ABC seeks feedback on Iraq coverage

April 11, 2006

Apparently, all the complaining from the White House and its allies about the “negative tone” of the media’s Iraq coverage has led ABC’s Good Morning America to seek some input from viewers.

On March 22, the show went beyond reporting on the war coverage to ask viewers to suggest in e-mails the stories they would choose to headline. Posed by the co-anchor, Diane Sawyer, the question came at the end of a segment in which Dan Harris, the show’s Baghdad correspondent, gave a rundown of the stories breaking in Iraq that day. They ranged from hard news, like reports of insurgent attacks on police stations, to human interest stories like the celebration of a Kurdish spring festival.

“All week there was this drumbeat on the topic,” said Ben Sherwood, the executive producer. “The president was challenging the news media and saying there’s a whole world of stories that we don’t cover.”

By March 23, “Good Morning America” had received more than 1,800 responses. Although the show did not give a breakdown of the results, Mr. Sherwood said the reaction “was not uncommon.”

Sherwood said that the invitation for input is similar to the way “newspapers seek and publish letters to the editor, and in the same way that radio programs have call-in time.” Maybe. I didn’t see the segment, but the NYT description suggested that the program asked viewers to prioritize news segments and pick which ones should be emphasized most.

I’m not sure what to make of this. If a bunch of Bush supporters blitzed Good Morning America with responses, arguing that the school opening in which no one was killed is more important than a mosque bombing, should ABC rearrange its schedule? Go with “soft” news because it might make people feel better? I’d hope not. Prioritizing news by popularity contest seems like a pretty bad idea.

Of course, there’s a flip side: if Good Morning America offered us a chance to vote on whether to lead with Bush authorizing a classified leak or the latest Britney Spears news, I wouldn’t mind adding my two cents to the debate. I have a hunch I’d lose, though.

With all due respect to Diane Sawyer and Good Morning America, real news shows do not include recipies for Joan Lunden’s peach crisp and tips about container gardening. Sure they have news stories but the show is entertainment oriented.

Also, I’m not so sure about the whole premise of asking people what to report. This seems like the teacher asking my son’s 4th grade class if they should have Art, Gym, Math, or Reading in school. If they are a news show then they determine the news. All this does is undermine whatever editorial oversight the producers of GMA have.

  • News prioritizing by popular opinion – what makes viewers feel good – makes no sense at all. Entertainment prioritizing, which is what our “news” really is (actually, it’s advertising with just enough entertainment tossed in to keep the suckers hooked) makes perfect sense.

    Just once I’d like to see a network show the virtually constant rate of US deaths in the Iraq quagmire, regardless of the the declared victories, last throes, successful elections, captures of major Baathists, visits by Bush and Condi, etc.

    The segments the networks do each week on individual deaths (e.g., Stephanopoulos) is very moving and emotional, but it carries meaning only for the families and friends of those affected by the individual deaths. The constant rate, however, is the direct outcome of the Bush administration’s provably abominable policy.

  • ABC has to learn: for the American audience, war is supposed to be entertainment. Forget Robert Duval and Marlon Brando, thinkTom Cruise.

  • I with everyone else here–if news is entertainment, then it’s legitimate to let the public have what it wants. But “news shows” should then be honest that they are there for entertainment and not to inform people as such.

    On the other hand, if you want to actually know what’s going on in the world, then there’s no business having polls asking people what they want to see.

  • News isn’t entertainment. News is news, and entertainment is entertainment. But somehow a lot of people and media seem to mix-up the two. And that’s exactly why so many people nowadays don’t have a clue what the world they’re living in is really like.

  • “News is what the powerful don’t want to have get out. Everything else is advertising.”

    Sorry I don’t know the author of the quote.

    Tell Bush we know that he already pays for his advertising and we don’t need his money, thank you.

  • Isn’t this what marketing focus groups are for?

    Publicly asking viewers to decide what the network covers is an embarrasing response to Bush’s misleading bullying. The assumption is that ABC hired professional “reporters” and “editors” with the experience to determine what is and isn’t newsworthy and to cut through the administration’s current line of bullshit. This is nothing like letters to the editor or radio call-in shows, which are nothing more than expressions of opinion about what’s covered. No serious newspaper or radio show would make changes to their coverage based on reader or viewer feedback. ABC is asking viewers to make the hard decisions and shape the tone of the broadcast for them. That’s appalling.

  • This seems like the teacher asking my son’s 4th grade class if they should have Art, Gym, Math, or Reading in school.

    You forgot Recess. Which is what most GMA viewers would probably vote for.

  • ABC – get a spine! Quit falling for Bush calling you nattering nanbobs of negativity and have faith that telling the truth and questioning assertions is really what journalism is about.

    Like too many Americans, they’ve fallen for the post 9/11 mindset that questioning a president is somehow unpatriotic. Lose the fear guys and get some self-respect.

  • It’s a good thing we didn’t have this kind of behavior in earlier eras of
    American history.
    Just think if the press had been as cravenly supine during World War
    II (when there was real and enforced censorship but for obviously
    important reasons that no one seriously questioned) and there had
    been a particularly bloody week for American forces fighting in Europe
    or the Pacific theater. I can see it now: “Yes, losses have been
    heavy this week but now we take you to a look at Oktoberfest in
    the captured city of Munich.” Or: “Yes, casulties were high on
    Okinawa this week but now we take you to an indepth look at
    Cherry Blossom season…”
    If the press doesn’t start accurately reporting what is going on it will
    destroy our freedom of speech and our dedication to free inquiry into
    government misconduct. In the end it is only cutting its own throat
    and its importance will be reduced to the status of something like
    Parade magazine. A free press has the moral obligation of setting the
    record strait on an issue no matter who it hurts or embarasses.
    There isn’t any easier way to do the job if it is going to be done
    correctly.

  • I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate here. This could be a good thing to throw back in the Bush administration’s face. Has anyone seen any results of the poll? This could be a good story. The Bush administration thinks that the media focuses too much on the ‘bad stuff’ in Iraq. It would be really nice if someone could come and say, 1800 people don’t want to hear the fluff.

  • Re news is entertainment: of course it is the media’s fault for letting it happen. But they have active enablers. The post-Vietnam Pentagon developed an MO of glamorizing the military to gain respect and suck of money.. A necessary part of the plan is never to do anything serious that might get their hands dirty. A corollary is to throw the occasional short-war-in-prime-time for the diversion of the yokels. Why Grenada was so much more fun than Bosnia or Somalia.

    • Comments are closed.