Define Your Terms

By Associate Editor Pete Combs

From everything ANN has been told by those involved, CBS News did a real hatchet job on general aviation by taking at least one of the principle interviewees out of context and making a story out of half-truths and misconceptions.

So what else is new, right?

That's not exactly the point, however, and it behooves those of us who are in aviation to not only point out the mistakes, but to understand what happened and to do a better job of seeing that it doesn't happen again.

As someone who has worked in every type of news media -- from print to television to web to radio -- I can give you a pretty good idea of what happened in the Eagle's Nest story. In addition, ANN has talked with some of those who were involved in the making of the CBS "Eye On America" story which blistered general aviation over security measures that haven't been put in place since the 9/11 tragedies.

Based on something he read, something he heard or a theory he had, Orr and/or his CBS producer came up with an idea to do a story on lax conditions surrounding GA since the 9/11 attacks. That's called "enterprise journalism" and, done right, it has a tremendous value to us all. Done right, that is.

ANN's sources indicate Orr and/or his producer talked with the TSA about this matter. Now, it would make a great deal of sense to put someone from the TSA on camera, since that agency is, of course, tasked with protecting us from terrorist dangers that could eminate from air transportation. But a review of the story and the transcript indicate no TSA source was quoted at all. Sources tell ANN that CBS and TSA talked about doing a story, but the network didn't bring TSA into the story. A TSA official then suggested several aviation sources -- AOPA and EAA among them -- but CBS reportedly didn't bring them into the program.

The problems with this particular piece of journalism don't end there. ANN has been told that one of the people interviewed was asked a specific question. The interviewee gave a specific answer. But when the tape aired, the answer given was tacked onto a different question.

That's called "out of context."

Further, Trissel himself says, when he answered questions from Orr, he gave much more complete responses than what aired. Shortening an interviewee's answer to just a few seconds is quite common in broadcast journalism.

That's called a "soundbite."

But the tricky part about soundbites is not to take the shortened version out of context. Many of his answers went like this: "No, BUT..." In shortening the answers to one or three second soundbites, CBS missed the intent of Trissel's answers.

That's called "bad."

Now, the nature of the enterprise story has changed. It's called an "agenda story." Someone connected with the production of the CBS story wanted to hear something specific -- perhaps that GA really is a threat -- and dug down until they found someone who agreed with them. The crew involved in the story wasn't specific about what it wanted from Trissel when the producer arranged the interview. They led Trissel to believe that it was a feature story on how "unique" it is to live right next to a runway and have a hangar adjacent to the house (like John Travolta's spread in Florida, pictured below). Instead, the interview was about supposed problems with security at communities like Eagle's Nest.

That's called "ambush journalism."

John Trissel isn't the bad guy here. He's a victim. Even as experienced as he is in doing media interviews, he was caught off-guard. He was taken out of context. He was made the scapegoat by aviation enthusiasts who incorrectly blame him for the story and sent him flaming emails.

That's called "misdirected angst."

All of us in journalism face deadlines. All of us want our stories to air. If we're in television, we all want to get our stories on the news. That's called "face time." As much as we want it, however, the vast majority of us won't compromise fair coverage for face-time.

That's called "career-ending journalism."

But the vast majority of us in the business do our jobs ethically, using the short amount of time we have to put a story together to become as much of an expert on the topic as we can before we go to air or to print with it.

That's called "prep."

Journalists aren't the only ones who need to prep. Interview subjects do as well. Knowing your material before you go on camera, sit before the microphone or face a note-taking reporter is our responsibility. We can't control what happens after the interview is conducted. Instead, we have to make sure that our answers are as to-the-point and brief as possible. If I'm being interviewed -- and it's happened a few times -- I always make sure I have my mini-recorder going. It's a visual reminder to the reporter that I'll be comparing what goes on the air (or into print) with what was actually said. If there's a dispute over the questions and the answers, I can then whip out my own recording of the interview and settle it in a heartbeat.

That's called "covering your ass."

What Orr and his crew did was not properly prepped. If it had been, they would have known that even the TSA considers general aviation little, if any, threat to public safety (remember the House Aviation Subcommittee hearing on October 16th, 2003? Remember the TSA official who said as much in that hearing?). They should have known, based on the response they received to their inquiries of the TSA, about AOPA's Airport Watch program. Had they known, the story would have included much more information.

That's called "fair and balanced," a term not to be confused with the Fox News Network's copyrighted catch phrase.

But aside from what the CBS crew knew or didn't know, the story was patently one-sided without any attempt at balanced. That's not an "enterprise story." That's not "investigative reporting."

That's called "hack journalism."

FMI: www.aero-news.net