When I was a little rough on the local TV stations in Buffalo News columns over the years that dealt with the coverage of big events invariably I’d receive a few emails from people condemning me for not holding the newspaper to the same standards.
I’d explain that my job description didn’t include critiquing the newspaper.
I can’t hide behind that excuse now that I’ve left the paper and it is involved in a controversy concerning its coverage of the shootings outside the City Grill.
Naturally, all three local TV news departments Monday highlighted the burning of Sunday’s newspaper by members of the African-American community because of a lead story with the headline: “7 of 8 shooting victims had criminal past.”
The three TV stations either played the story first or second on 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. newscasts.
Channel 2 seemed to be the least interested in the story, devoting the least amount of time to it.
Channel 7 seemed to be the most interested, with reporter Patrick Taney doing a balanced job noting the outrage of community members and adding that the story also had journalistic defenders.
Channel 4’s report by Luke Moretti came closer to Channel 7’s balanced presentation.
All the stations ran the brief statement from Buffalo News editor Margaret Sullivan defending the story by noting it added a valuable piece of the puzzle that helped better understand what happened. The understanding is needed because the violent night has led to an increased focus on the safety of downtown.
Both Channel 4 and Channel 7 interviewed Buffalo State College journalism professor Annemarie Franczyk, who defended the story and said it was the newspaper’s right and responsibility to do such stories and put things in perspective.
On one station, the professor smartly added she didn’t expect the families of the victims to understand why the story was valid journalistically.
The controversy could be a textbook case for journalism classes. I also teach journalism at Buffalo State College as an adjunct (as does Margaret Sullivan) and plan to discuss the controversy when classes begin next week.
The News clearly knew that the story was bound to create controversy. In a nation that often illustrates there is a racial divide about how news is viewed, controversy was inevitable.
A media expert could have surmised that the newspaper knew controversy could be coming just by reading the article’s almost apologetic tone. The article repeatedly made the point through quotes or otherwise that no one was saying the criminal past of the victims meant that they deserved what happened.
That point was either lost on some of the protesters and newspaper burners or they choose to view it as condescending.
The tone of the story indicated that the newspaper undoubtedly anticipated Monday’s outcry. It might have mitigated the reaction by having Sullivan give her statement on Sunday so it ran simultaneously with the story or if she had written one of her occasional Sunday columns explaining newspaper practices and policy.
Journalistically, it is easy to defend the story, as Franczyk did.
The criticism that has the most validity – expressed by Rev. Darius Pridgen on Channel 7 and ignored by Sullivan’s statement – is over its timing so close to the burials of the victims. The placement of a story about the final funeral service for the victims alongside the jump on page 3 of the front page article certainly was questionable.
Of course, Sunday is the day the newspaper gets its highest circulation, which is one of the reasons it looks to make a big splash. In these difficult media times, the need to make a splash sometimes can drown out reason or sensitivity.
If the paper was guilty of anything, it was insensitivity. That is often what gets lost these days in national and local news. Sure news is news and there is rarely a good time to hold it, especially in these highly competitive days.
However, it would have been wiser to wait a few days until Tuesday or even a week to run the story so as to not look insensitive to the families of victims.
Additionally, there is the issue of how the story was played. It was splashed across the top of the page with a provocative headline.
The story didn’t need that play to be noticed or talked about. People would have found it at the bottom of the front page and with a softer, more generic headline.
Today the News chose to ignore the entire issue despite the heavy TV coverage. It didn’t do a story today on the newspaper burning or even run Sullivan’s statement.
That’s wrong. The protests also are part of the story. Ignoring them insults the legitimate feelings of protesters and makes it appear that the newspaper believes it is above criticism.