TV News Review

 The new slogan for ‘Fox & friends’ seems to be “We Obfuscate. You Wonder.”

Last week this blog criticized F&F host Gretchen Carlson for her refusal to say the name of Robert Hawkins, the Omaha mall shooter. Because Hawkins had said in a note he left behind that he was ‘going out in a blaze of glory’ Carlson took it upon herself to refuse to report his name feeling it would somehow deprive him of notoriety. This blog gave credit to her fellow anchors for not following her example and doing their duty as anchors and reporting Hawkins’ name.

It seems that Carlson’s position has now contaminated the other anchors at F&F. This morning all of the anchors (Steve Doocy, Alisyn Camerota, Brian Kilmeade and Carlson) were refusing to say the name of Matthew Murray, the 24 yr old that carried out two seperate, multiple murders in Colorado on Sunday before being shot by a security guard at a church, the site of the second shooting, and then killing himself.

Alisyn Camerota said on the show Tuesday morning that she was uncomfortable saying his name because he was probably seeking the same attention that the Omaha shooter had sought. Also she was worried that giving him the attention of saying his name might spur copycat crimes. At the same time on CNN is was being reported that Murray’s motive appeared to be an excessive hatred of Christians combined with the possibility of serious psychiatric problems, not a seeking of attention by the media. Why Fox News failed to have this information is unclear.

Why should the F&F anchors decide that they will fail in their journalistic duty to report the facts of a news story based upon the motives of the person carrying out the crime? Will they say Murray’s name tomorrow when it is clear that he committed the crimes out of hate and not for glory? Is one an acceptable motive? Is the murder not just as wrong regardless of the motive? Is the ID of the criminal more news worthy when the motive is one that the anchors approve of?

What if the goal of the crime is to not gain fame but the goal of the crime is to have the crime itself become infamous? Is that not what terrorism is? Terrorist pick their targets not for their military value but for a target that will cause large amounts of causalities and news coverage. If F&F will now not tell their audience the name of someone that commits murder so their name will not be in the news will they now refuse to report terrorist acts in their totality? (That would explain why F&F was a whole hour behind CNN’s American Morning on reporting of a twi ncar bombing in Algeria that left over 50 people dead.) Would the F&F anchors refuse to report the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center? Those were clearly acts of terrorism designed based upon the wish for huge publicity. What about when a terrorist releases a video or audio tape for no other reason than to get attention? Will they refuse to report the release?

It is a slippery slope when a journalist starts deciding what news they are comfortable with reporting. Failure to report one part of a story, leads to failures to report all of another story, or be open to hypocrisy. It also leads the audience to mistrust the journalist because we can never be certain if we are getting the whole story or if the reporter is holding back something that they aren’t comfortable with, even though the fact is recognize it to be an integral part of the story. A fact that is reported in other crimes.

Also it leads this blogger to wonder why I should watch F&F at all if I know I am going to be having the story censored and I will have to go to another sources to get the information.

Reporting is supposed to be about getting the information right and getting it out first. Reporters should not be worrying about what may or may not trigger another person to commit a crime. David Berkowitz, the ‘Son of Sam’ killer, thought he was getting orders to kill from the neighbor’s barking dog. Would the F&F anchors have all dogs muzzled so their barks would not possibly set someone else off on a killing spree? Charles Manson thought he heard secret messages in the Beatles White Album. These “messages” inspired him to order the double slayings in Tate/LaBianca murders. Would the F&F anchors have all Beatles albums destroyed so they won’t set off some other psychotic? Maybe all music should be silenced.

John Hinkley jr. shot President Ronald Reagan because he thought it would impress Jodie Foster after Hinkley saw the movie ‘Taxi Driver’. Would the F&F anchors have all movies destroyed because they might inspire a violent act?

Journalists should seek out the motive for criminal acts, and report those motives. Not use the motives as a reason to censor the news out of some misguided belief that if the information is reported it will trigger another crime.

The F&F anchors should stop worrying about if their reporting the facts of a violent crime will trigger another crime and rather worry about getting the story and getting it right. (Something they were failing at this morning.) Their job is to report the news, not just the news they feel comfortable with. They should do their job or expect viewers will watch anchors and reporter that don’t subvert their journalistic duty. They should also expect viewers will loose their trust in them as reporters and trust is all a reporter truly has to sell.