Coercing an Interview: Right or Wrong?

There have been two times in my career so far where I've approached a subject who was on the verge of tears in a state of confusion and asked them if they would talk on camera.

The first time, I met a man and his two friends in an empty softball field. It turned out, he was intimately connected (though innocent himself) to a major child molestation case we had around here. He brought along documentary evidence which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the authenticity of his story. And as he related his story to me, he could barely get words through the tears that ran down his face. I asked him if he would go on camera, either his face or us shooting his feet, and he wouldn't say yes or no to me.

At the same time, my absolutely wonderful photog at the time was on the phone buying me time with my station that without a doubt wanted me to get an exclusive interview at all costs. Now I could have simply walked up with the camera and pushed the microphone in his face, and I doubt he would have objected. But I remembered that he is a human being who had clearly been through a traumatic event, and though it may be easy for those of us in news to appear on camera, the potential for retribution or unwanted fallout that can happen to our subjects should always be considered. Due to the nature of his connection to the events, I wanted to make sure he decided for himself, and not under duress, that he wanted to participate in the segment. So after hearing his story and still getting exclusive pictures he had brought on CD that nobody else had, I told him to think about it that night and call me in the morning.

I spoke with him the next day, and after talking about the matter with his wife, they decided that it was safer for their family to stay out of the matter and let the authorities deal with the situation. As a journalist, I was disappointed that I wasn't going to get an exclusive interview from a person no other reporter even knew existed on a significantly newsworthy event. But as a human being, I thought I had done the right thing and not taken advantage of the man's state of vulnerability to advance a news story. I'm not so sure others shared my thought process.

The second time, I was speaking with a soldier's wife who had been going through some tough news that her husband, despite health problems, had been assigned for another tour of duty overseas. She had just heard the news and was clearly shaken by the thought of her husband being away and in a dangerous situation when she felt his health problems hadn't been properly resolved. I sat down with her to begin the interview, but turned the camera off after a few minutes when she couldn't finish a sentence without a valiant attempt to hold back tears. I told her to just start talking and tell me how she was feeling and what their family was going through in an attempt to jumpstart a stream of consciousness that would hopefully calm her down and allow her to talk about the issue more comfortably. After an hour, her husband came to meet her and I decided to give her a day to calm down and let the news sink in so she would be comfortable with the idea of speaking on camera. I called the next business day to see if her and her husband still wanted to talk. After discussing amongst themselves, they decided they wanted to put off talking to the media until they felt they had exhausted other avenues of persuading the military before applying pressure on them through the media. Once again, I felt the disappointment that my story fell through, but glad that I had not taken advantage of a subject in a vulnerable state.

Looking back at these two situations, I still think I did the right thing but I'm not so ironclad about my decision as I used to be. In a situation you know to be ripe with potential consequences for a subject who has just witnessed a traumatic event and is in a highly suggestive state, is it right to coerce them into an interview knowing you'd get an exclusive before anyone else? Is that just the way of the business, or is that the path that will inevitably lead me towards the dark side of journalism.

Though I feel I have a lot of introspection on the matter before developing any sort of rule of thumb, my heart tells me I did the right thing in erring towards respecting a source rather than scooping the competition. If you show compassion and respect for your sources, it might not always pan out immediately but the trust gained from the situation may give you an even better exclusive down the road.

Don't Sweat the Small Stuff

When you're on TV, it just goes along with the job that you're putting yourself up for criticism. People who have never touched a microphone, never gathered sources, never raced to a live shot to gather information minutes before a live hit will tell you with absolute certainty every minute detail that you did wrong. From your presentation, your presence on-air, your sentence construction, choice of phrases, camera shots, etc. all these are fair game.

I don't bring this up to stir anger, resentment, or any other feelings of ill will, as I honestly don't feel any of these things. The only reason why I've progressed since my first day is from valuable constructive criticism I've received from my co-workers. But just know, it takes a thick skin to be the face on TV.

The key is to find the balance between how others see you and you see yourself. Take criticism, even when it's hardly constructive, but don't always accede to criticism that doesn't ring true. Gauge your stories by your intuition, think about what you did correctly, and what you can work on to improve. Ignore the petty smack talk. Incorporate constructive suggestions.

All throughout your career, no matter what field, you will face coworkers who are supportive and those who are less so. The sooner you learn to learn from those with valuable lessons and tune out those who are simply trying to bring you down, the easier your professional life will become.

"Don't get into news if you want to save the world" = B.S.

No, I'm not advocating that somehow getting into broadcast news will give you superpowers to cure the world's ills nor am I injecting braggadoccio into a profession that is ill-suited to serve as the healer of mankind.

But I'm just plain sick of hearing this line from those with decades of experience in the field as if it's some pithy expression whose speaker believes is a clever way to knock the idealism out of j-school students.

The phrase undercuts the very real ability for news to do something positive. News will never "save the world." Even being the president of the United States will not give you the ability to "save the world." But being a broadcast reporter gives you the power of the microphone, and that power can be used now and then to make small but positive differences. I've done stories on hurricane evacuees who would not have had enough gas money to get home if it hadn't been for our extremely generous viewers contributing to a cause. A positive difference doesn't even have to be monetary; I covered a woman whose side had been left out of a news report from another reporter the day before, and she was so grateful that her side had been told. Our station did a story on a local military post involving a woman being harassed with a noose hanging around a tree outside her house. After the report aired, the military post upped their security around the area, held a town hall to address citizens concerns, and as a result made the entire area safer.

Now I'm not trying to brag about any individual or station accomplishments, I'm just trying to say that in my short time in broadcast, I've had the wonderful opportunity to cover stories that made a positive difference in the subjects' lives.

To say "Don't get into news if you want to save the world" is a statement of cowardice and jaded cynicism, nothing more. The primary function of news is to illuminate and inform your viewers rather than act as a force of goodwill, but it still doesn't mean these two concepts are mutually exclusive.

The Reporter's Prayer

May I give thanks for the opportunity to tell stories that matter, that make a difference, and leave the viewer a better informed citizen.

May I not profit off exacerbating the viewer's base emotions and capitalize nonchalantly off the death, destruction, and mayhem that goes hand in hand with broadcast journalism.

May I not let the sadness and despair from the misery and death I see overcome me, but may my ears never become dull to the sound of a fellow human being crying out in pain.

May I always treat subjects with respect, for they graciously allow me access to intimate parts of their life, and they expect me to use that power to paint them not flatteringly, not deprecatingly, but accurately.

May I not become "that reporter" who somehow believes they are superior because they are on television, the reporter who treats photogs like shit, the reporter that looks at a subject with hungry eyes for the quick soundbyte and not to try and understand and relate to them as a human being, the reporter whose ego comes first and journalism comes second...for they are not reporters, they are just on tv.

May I give both sides to every story, so that even two diametrically opposite and bitter opponents can both look at the same piece and think they were given their fair shake.

May I have the courage to speak up against my producer if I believe the story cannot be run in an accurate and fair manner in time for the show.

May I defer to the wisdom of those with decades of experience in broadcast journalism in the event of a disagreement, but be ready to defend my beliefs if I feel strongly about the matter.

But most of all, may I remember that I have the power of the microphone, and that power can be used to illuminate, inform, and even to do good, but it can also be used to slander, misrepresent, misquote, and cause needless trauma. May I have the courage of my convictions to practice the former over the latter.

Modus Operandi

It's a strange transformation, switching from viewer to reporter.

The perspective I carried with me from outside the tube was of a critical nature, molded by a strong agreement with Jon Stewart et al.'s critiques on whether the media truly fulfills its duty to inform and illuminate its viewers in the industry's quest to maintain profitability.

The other view came from the fact that nobody I knew, who was both under 40 and not in broadcast, watched local news.

These two essential notions shaped my preconceptions of broadcast when I decided I wanted to become a part of how people became informed about the community around them.

Now that I have crossed the boundary from consumer to producer of local news, it's interesting to be on the flip side. What news is deemed worthy of inclusion in the newscast. What, if any, cohesive and consistent framework of criteria for story inclusion is used. Whether stories are shots in the dark, or are maintained as consistent narratives. What events are deemed notable enough for inclusion within that narrative structure.

The way broadcast news works is pretty much the way broadcast news has worked for a long time now. Logo updates, technology upgrades, After Effects, Pathfire, XDCam, HDTV, and even the Internet have not changed the fact that VO's are 25-30 seconds, VOSOTs are 45 seconds, Reporters are off the top of the a-block (mostly), "Good" PKGs start with natural sound and in no circumstances should be over 3 minutes (and that's stretching it), soundbytes under no circumstances should be over 15-20 seconds (and that's stretching it), always use active voice, never use big words or words that aren't conversational, etc.

Though many of these essential cornerstones of broadcast journalism are intuitive, I feel that we still must differentiate between rules that rely upon dogmatic tradition and those that make sense, no matter how long that rule has been in application. We must not be afraid to make changes, because adaptation as an industry is essential at this point.

The crisis local print newspapers are facing is a canary in a coal mine for our industry. The era of a news cycle with the release of information coming once a day in the morning is being kept alive on life support by those who need the "feel" of that paper in their hands... a demographic that is gradually disappearing. Local newspapers have been forced to adapt, and those who don't transition to maintaining a stellar internet presence will become extinct. Some newspapers are even experimenting crossing over into videojournalism, an avenue that might become direct competition down the road. And with our own local television news cycles coming only at set, predetermined times a few times a day, it's hard not to see that with more on-demand programming, print's challenge will very soon become our own as well.

Which brings this long pedantic diatribe to my point: What this site is about.

It's for others in the same position, broadcast journalists who are figuring out the personalities and egos of their industry, feeling the strange juxtaposition of being so upset you want to bang your head against a wall one minute and loving your job so much you thank your lucky stars your news director somehow picked you out of a bin of resume tapes the next, sharpening of the knife that is your journalistic acumen and being witness to lowest common denominator journalism in your own market, and the lessons learned which hopefully will prepare someone else who will act with more foresight than I did in a given situation.

It's for those who want an inside peek at what it's like to be a television reporter. The trials and tribulations, ethical dilemmas, and observations on the challenges of becoming more than just being on tv but an actual journalist.

And it's to start a discussion about what aspects of broadcast journalism need to change, and what aspects we need to keep in order to entice younger generations to start watching local news.

If enough traffic picks up, comments will be enabled in the near future. Of course, you're always free to email me at kdavis2600@gmail.com with your own experiences or thoughts, all of which I will try to post.

In no way shape or form will I attribute any absolute certainty to the opinions, observations, and anecdotes contained within.

Just think of it as if Alice chronicled her journey to those below as she began down the rabbit-hole.