Poynter Online - Al's Morning Meeting

TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2006

Tuesday Edition: News Raw

RELATED RESOURCES

Like Al's ideas? Hear more in our broadcast and online seminars.

Sign up to receive Al's Morning Meeting by e-mail:
* Click here (sent Monday-Friday at 7 a.m.)

Buy Al's book, "Aim for the Heart," here, and Poynter receives a small cut as an Amazon affiliate.

Last week, I told you about The Spokesman-Review's new project that puts the newspaper's editorial meetings online live. I have another example of newsroom transparency for you this week. KNBC-TV in Los Angeles has an online section, called "News Raw," in which online viewers can watch parts of the morning meeting and debriefs with producers, managers and reporters about the day's news. Other attributes of News Raw include behind-the-scenes chats with reporters and photojournalists on assignments. Some of the video is rough-cut or uncut.

Some News Raw material will be incoming unfolding news events from the satellite feeds.

News Raw also does raw, Web-exclusive debriefings with correspondents -- for example, this one with NBC's Jim Miklaszewski.

News Raw is currently slated to become an element of KNBC's digital Channel 4.4 programming (click for details in a short video). The plan is for News Raw to be constantly streaming to the Web and the digital channel.

I interviewed KNBC Vice President & News Director Bob Long about the project via e-mail:

AL TOMPKINS: Why do you produce News Raw? What is the vision?

BOB LONG: There was an opportunity to carve out a slice of bandwidth for news and we determined to try something that wouldn't duplicate the services we were already offering. If you are going to stay true to your profession and your brand, the options are limited. We chose a loose amalgam of behind-the-camera activity, analysis, photo essay, extended breaking news coverage and interactive. Your questions suggest you have focused upon News Raw/Inside, which is the morning meeting. News Raw/Backstory and News Raw/Right Now are other features of the programming. We are adding News Raw/Producer's Cut and News Raw/Shooter's Cut this week. News Raw is a service, not a program. It is an extension of our newsroom and a factory that produces content that can be accessed piecemeal on our Web site. I hope it will remain organic and evolve as the newsroom continues to volunteer new content -- content that would have otherwise remained in [journalists'] notebooks and in the part of the brain that files frustration.

If people watch News Raw, what do you hope they will learn about the process of newsgathering, decision-making and news judgment?

This is not about putting ourselves in front of the news of the day and we do not presume to teach. As with anything we do, we hope the information and, specifically as it applies to aspects of News Raw, how we process that information, will help watchers and readers better understand their world.

The morning editorial meetings that you feature usually include only producers and managers. Why are there so few reporters and photojournalists included in the meetings?

Most of the reporters working the day shift attend some portion of the meeting, either in person or by phone. Those who don't are already assigned. Photographers, being hourly employees, have staggered shifts, and all of those who are on the clock during the meeting are on assignment -- about half of them preparing for our midday report.

What has the public response been to News Raw?

There has been no formal promotion for News Raw. Some internal cross-plugging, but that's it. We anticipate being available on cable in the fall, but at the moment, no one can see Channel 4.4 without having a digital TV and tuning an antenna. Nevertheless, we get e-mail suggesting we have some followers out there. Many more people seem to be watching us on their computers, through Web simulcasts or ordering up discreet segments of the service. We have also heard from journalism students at Columbia and from people inside NBC News [in] New York. We have been mentioned in blogs and complimented for our "transparency," one of the principal totems of the "new media."

Do you foresee a time when you might stream the unedited morning meeting online?

No. To do so would damage the integrity of the meeting and alter its character in a negative way.

Do you sense that competitors watch the meeting?

We don't know. We are very different from each other and I can't imagine our competitors attempting to do the kind of enterprise stories that are our hallmark, and we have no interest in pursuing much of material they serve up.

There have been a few mild fights and squabbles among producers over stories on News Raw. What does the public learn by seeing such things?

I have no idea, but I would hope they find our interactions familiar and somehow reassuring. The notion of a monolithic news media is absurd.

What concerns do you have about journalists publicly expressing opinions about stories online during an editorial meeting in ways that we would not allow on the air?

Journalists have opinions, but we fight to keep them from shaping our reporting. People know that and I don't mind letting them see how we work balance our humanity with our profession. This is part of the "transparency" many find lacking in "old media." Anything new is risky.

Torch My Ride

Edmunds.com says high gas prices make big gas-guzzlers so unattractive that some owners have taken to setting them on fire to collect insurance. This story seems to crop up every once in a while, when prices spike:

Jennifer Mieth, manager of fire data and public education at the Massachusetts State Fire Marshall's Office, said car fires are "cyclical." She added, "When times are good, fires are down. When they are bad they go up."

In 1984, Mieth said it was "commonly accepted for Mr. and Mrs. Citizen to 'sell' their car back to the insurance company by lighting it on fire." To put a stop to that, the Burned Motor Vehicle Reporting Law was passed in 1987. This required the owner of a burned vehicle to complete and sign a report that must also be signed by a fire official from the department where the fire occurred. The new law was the most likely reason that vehicle fires dropped 95 percent, from a high of 5,116 in 1987 to 217 in 2004.

Vehicle arson has had a long and occasionally humorous track record over the years. In Texas, a car salesman was arrested after offering his customers what he called a "rotisserie program." He would have their cars torched; then, after they collected on the insurance, he sold them a new car. In another part of the state, two students were arrested after they torched their high school teacher's car in exchange for passing grades.

[Robert] Rowe, [arson investigator for the City of Downey, Calif., and] a firefighter since 1994, is in charge of contacting owners of burned vehicles to make sure their stories add up. While he hasn't seen any "rotisserie programs," he has heard his share of lies. Often he will begin his investigation by contacting the dealership where the car was purchased to see the sales jacket (loan contract) of a burned car. If the owner is upside-down, and particularly if they recently purchased "gap insurance" to make sure they were fully covered, they fall under suspicion.

Actually, torching your own car isn't illegal, although as Rowe points out, if you have financed it, "you will pay for that burned-out shell for the rest of the lease." However, if you report the fire to your insurance company as accidental, when in fact it was arson, you have committed insurance fraud.

"In the majority of the fires we have on the freeways, nine out of 10 times the owner is still with the car, or close by," Rowe said. So when a car is found burning, and no owner is in sight, it quickly becomes suspicious. In most arson cases, the car is reported stolen. But due to sophisticated anti-theft devices, it's not easy to steal a car without the key. Many owners become vague when Rowe asks them to account for the second key. Often, they maintain the dealership never gave it to them when they initially purchased the car.

The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud sheds some light on how Americans feel about insurance fraud. It helps to explain why the car fires don't surprise firefighters:

Nearly one of four Americans say it's OK to defraud insurers, says a survey by the consulting firm Accenture Ltd. Some 8 percent say it's "quite acceptable" to bilk insurers, while 16 percent say it's "somewhat acceptable." About one in 10 people agree it's OK to submit claims for items that aren't lost or damaged, or for personal injuries that didn't occur. Two of five people are "not very likely" or "not likely at all" to report someone who ripped of an insurer. Click here for the complete study. Accenture Ltd. (2003)
Nearly one of 10 Americans would commit insurance fraud if they knew they could get away with it. Nearly three of 10 Americans (29 percent) wouldn't report insurance scams committed by someone they know. Progressive Insurance (2001)
More than one of three Americans say it's OK to exaggerate insurance claims to make up for the deductible (40 percent in 1997). Insurance Research Council (2000)

Cemetery Metal Thefts

It doesn't get much lower than this. In Florida, thieves have stolen metal vases from cemetery burial sites. It is just one more indication of how much money thieves stand to make these days by stealing metal like brass and copper. (See previous Al's Morning Meeting stories about this trend.)

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale says:

Funeral home managers think the thieves came to the cemeteries under the cover of darkness, loaded up trucks with the vases, which cost family members between $115 and $200, and sold them to scrap metal dealers. The stolen vases, which stand about 10 inches tall and weigh at most 10 pounds, could fetch between $6 and $14 each.

Cattle Thefts Rising

The Rural Blog this week mentioned that cattle thefts are up, partly because beef prices have been steadily strong for the last few years. Just to be clear, we are not talking about tens of thousands of missing cattle. Just to give you an idea about the size of the problem, The Cattleman magazine tracks cattle thefts online. Contributing to the theft problem is the fact that cattle auctions don't require much in the way of identification or proof of ownership. The Associated Press reports:

Millions of dollars of stolen cattle have been recovered in the last two years in Oklahoma and Texas. And in Missouri, a rash of thefts totaling more than $1 million -- also since 2004--- recently led the governor to create a special task force as lawmakers have called for increased penalties for the culprits.

Back in the days of the Wild West, cattle thieves sometimes paid for their crimes with a rope around the neck. Now, they're more likely to get a slap on the wrist or prison if it's a repeat offense or an especially large theft.

Some say rustling is on the rise because of a 25 percent increase in beef prices in the last five years. Others, though, say thieves are oblivious to market fluctuations and tend to be common criminals -- some of them methamphetamine users -- looking for a fast buck.

"It's financial problems. It's greed. It's to support a drug habit," [Joe] Rector, [an investigator who tools around the back roads of central Oklahoma,] says. "It's just because they're there."

Cattle thieves are able to exploit a world of absentee owners, busy auction barns and a way of doing business that relies more on a handshake than paperwork. They usually prey on smaller ranches and farms, and can pocket thousands of dollars in no time.

"It's quick, it's good money and it's not hard if you know what you're doing," says John Bradshaw, a Texas cattle investigator. "If you steal one cow worth $1,000, that pays your house payment or a car. ... It may take 20 minutes .... You've got the rest of the week to do your (legitimate) job. It's a good racket."

And unlike other crimes, Bradshaw says, rustlers collect full value. "If you steal a TV and sell it, you might get $30," he says. "With cattle, you're getting 100 percent what they're worth."

U.S. Population to Hit 300 Million Soon

Scripps Howard News Service says it will happen in mid- or late October. The story says there won't be a celebration:

Unlike the commemorations in 1967 when Americans hailed the 200 million mark, federal authorities this year won't be building giant population clocks as props for jubilant politicians. Nor will they encourage the news media to locate the newborn who put the nation over the top.

Instead, critics of rapid growth will question anew whether America can remain prosperous while burgeoning at the unprecedented rate of 1 million new residents every 127 days. Others will angrily argue that the 300 millionth American very likely will be an illegal immigrant.

Aware of the anxieties, the Bush administration is low-key about the approaching population landmark. The only official recognition planned so far is a modest press briefing by federal demographic experts.

"We won't style it as a celebration, particularly," Census Director [Charles] Louis Kincannon said in an interview. "I don't think we will try to achieve much theater."

Population experts aren't surprised.

"The pressures associated with population growth are dominating our public discussion with issues like traffic congestion, school overcrowding, loss of open spaces and increases in municipal taxes," said Robert Puentes, a scholar with the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "It's not surprising no one is celebrating this."

Foremost among the Bush administration's fears of the coming landmark are concerns it will fuel renewed anger among conservatives over federal immigration and border-security policies. Immigrants accounted for about 40 percent of population growth in recent years, and about half of them entered the United States illegally.