3 Rules to Save Broadcast Journalism From Scoop Mania

I don’t wish to toot my own horn but I can save Western civilization from doom. Well, not all of Western civilization. Just the broadcast journalism component. But, hey, it’s a start.

My views are based on a personal version of reality formed while watching the media dismember the president over the past six years.

Broadcast journalism, once the domain of giants who saw news as essential to democracy, now appears to be ruled by coiffed correspondents who rush about in pancake makeup.

They announce the imminent destruction of Bill Clinton (again), pontificate about what some politician might have meant by what he might have said about something he might have done and qualify as experts on news / talk-show programs because they once spoke to a real expert. They do this all in the name of producing The Scoop.

But a scoop and news are not always the same thing. A news story struggles to be accurate. A scoop claws to be first.

It is addiction to The Scoop that is destroying the standards of the profession. Scoop envy has even driven print reporters to forego the safety of a once-a-day deadline and use the Internet for an equal chance to be wrong first.

I humbly call my solution to scoop mania the Three Golden Rules of Broadcast Journalism. And if every journalism school with a hairstyling class taught these rules, we could pull back from the brink.

In the midst of an earlier “White House scandal,� I heard Cokie Roberts on ABC’s “Nightline� phrase a question as follows: “If . . . , and if . . . , and if . . . , and if . . . , then doesn’t that damage the president?� Well, yes, and if the president of ABC were a dirt eater, and if he ate dirt out of other people’s yards, and if there were pictures of him eating dirt in other people’s yards, it would damage him, too. So Rule No. 1: During an interview, a reporter is only allowed to use one “if� per question.

An NBC reporter recently played this game of logical leapfrog: “If Monica Lewinsky accepts an immunity deal, then the president could face a possible perjury charge.� The words “if,� “could� and “possible� are called qualifiers. When you use them, it means you are not sure. So Rule No. 2: Use only one qualifier per report. And if there is no story left, then it may be possible that there was no story to begin with.

The mea culpa cries of broadcasters, when accused of sacrificing accuracy for speed, are especially empty of reason. The ratings for news programming are never higher than when scoops scoot across the airwaves, broadcasters point out. They are only giving the viewer what the viewer wants.

The foundation of that argument assumes that the people who seek news about their government are the same people who watch Jerry Springer. So Rule No. 3: The electorate is not an audience.

The most sought after TV audience is 18- to 49-year-old males. I can tell you from personal experience that most of them don’t know how to register to vote and would do so only if the government started hiring poll workers from Hooters.

Voters, on the other hand, have chosen to participate in their government. They need news, not scoops. And if they cannot get accuracy from the media they will turn elsewhere.

You can see where this is going to lead. Clinton’s approval rating is soaring over 70%. People are starting to trust their politicians. Now that could lead to the end of civilization as we know it.