I would not mind if somehow a reporter was able to broadcast footage "live" from a war zone if the producer decided to put it on a 5 second delay in case the reporter or someone else got shot in the head during the feed.


 

> ... I am going to

> dispute the implied claim here that the "liveness" of an event has any
> inherent relationship to its "newsiness". This seems very curious to me. The
> ability to show any event live on television is relatively recent, so I am
> not sure how live broadcasting ever got equated with the integrity of news
> coverage. Indeed, if anything I think the argument could be better made in
> the reverse. Most events are probably better covered from a journalistic

> point of view if they are not live,  (SNIP)

I agree with you for the most part, obvious exceptions being severe
weather or other potentially dangerous events unfolding in real time.
The thing is that I don't want to have to guess what aspect of my news
broadcast is live and what isn't. The reason media outlets cite for
covering car chases live is as a public safety concern, allowing
residents to know what is happening in their area -- this is, of
course, bullsh*t, but that is their claim. However, in the unlikely
event TV news actually becomes about something again, I don't want it
to be handicapped by ideas created during a period when journalism did
not exist and ethics went out the window. The solution for dealing
with people who are f*cking up the news is not to create technological
band-aids -- it is to get rid of the people f*cking up the news and
replace them with people who can serve the public.

It looks like we both agree that the claim that car chases are broadcast live for public safety in Los Angeles is BS, and even if it were not, it is hard to see how a 5 second delay would compromise that. I do agree that it is important to get competent people with actual experience and judgement making decisions in TV news. I also agree that they should bend over backwards to be honest about what is live and what is delayed. But I don't mind if a producer decides to put the end of a car chase on tape delay to help ensure that a suicide is not broadcast, which has the potential of increasing other suicides.

Ironically, my understanding is that FN did have a delay on today, and the suicide still got though, which I guess means that someone was even more incompetent than you were thinking.

[Kevin M.]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:20 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I can imagine the potential for abuse - but the technology for delaying live
> broadcasts already exists; I don't think using it on occasion makes it more
> likely that it will one day be abused.

Please remember there were more than a few politicians who nodded
their heads in agreement when the jackass described the internet as "a
series of tubes." These dunderheads have become so detached from the
rest of us they don't know what technology can do until it is thrust
in their face. Let it be our little secret that the ability to delay
the news exists, ok?

> Well, I will stipulate as given that if they are delaying the feed by 5
> seconds, they should no longer label it as live. But when did it become the
> norm for war news to be broadcast live? I would not mind if somehow a
> reporter was able to broadcast footage "live" from a war zone if the
> producer decided to put it on a 5 second delay in case the reporter or
> someone else got shot in the head during the feed.

I shouldn't need to remind you we're only on our third televised war
in US history. Unlike car chases which occur with great frequency in
Southern California, the playbook on broadcasting a war has yet to be
written. And, as hinted at earlier, I believe that if somebody is shot
in a war zone on camera, the public whose government is actively
engaged us in that war has a right to see the violence firsthand. Not
to invoke the late George Carlin (though his words could easily be
planted on almost every aspect of this discussion), but he was one of
the first to speak of how the media, through language and visuals, has
softened war -- made it safe for family viewing. And this is a
horrible disservice to members of the military. The last thing I want
to see is a soldier shot live on TV, but if it happens in the course
of a news program, it should be a crime to hide that reality from
Americans.

> Ironically, my understanding is that FN did have a delay on today, and the
> suicide still got though, which I guess means that someone was even more
> incompetent than you were thinking.

Which again proves my point that we have incompetent people running TV
news... and Germans love David Hasselhoff.
--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

[PGage]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:

I shouldn't need to remind you we're only on our third televised war
in US history. Unlike car chases which occur with great frequency in
Southern California, the playbook on broadcasting a war has yet to be
written. And, as hinted at earlier, I believe that if somebody is shot
in a war zone on camera, the public whose government is actively
engaged us in that war has a right to see the violence firsthand. Not
to invoke the late George Carlin (though his words could easily be
planted on almost every aspect of this discussion), but he was one of
the first to speak of how the media, through language and visuals, has
softened war -- made it safe for family viewing. And this is a
horrible disservice to members of the military. The last thing I want
to see is a soldier shot live on TV, but if it happens in the course
of a news program, it should be a crime to hide that reality from
Americans.

I don't think that we have had much live coverage of any war, and certainly this is not the norm. Even with the much touted embedded program in Iraq, we had more delayed coverage than live.

If someone is killed while a reporter if filing a story in a war zone, then I would be happier if the producers were able to look at the footage, think about it, and make a considered judgement about whether its news value justified airing it, rather than having it aired because a fetish for live coverage took the possibility of exercising any judgement out of the producers hands.

Again, the point here is not that there is never a good reason to show someone dying on television news. The point is that showing this or not is a news judgement. Politicians often prefer and sometimes demand that interviews with tough journalists be done live, because they know that live television takes away the majority of editorial and news judgement and control.

[Terry Knab]

Remember this is the place where in 2007, 2 choppers crashed into one
another during a chase (Phoenix), so they have a MUCH different way to
handle pursuits. Plus there's chopper sharing. One of the two stations who
lost their chopper that day now shares a chopper with a competitor.

-----Original Message-----
From: tvor...@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvor...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Kevin M.
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:15 PM
To: tvor...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] LA freeway car chase...

[Jon Delfin]

From TVWeek:

"Fox News Channel today [Sept. 28, 2012] was showing live coverage of
an Arizona police chase that ended when the suspect fled the scene,
pulled out a handgun and shot himself in the head," Deadline.com
reports. The footage was being broadcast on a delay, but aired anyway.
Then Fox News went to commercial. Here'a a very shaken Shepard Smith
addressing viewers after the commercial. Later, Fox News issued this
statement, Deadline reports:: “We took every precaution to avoid any
such live incident by putting the helicopter pictures on a five second
delay. Unfortunately, this mistake was the result of a severe human
error and we apologize for what viewers ultimately saw on the screen.”

http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/tvbizwire/2012/09/video-a-shaken-shepard-apologi.php

[Kevin M.]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Jon Delfin <jond...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... this mistake was the result of a severe human

> error and we apologize for what viewers ultimately saw on the screen.”

Serves them right for hiring severe humans
--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Adam Bowie]

An odd addendum to this story.

Today the UK broadcast regulator, Ofcom, found Fox News in breach of the UK Broadcast Code for broadcasting this footage.

PP52-56 of http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb222/obb222.pdf

I'm not sure how much international rebroadcast carriage Fox News gets, but it is rebroadcast by Sky in the UK (with British commercials as well as filler material), and therefore subject to UK broadcast regulation.

Aside from being in breach, it suffers no other penalty. It takes quite a lot of wrongdoing before a financial penalty is imposed in the UK, and even then, the fines are relatively modest. However repeated or serious breaches would end up leading to a licence being withdrawn. However, I can think of no "serious" broadcaster for whom that has happened.



Adam

--
Kevin M. (RPCV)