FEMA Briefing: A Heck of a Press Conference

With wildfires raging across Southern California last Tuesday, cable networks Fox News and MSNBC (below) broke into their coverage to broadcast a live press briefing from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Harvey Johnson, a deputy administrator, took the podium to update the public on the government’s response to the devastating blazes. However, the questions portion of the briefing featured unusually soft queries—surprising given journalists’ tendency to cross-examine the Bush Administration in the years since the Hurricane Katrina disaster. According to a USA Today article, off-camera voices in the room asked questions such as “Sir, we understand the secretary and the administrator of FEMA are on their way out there. What is their objective?” and “Sir, there are a number of reports that people weren't heeding evacuation orders and that was hindering emergency responders. Can you speak a little to that, please?”

The problem is that these voices were not those of Washington reporters. They were of FEMA employees attending the briefing, lobbing softball questions to their boss. Journalists were unable to make it to the briefing because FEMA announced the conference less than 15 minutes before it began. The agency did create a 1-800 number reporters could call to listen to the conference, though it was not configured to allow for questions. While the conference itself was uneventful, reaction was overwhelmingly negative as word came out that the event was staged. White House Press Sectary Dana Perino said, “It's not something I would have condoned, and they, I'm sure, will not do it again." Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security (the department overseeing FEMA) was even harsher, saying “"I think it was one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things I've seen since I've been in government.” FEMA has since apologized and explained that it wanted to get information out as quickly as possible. When reporters did not make it in time, employees felt obligated to pose “questions” instead. CBS’s Bob Schieffer said in his weekly commentary that Chertoff should get rid of these employees all together and then “explain to the new people that the best way for a disaster relief agency to get good publicity is to do a good job helping disaster victims.” Since then, John Philbin, head of FEMA’s public relations, has left his post. In the end, the conference did little harm to the public but proved to be a major embarrassment for the administration. If the agency was solely interested in distributing information, administrators should have just turned on the cameras and read a statement to the networks tuned in at the time. The moment that those employees off camera began with the fawning questions, the American public was deceived.

The Bush administration has faced criticism for staged media content before. A 2005 New York Times article revealed that at least 20 federal agencies had produced news stories on topics from military strategy in Iraq to farm policy. These “video news releases” were sent to local TV stations and many found their way into actual broadcasts. Out of laziness or oversight, most aired without the newscast attributing the content to the government. These segments usually included “‘interviews’ with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed.” Meanwhile, opinions from critics or government watchdogs would be notably absent from the pieces. Such tactics worked well at a time when stations were under pressure to both expand their coverage and cut costs. To fill those extra minutes on the air, a free piece with slick production and a reporter who sounds credible made a very tempting addition. Admittedly, this type of press manipulation is far more complex than the decision to fake a news conference in the fog of a regional disaster, but both illustrate the administration’s strained relationship with the media. Perhaps the besieged administration sees packaged news as the only way to get good coverage—even though the aftermath usually gets more of the attention and negates the original message.

Fox Business Channel: For the Expert or Everyman?

As News Corp. prepares to launch Fox Business Channel (FBC) on October 15, there is growing speculation about the approach it will use in tackling financial news. According to Variety, the channel will try to appeal to both diehard investors and consumers interested in business. However, the article notes this has proved to be a perilous path before:

The approach, appealing to the American consumer as well as the professional investor, has been tried before, notably by CNNfn, which didn't survive the dot-com crash…. [A]nchors were once instructed to ditch the finance jargon -- "the Fed" for example -- but found they ended up talking down to their core aud[ience] of finance professionals.

The Wall Street vs. Main Street conundrum is a daily challenge for business news channels. FBC executives are promising to cut down on the financial lingo that alienates average television viewers. NBC Universal’s CNBC tilts more towards the professional set. Its daytime viewership averages around 250,000 and the channel attracts some of the wealthiest television viewers. Industry experts believe there is room for another channel.

News Corp. may already have a leg up when it comes to programming targeted towards consumers. Fox News Channel (FNC) is currently home to the top six business-themed shows on cable. Neil Cavuto’s popular “Cavuto on Business” will remain on the news channel, even as he serves as a flagship personality on the business sibling. Meanwhile, managers have tapped a variety other talent, including a Nashville radio host who specializes in personal finance.

FBC’s new logo (above) forgoes the multicolor graphics that adorn FNC. Executives from the network say the gold scheme is a hint towards the riches viewers can apparently amass by watching the channel. Perhaps this is another indication that the network is aiming for the everyday consumers – power users of CNBC probably don’t need to be reminded of their wealth. Meanwhile, promotions posted on FBC's new site (screen capture left) feature actors depicting everyday people such as a baker, voice actress and antiques dealer, each asking questions like "how am I going to send my children to college?" Each spot also reinforces a "business of life" brand.

The launch of FBC comes just months after News Corp. announced a plan to takeover the revered Wall Street Journal. Critics of that deal worried that chairman Rupert Murdoch, an Australian, would use the newspaper to further a conservative agenda while trampling its journalistic independence. However, as a piece from The Economist points out, it’s in Murdoch’s best interest to protect such a holding:

Mr Murdoch is a tabloid king who has a reputation for taking everything he buys downmarket. The Journal is the gold standard of business reporting. Mr Murdoch is one of the biggest beasts in the business jungle, constantly on the prowl for synergies and acquisitions.…If Mr Murdoch degrades the Journal, he will be destroying the very thing for which he is paying such a premium—the paper's reputation.

At the time of the deal, it was rumored that Murdoch was seeking out the Journal and its Dow Jones parent because its resources could be marshaled in the launch of an upcoming business channel. However, with this launch just days away, there are no obvious signs of any type of cross-branding between the station and the newspaper. FBC uses a distinctive logo, draws on existing FNC personalities and will cover both consumer and investor news.

The success of FBC will be interesting to watch this fall. With FNC currently at the top of cable news ratings, buzz from the older sister station could translate into strong ratings for the newcomer. However, like with the Journal, Murdoch has an incentive to keep the channel's news as apolitical as possible. Investors don’t like their business news mixed with opinion and spin.

CNBC (right) enjoyed its heyday during the bullish years of the late nineties, but market conditions are less certain now. FBC will probably see strongest growth among consumers interested in the economy and finance issues. More devout investors are probably happy with the straight-talking CNBC for now. However, FNC made waves when it jumped into the cable news market 11 years ago and has now surpassed the genre's pioneer, CNN. Could FBC enjoy the same success?

The “Media Matters” Effect: Fueling Partisan Coverage

Media Matters (right) has again demonstrated its influence in parts of the mainstream media. This past week saw a three-way shouting match among the left-leaning site, CNN and commentator Bill O’Reilly. It began with O’Reilly’s comments during his September 19 radio show. The pundit described recent lunch with Reverend Al Sharpton at Sylvia’s, a black-owned restaurant in Harlem. According to a Media Matters transcript of the exchange, O’Reilly said he was surprised by the similarities between the eatery and those patronized by whites: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun." The item was posted on Media Matters the afternoon of September 21, adding to a large collection of complaints the site has against O’Reilly. By September 26, CNN picked up the story and began airing news reports asking if O’Reilly’s comments were racist. CNN anchor Rick Sanchez (left) led the charge, reporting on the fallout (much of it manufactured by CNN) and inviting guests to debate on his show. O’Reilly fired back, arguing that his comments were simply "benign" and that he was quoted out of context. On his own show, O'Reilly said “Media Matters fabricated the story, and major media outlets picked up the fabrication, trying to diminish me and the Fox News Channel.” However, during this segment he described his original words as a productive “discussion of race” without replaying the original tape.

This was not the first time O’Reilly has squared off against criticism from Media Matters. During an interview on Irish television, O’Reilly was asked about the controversy he generates in the United States. O’Reilly turned the tables, accusing the host of pulling material from the “assassination website” Media Matters. He then dodged giving a real answer, saying “I can’t possibly answer that question, I don’t know what the discussion was." O'Reilly and other pundits are understandably aggravated by Media Matters because the restaurant controversy is only one in a series brought on by the site. Last spring, the editors were responsible for bringing to light the disparaging remarks Don Imus made about the women’s basketball team at Rutgers University. Public outrage grew until Imus’s show was canceled a week later. A New York Times article noted that the Media Matters post echoed across the blogosphere so loudly that within a few days "both [Imus's] radio and television outlets were getting out 10-foot poles." But this latest ordeal with O'Reilly has only intensified the spotlight on Media Matters. The site, launched in 2004, says it is “dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” However, as this Newsday article from last year notes, the site has clear connections to Senator Hilary Clinton: "Two years ago, she advised [founder David] Brock on creating the group, encouraging the creation of a liberal equivalent of the Media Research Center, a conservative group that has aggravated Democrats for decades...[Clinton] thinks he provides a valuable service, according to people familiar with the relationship."

Critics of the site say it is out to libel any personality that does not tow the Democratic party line. Noel Sheppard, a contributing editor at the conservative media site NewsBusters, charges "Hillary and her backers have created an advocacy network whose expressed goal is to take down all of her critics in the media." Other opponents say Media Matters resorts to quoting out of context in “smear” campaigns. This is an exaggeration. While items posted on the site can become a lightning rod for controversy, they still carry an extremely professional tone and do not resort to any partisan name calling. Clips are presented far from “out of context”--transcripts of television or radio appearances can span many pages (see example here) and give readers a true idea of what preceded and followed the words in question.

The point I want to make here is twofold. First, CNN and other media outlets are obviously visiting Media Matters and using material provided there as fodder for stories. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann routinely uses material featured on the site, which in turn lands him a positive mention from the group. Media Matters has emerged as a clearinghouse for transcripts and video clips of controversial comments made by conservative hosts. Secondly, I believe this relationship hurts the reputation of the media outlets involved. Rather than monitoring O’Reilly’s show themselves, CNN seemed to wait for something juicy to rise to the top, pre-packaged by Media Matters. This type of reporting, where the network is clearly taking leads from an activist website, gives credence to critics who say the channel has a liberal bias. Consequently, O’Reilly can launch into counter-attacks about a liberal press conspiracy against him. Both sides have valid arguments here. All the while, Media Matters does a reliable job of documenting what at times can be truly vile or hateful words coming from the right. Each has a role to play along the media spectrum, but some type of firewall between the parties would go a long way towards ensuring a more civil discussion on topics as important as race.