My plan this week all turned with a simple daily read-in.
An inherent risk of doing the news is coming across content that you as an individual find ridiculous, puzzling, or downright hilarious. Perhaps others might even feel the same way but the deal is, not everyone shares the same perspective or sense of humor.
We live in a world inside and outside of journalism where there is no shortage of people who are offended by mere words or images or the combination of such and/or the manner in which they are presented.
In fact, I imagine someone will find something here along the way to be resentful or irritating.
Like countless other professions, we in this field are expected to perform our duties with skill and acknowledgment. Many times, that is an easy task but sometimes it’s not. When it isn’t, the reasons have nothing to do with disrespect or insensitivity.
The difficulty lies with the absurd or at least the common perception of what’s deemed illogical, irrational, or ludicrous.
I think however, things become easier with an ongoing story or series of events. Take the controversies encircling Congressman George Santos (R-NY). The revelations began scarcely two months ago yet seem to add on to a virtual tote board almost daily.
There is a thesaurus full of adjectives to describe the goings on and while the late-night talk and morning zoos can have all the fun they want, the news has to play it straight.
Network and local news anchors and reporters run the risk of appearing almost deadpan in their delivery because comedy is not what they are there for. They are not what’s funny, it’s the truth or at least the information they’re presenting that’s funny.
Nevertheless, they have to tell it cold. That’s not easy.
With stories like Santos’, I’m pretty sure an almost journalistic immunity is developed over the days and weeks as new information whether they be claims, accusations, or questions emerge regularly.
More challenging are the sporadic tales of truth that fall into an undiagnosed category yet are still news and are in fact, information worthy of dissemination.
Take a simple local burglary as an example: a theft from a local hotel room. Neat, straightforward, and makes for an easy anchor read over the surveillance photo of the suspect who got into somebody’s room and made off with a Gucci bag, a Fendi bag, and a hairless cat named Princess.
That anchor read best be off-camera and not with an over the shoulder shot of the suspect. Unless your anchor is a statue.
I’m sorry, nobody should be the victim of a crime and nobody should have their pet stolen but where I come from, if you start talking up hairless cats…somebody’s giggling.
We all know what happened to Mr. Bigglesworth and Rachel’s impulse buy.
Radio people, you’re on your own.
Day in and day out, regular people do stupid things or criminals get caught with their pants down and as long as nobody dies or is hurt and fortunes are not lost, it can usually become a kicker story and everyone is happy and gets a laugh in the process.
But life and news stories don’t always work that way. Sadly, and uncomfortably, people die awkwardly or get hurt in strange ways. The mere telling of the tale becomes uncomfortable or there are details so pertinent yet clumsy that they must be included.
If you look at the words macabre or dark, they are often followed by the humor. But most times, a journalist cannot go that way while telling a story.
And of course, there are no shortages in the objections to depictions and descriptions society once found historically and socially acceptable. Many legal and community challenges develop over team sports names, club monikers, etc.
People have opinions.
These stories usually present little or no challenge to the journalist as there has developed over time a growing dialogue and positions of support on all sides to addressing the issue or change proposed.
There are always exceptions or at least some stories like this harder than others to tell while walking in a straight line.
I refer back to some read-in content summarizing a movement calling to end the use of the word “mummy” for what or who we have come to know as mummified remains. From what I’ve read, museums in the UK are moving away from the term in favor of longer descriptions as the singular term is perceived to be dehumanizing.
Unexpected perhaps, but worth pondering.
There’s no effort to decry or defend the position here but the perception of a viewing, listening, or reading audience is predictably likely to be mixed and varied, ranging from a fist in the air, “right on” to an eye-rolling, “seriously?”.
Those telling this story need to know that so they can drive the information home head on without veering off the road of stoicism and professional passivity.
It’s times like these when a true poker face is a gift.
Bill Zito has devoted most of his work efforts to broadcast news since 1999. He made the career switch after serving a dozen years as a police officer on both coasts. Splitting the time between Radio and TV, he’s worked for ABC News and Fox News, News 12 New York , The Weather Channel and KIRO and KOMO in Seattle. He writes, edits and anchors for Audacy’s WTIC-AM in Hartford and lives in New England. You can find him on Twitter @BillZitoNEWS.
