As managing editor of TV news people have a tough job. They have to boil down complicated topics into just a few minutes, and try to couple it with interesting visuals, too. TV reporters frequently are thrown into a lot of stories every day, and they're expected to be experts on a ton of topics. It's not easy. So when they do their job well, they deserve applause.
That said, this story from CBS Channel 4 in Miami is poorly done. Like a lot of TV coverage of environmental issues , it's too simplistic, too one-sided, and unnecessarily alarmist.
The story is headlined "Poison Plastic?" on the station's Web site, and it looks like it's largely the result of some video featuring cartoon character Sam Suds that the station got from the Centers for Health and Environmental Justice, a group that opposes PVC. It also quotes Patty Kodish, who the story describes as an international health advocate who is starting a Florida environmental coalition.
The biggest problems with the story are the lack of context and overgeneralizations about PVC. The story also needs a stronger response from someone who can speak with more authority on PVC's record, although in this case I think the "other side" of the story probably would have been buried. How can an industry expert talking about science compete with a talking cartoon duck?
Comments (3)
Thanks for checking in and sharing your thoughts, Marshall. If you ever get tired of working in the plastics industry, you should look into a career as a comedy writer.
When I see good, balanced reports about plastics, I'll point them out too. I guess we'll see which type of report is more common.
Posted by Don Loepp | February 7, 2007 3:28 PM
Posted on February 7, 2007 15:28
Although I'm no expert on PVC (other than having processed a lot of it), or PVC-related legislation, I am, however, qualified to speak on the subject of TV "news." (Disclaimer Alert: I have worked for 3 New Orleans local-affiliate television stations in the past, and it was a great experience. I did not work in an "on-air" capacity, I have no crosses to burn; thus this is objective.) Over the last 30 years, the quality and integrity of TV news has devolved from real journalism and reporting, similar to print journalism, to a business driven strictly by finances, Arbitron ratings, Q Factors, and "talking heads." Reports now are often written by teams, keying on sensationalism and speculation, and less on facts or research, where in the past they were written, or at least edited by, the actual reporters.
Often cringing at the comments made by network or cable commentators, usually on the weekends where the rookies are exiled, I'm left wondering if they are actually listening to their own stories, or if they just have very little real-world experience.
A couple of years ago, I wrote a similar tirade to Fox News, complaining about their "Fair And Balanced" (yet obviously far, far-right leaning) tag, and their irritatingly-constant "Fox News Alerts," where I surmissed, soon we would hear one alerting us that "a baby had filled its' diaper at LAX. A live report is on the way."
A lack of knowledge and facts (be it plastics or PVC-related, or about anything), and sensationalism-for-sensationalism's sake (which at one time was rightly frowned upon by respectable news organizations), has become the standard call for most local, and some cable providers today, regardless of fact, and driven mostly by ratings and the dollar.
Posted by Marshall Ronin | February 7, 2007 5:46 PM
Posted on February 7, 2007 17:46
It is also sensational that plastics are good for the environment. We know about the applications, the jobs, the accidents and illnesses that are prevented by non-broken bottles (remember glass?) and sanitary one-use everythings at home and in hospital.
But there are environmental benefits of plastics, too -- light weight saves fuel, no pollution at paper mills, no support of bacteria in less-than-sanitary landfills, recyclable, etc.
Why aren't we taking this approach vigorously? If we show up the self-styled protectors of our earth with science-backed numbers, and make them debate them in public, that is certainly Fox-worthy.
I'm sending this exchange to SPI -- let's see what they will do.
Posted by allan griff | February 13, 2007 9:33 AM
Posted on February 13, 2007 09:33