[697] in Humor
HUMOR: Modern Reporting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew A. Bennett)
Fri Jan 27 15:14:02 1995
To: humor@MIT.EDU
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 14:54:42 EST
From: "Andrew A. Bennett" <abennett@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 17:19:53 +0000 (GMT)
From: Espacionaute Spiff domine! <MATOSSIAN@aries.colorado.edu>
From: bostic@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Bostic)
Subject: Mike Royko on TV News Reporters
Forwarded-by: dfitzpat@interserv.com
ROYKO: TV REPORTERS TRULY DUMB AND DUMBER
By Mike Royko
Tribune Columnist
The Chicago Tribune
The two young women were standing outside the courthouse entrance,
pancake makeup on their pretty faces, microphones in their hands
and the gleam of the huntress in their eyes.
They were flanked by several of the large trade-school dropouts who
make their living aiming TV cameras at anything that might make a
bleeding blip on the nightly news.
As I approached, the young women smiled and moved toward me. One of
them tried her best to shove the microphone up my left nostril,
while asking one of the most amazingly stupid questions I have
heard in 40 years in the news business.
She said: "Mr. Royko, what happened in the courtroom today?" That
might not strike some readers as being stupid, so I'll explain why
it was so brainless.
The courtroom to which she referred was less than a one-minute walk
away.
The courtroom door was unlocked. Any reporter could stroll in,
plunk herself down, and hear everything that went on. A couple of
reporters did: one from the Tribune and one from the City News
Bureau.
They were there to write about my hearing on a charge of driving
under the influence of genuine 86 proof skull-popper.
For that matter, any gravedigger or homeless person could have
walked in and grabbed a seat. The courtroom was open to everyone,
as the American legal system requires.
That's why the young woman's question struck me as so stupid. I
have never heard of reporters being assigned to cover a court case
and not bothering to go into the courtroom to see what happens.
So I answered her question this way: "Are you a reporter?"
She appeared surprised. But she said: "Yes, I am."
"Then why didn't you come into the courtroom and cover the
hearing?"
The question appeared to confuse her. Which didn't detract from my
admiration of her obvious journalistic skills. These skills would
include a perky bosom, a shapely bottom, pearly teeth, elegant
clothing, beautifully sculpted hair and terrific legs.
So she said something like: "That's why I'm asking you what
happened in the courtroom."
I put on my finest look of disgust and said: "Are you paid to be a
reporter?"
"Yes," she said, a slight throbbing in her delicate throat. Under
other circumstances, I might have given it a hickey.
"Then why do you want me to do your job for you? If you are a
reporter, why weren't you in court where you belonged, covering the
hearing?"
To give you an idea of how schlocky TV news is, there was someone
from her channel in the courtroom. An artist, sketching my haggard
features. No reporter, but a second-rate artist.
But while the sketcher did my wrinkles, this lovely thing was
hanging out in the hallway, waiting for someone to walk by to give
her five seconds that would put her on the evening feed.
The idea is that she will be seen by a network producer who might
say: "Wow. What a reporter. What a set of teeth."
I have covered 1,000 trials, but not one by standing in the hallway
or outside the main entrance.
It is likely that the lovely young thing got her job because she
has a pretty face and a shapely bottom.
And it is almost certain that she is making $100,000 a year. (Think
about that when you drive your truck through heavy traffic.)
That evening, I turned on the TV news to see how this silly
business would be presented.
On Channels 5 and 2--which sent the two ninnies--they showed me and
the mob of cameramen and the lovely young things moving through the
parking garage.
But they left out the best stuff, assuming that you believe news
should be done in depth: me asking why their reporters were so
stupid.
Why did they leave it out?
Because they didn't want it revealed on their own TV news shows
that their reporters are lazy flighty lightweights. How stupid
could they look? It was lopped. Some producer said: "Don't put this
on. It will make our reporter look stupid."
Sure it would. But so what? That is our business. Too bad this is
what we see. It is what we prefer. Who can argue?
Copyright Chicago Tribune (c) 1995
