Local News Anchor Feels Pain from Afar

In times when Clear Channel makes up "local news" reports from central studios and broadcasts them over radio stations around the country, it's worth asking the question: when does it cross the line into deception?

Comments

An Excellent Example

[MissMarvel]

This is an excellent example of how easy it is to dupe the public into believing something that is not entirely factual. It also drives home the importance of our taking what we hear on radio/TV and what we read in the newspapers with a very big grain of salt.

Re:An Excellent Example

[conradp]

This is an excellent example of how easy it is to dupe the public into believing something that is not entirely factual. It also drives home the importance of our taking what we hear on radio/TV and what we read in the newspapers with a very big grain of salt.

Exactly. Sort of like making the audience that believe that they're about to read an article about Clear Channel making up facts for local news broadcasts, only to find a link to an article about some guy who likes to vacation in Florida for a few weeks a year.

Re:An Excellent Example

[glesga_kiss]

This is an excellent example of how easy it is to dupe the public into believing something that is not entirely factual.

Bollocks. Has anyone posting here actually read the article? (stupid question).

The guy is tele-commuting!, that's about all this story is. For two weeks per month in the winter, and two weeks over the summer, he works from home.

How may people here do the exact same thing? What would be a better /. story would be "technology advances make it possible to record professional TV shows at home" or something along the lines of how this is done.

And where is this grand deception? He made a "brrr it's cold remark", while he was in warmer climbs? That's it? Fuck me, call the A-Team!! Frankly, I'm more worried that the news networks feel it's neccessary to put bullshit fluff like that on the news in the first place.

He's a news anchor. He turns up, looks "nice", reads someone elses story in a news-caster voice. That's all they do and it's hardly a secret. We know they aren't pounding the streets for stories themselves.

Re:An Excellent Example

[catbutt]

So what if Dan Rather, instead of travelling to the middle of a hurricane to report live, just used a blue screen and a wind machine, and had someone off screen throw a tree branch or two at him? Is that ok too?

the meat of the article is towards the end

[ChipMonk]

"When he's talking about how cold it is, that's not news, it's entertainment. It's cosmetic," Harrison added.

That sounds like a lot of so-called "news organizations." Their #1 purpose is to entertain, lest they lose a large chunk of their audience. Actual news content is secondary.

"It's no more a lie than putting makeup on a TV anchor to make them look younger. The main thing is that his information does not deceive the public."

One more step in virtualizing the whole world. How soon can we have virtual war, where nobody dies?

Re:the meat of the article is towards the end

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

One more step in virtualizing the whole world. How soon can we have virtual war, where nobody dies?

Well, if you go with the US media, the Iraqi war is pretty much a virtual war. Sure, you hear about some death here and there but it is all virtual. No one has seen any video of a dead person. No one has seen blood. No one has seen victims without legs, arms, loved ones. No one has seen the soldiers that are crippled for life. It's pretty virtual it seems...

:(

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Does it really matter?

[sfbanutt]

I mean really, does it?

Re:Does it really matter?

[LostCluster]

I mean really, does it?

Nope. Gary's rarely in the same room with most of the reporters he talks with on his morning show, the sports reporter works in another room in the same building, the traffic reporter is somewhere accross town, the weatherperson is from AccuWeather in PA, and any field reporters are of course out in the field.

The content decisions are still being made by editors in Boston... and there's no need to hand pieces of paper to the lead anchor anyway because it's all done on computers anyway. The technology exists to push all of the "data on his desk" to Florida, and for him to send back his voice in high quality...

Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story...

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not just ClearChannel, everybody's doing it.

That doesn't mean it's ethical - or the right thing to do.

What my Mom Taught me

[iCharles]

"Where he's reporting from is irrelevant. I'm not wasting my airtime to tell people where Gary is."

I a standard my mom taught me probably would let him know: if you can't admit what you are doing, then you probably aren't doing the right thing.

In the article they make statements like "location doesn't affect reporting," and "the DJ never actually says he's shivering."

OK. If you don't think it makes a difference, take two seconds to say "my name is John Deaux, and I'm coming to you from Northern Florida. In Where-ever-you-are, USA, it's a bone-chilling five degrees..." If you are afraid to make that little disclosure, then you are implicitly admitting that it does make a difference.

Of course, I've been thinking that Clear Channel is evil for a while now, for totally different reasons.

Re:What my Mom Taught me

[iCharles]

I think there are three things.

First, there has been much concern about media conglomeration. More stations in the hands of fewer people means that fewer views are presented, less choice, more homogenization. Further, if something does become a problem (say, DJ's advocating violence against cyclists), then it is in fewer hands to try to do something about it. So long as it doesn't cause the FCC to investigate, those few hands don't have to. Likewise, the lack of music choice that is often lamented (hey! It's Britney Spears Clone #192!) is part of the problem The practice described in the article is both a symptom of this problem as well as a way for it to be masked.

Second, I think there is the inherent dishonesty. You're right, on the Great Scale of Things to Worry About, it probably isn't that great (though, on \., I've seen far more trivial matters argued in great detail). However, there is a sense that implying you are "local" when you are in a different timezone just isn't fair.

Further, creating this "generic" show just strikes me of corporate disrespect. I read another article about this practice, and it describes how one DJ does a dozen morning shows from one control booth. He creates this illusion that he is local with little tweaks.

I think there is an expectation (mostly through historical means) that the person they listen to on the radio is like them--actually go to the same places, had to deal with the same conditions on the way in, etc. I know when, growing up in southwest Louisiana, you could even hear hints of the areas accent and slang. By making the radio generic, you lose that connection.

Come on now...

[Henry Stern]

Aren't there more constructive ways of spending energy than complaining about a guy who is lucky enough to be able to work from his vacation home?

Yeeesh.

P.S. What does Clear Channel have to do with this, anyway?

Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story...

[Frisky070802]

True, but the ethics here aren't that questionable. He never says he's in Boston, he only implies it. Hmm, maybe he and Bill Clinton took the same ethics class?

NB: I'm a fan of Clinton in most respects, just not how he handled a certain affair. This isn't flamebait, only a joke :)

Of COURSE this is wrong

[A nonymous Coward]

Forgot all the angels on pins arguments, all the quibbling about telecommuting and whether or not everybody is doing it. Forget ALL that. Cut to the chase.

Both the anchor and the radio station don't want the audience to know. Therefore they know they are being deceptive and that it is wrong.

Re:*cough* "baa..." *cough*

[Tim C]

An audience passively consumes what it is served.

So tell me, how much input do you get on which articles get posted and which rejected?

We passively consume the articles, occasionally getting our suggestions accepted. But the real active part only comes *after* the article is posted, and we get to discuss it. Even if the vast majority of us agreed that an article was crap, and should never have been posted, we couldn't change it one iota.

Re:Bin Laden != freedom fighter

[Doc Ruby]

I'm a New Yorker, and I'd flay bin Laden alive if I had the chance. That deluded story posted to kuro5hin would give me a chance to say so to the poster, as well as other commentors. As well as a chance to distinguish my personal interest from a proper US government policy and strategy for fighting terrorism. If it had been suppressed, that chance would have been lost. So posting it doesn't seem to be a problem, unless the system had been somehow gamed to post it contrary to the expressed decisions of the moderators. Or unless actual reality is subservient to expressions on websites, justifying supression of expression to control real events.

You might say that the k5 moderators suck, in which case you could participate and influence to change things for the better. Controversy is not a social problem, unless it's an unmanageable din, or freedom of expression is constrained. What actual "social problems" have k5 people experienced?

Re:Facts in journalism

[LostCluster]

Correct, and if he says "it's 20 below outside the WBZ studios" and it really is, he's telling the truth. One might think that the only way for him to know that exact number is to be at the studios, but they're flat-out wrong... anybody who can download WeatherBug can get the realtime temperature reading from a unit installed outside of the WBZ studios.

I'd think he was well aware to not use "here in Boston" phrase constructions when he was broadcasting from his house in Florida. Technically, he's almost always wrong when he says "here in Boston" because WBZ's main studios are actually in the community of Allston, MA... and their transmitter is actually in Hull, MA. The station is actually licensed to serve the community of Boston, but a radio station doesn't actually have to be located in it's city of licensed, just close enough so that it covers its city with a "city grade" signal quality.