TV Jobs
Links and Resources

TV News Investigations:
Drugs Destroy

Subscribers:
Search Our News Archives

TV Awards:
Winners, Rules, and Deadlines

Subscribe to
The Rundown
Successful television today

TV Rundown
Home Page

Dominate Breaking News:
Covering Hostage Crises Live

When an upset, armed individual is threatening to kill someone, the police commanders supervising the emergency response and the news executives in charge of covering the situation have many sensitive decisions.   The anchors, reporters, photographers and producers must be able to report live for extended periods wihout saying anything that could cause injuries or deaths.

Here are several case histories.

Live Hostage Coverage:
What Do You Report?

Around midnight, a mad gunman invaded Henry's Publick House and Grille, a college bar in Berkeley.   This was in the fall of 1990.
This carpenter held the occupants hostage, and physically and sexually assaulted them for about seven hours. A student died. At least nine others were seriously injured. The incident ended when Mehrdad Dashti was shot and killed by a police SWAT team.

Extensive live reports were aired

The television stations carried live cut-ins throughout the night and extended live coverage in the early morning hours. Inside the bar, the gunman watched KPIX-TV.

Afterwards, in a two-page letter to the station (copies to all other media), the hostages contended the station's live reports had endangered their safety.

The hostages claimed the gunman called for "volunteers to die" after he heard a KPIX reporter say that a SWAT team was assembling across the street.

The incident raised the question of how much a news organization should report during an on-going police action where there are lives at stake.

Fuller believed he and his people behaved as responsibly as they could, knowing what they knew then.
He accepted that many of the people who were in the bar were upset.
"The hostages are angry, and I don't blame them for being angry. They were publicly humiliated and raped. That's about as bad as it can get without being killed. I understand their anger and their bitterness," he said.

Did the KPIX reporting jeopardize lives as the hostages claimed?
"There is no way to know," replied Fuller.

He felt that the hostages were extremely angry with the station and they wished there had been no coverage.
"They would like for this incident not to have happened, and anything which happened during the night that made it more uncomfortable for them, they are angry about," he said.
He allowed that perhaps if there wasn't any media there it would not have been as frightening for them.
"However, I do know one victim did say when the gunman found out on our station that he had killed someone, he broke down and cried, and promised he wouldn't shoot anyone else above the waist," he said.

Deciding what to cover includes balancing the possibility of a deranged person monitoring live broadcasts.

At KRON-TV, News Director Al Goldstein said you have to assume the hostage-taker is watching.
He added, "That makes the coverage much more complicated."

While his station was not involved in the coverage controversy, Goldstein did put out a memo the day after the incident instructing his staff in two areas.

He told them:

Goldstein said that in the future they might not carry such stories live. He said once stations had done their public service and warned people to stay away from the area, he was not sure how valuable the rest of the information was.
"If you stack it up against the possible consequences, then what you're left with is: Are you going to be beaten by the other stations? Or, will you be perceived as not covering breaking news?" he said.
He admitted he was wrestling with these questions. He thought about telling the staff to put out the bare facts and then bail out --- covering the story on tape and airing the tape once it was over. Each event has it's own specific elements.

Public safety needs are important, but so is the public's right to know.

""In every hostage situation with live capability, radio and TV people must ask ourselves, 'Is there a remote possibility this could be monitored by the person inside?'" said Kevin Keeshan, Managing Editor of KGO-TV.
He said you must decide whether going live is going to benefit the public greater than the possibility the people inside could be harmed.
"I don't think we should issue a blanket policy against going live. But, the police say if we are going live we should just give basic information," said Keeshan.

The hostage negotiator was so adamant about the dangers of live coverage, he reportedly told representatives of the media that if more people had died, he would have blamed the press for the killings.

The police couldn't understand why the news teams all had to go live at 4 o'clock, when hardly anyone was watching.
"It was a good question and we all had to think about it. The police had no problems with us covering the situation. However, they were concerned about reporting it live," he said.

Most hostage negotiations are pretty much the same: the negotiator tries to get the person's confidence and then convince him to relax and surrender. If the officers can't talk the disturbed person out, they try to put him in a position where they can move in on him.
If the television reports are saying things opposite to what the negotiator is telling the gunman, the whole process breaks down.

In the Berkeley event, there was confusion among the police officials about what to do about the media.

News executives said the command post was too far from the scene to be an effective command post, so the only person there was the Public Information Officer. And, the PIO later admitted he was spending a lot of his time talking to out-of-town radio stations.
Another problem was police did not control access to the hostages as they escaped from the bar throughout the night.
"As far as I know, there were no police officers at the hospital. There were hostages doing live shots as early as 1:45 a.m.," Fuller said.

Police may involve stations in hostage dramas. Some hostage-takers demand they be able to talk to a reporter or even appear live on television.
"The police called us early on and said the gunman was demanding time on Channel 5 and would we be available to help. We said, 'Yes,'" said Fuller.
At one point, the Berkeley police asked Fuller to call the gunman to get Dashti talking. The news executive called, but the crazed carpenter never answered the telephone.

There was discussion about whether television news departments needed guidelines for specific hostage situations.

David Bartlett, President of the Radio Television News Directors Association said the association tried to stay out of the "guidelines business."
He said, "Our general approach to all of these questions, whether it is a hostage situation or an invasion of privacy situation or many others, is that as soon as you get into the guidelines business you get into the exceptions business."
He believed no two cases were sufficiently alike to be good guides for the next one. And, he argued therefore guidelines were at best neutral, and at worst, unhelpful.

"In the case of a hostage situation, the police would much prefer there be an absolute blackout and no reporting on it at all until the ceremony to award the policemen their medals of merit. We don't play that game," he said.
Bartlett's test was "journalistic relevance." Is a particular piece of information or particular line of inquiry relevant to the story?

Bartlett said journalists should evaluate what they would or would not include on the basis of relevance to the story not on the basis of convenience to police or serving the public interest.
"Let's face it. Our job is to tell stories. We don't make this stuff up. We just report what happens," he said.

Bartlett said one of the most important things in going live in any breaking situation was to avoid speculation. He believed calling the gunman "deranged" would be acceptable.
"What are you going to call him? Think about it. What's the reporter's option? Calling the guy 'deranged' would be perfectly appropriate. His actions on the record showed he was 'deranged,'" Bartlett argued.

However, he maintained that a reporter speculating on what the police might be getting ready to do would be journalistically irresponsible, whether there was any life in danger or not.
"Our job is not to speculate. It is to report fact," he said.

Fuller's advice after covering a hostage situation and living through the backlash: "Use common sense. Be careful what you do, and insist the local police agency sit down and be very direct about what they do and do not want reported."
He felt no hard rules should be established on covering a hostage incident.
"Then you are giving away your journalistic responsibility to someone else," he warned.
He thought it was conceivable that somewhere you could end up working with a police department which might give you wrong information.
"If you do only what they told you and exactly what they told you to do, you could end up doing a disservice," he argued.

News executives who had just been through the hostage situation were inclined towards caution.
KRON's Goldstein said police can't tell you what to do, but they can give you guidance, and then you use your common sense.
"If an expert says to you, 'Based on my experience with hostage situations, I don't think you should call this guy "deranged" on the air.' I'm not going to call the guy "deranged." What journalistic difference does it make?" Goldstein said.

Part of the problem with extended coverage is it's tough in the field to fill the air time and to make the editorial decision as to what to say and what not to say.

Goldstein's instructions to reporters: "Treat it as though a member of your family was involved."

There was a meeting between representatives of the news media and the Berkeley police in which the incident was discussed. The public safety officials had developed four recommendations to keep in mind during a hostage situation.
"We might not always follow these, but they are good food for thought," said Fuller.

The department's proposals:

Fuller said it was important not to report the position of other possible victims who may be hiding in the building waiting to be rescued.
"Anything that would endanger the lives of anybody on the scene would be the highest on our list of things not to do --- that could come from anywhere. It could be one of the things the Berkeley police suggested, or information heard on the scanner. It could be something as simple as reporting you see three people walking down the street," he said.

You must know where the gunman is and what his vantage point is before you can tell what is dangerous to do, he added.

Fuller suggested station executives consider having a management person on the scene to assist with coverage.
"On something this big and this important, you need someone on the scene who can make decisions, besides the reporter, producer and cameraperson, " he said.
In this case, nothing that big happened after 1:30 a.m.  But if it had, there wouldn't have been time to go to the phone and to call in for instructions.

On air talent must clearly understand what's expected of them.  It is important --- critical --- for reporters to know what they report. The anchors are sitting there asking, "What's going on out there?" And, it's the reporter's job to describe what he or she sees.  Fuller's reporter made the point that if they didn't want him to describe something, he needed to know in advance that there are certain things which are taboo.

When the hostage taking is political, media coverage is usually one of the criminals' main goals.

Some kidnap victims say coverage has helped protect them.
"There have been a number of cases in which the hostages have pointed out that the reason they weren't injured was that the hostage holders were getting exposure, which is one of the things they wanted," said former network chief Bill Small, who was a professor of Journalism at Fordham University at the time of this event.

Small said that when he was at CBS and NBC, the guidelines for hostage situations said where there was life threatened, you didn't go on the air with certain kinds of material.
"For example, in plots against the life of the President, if the Secret Service asks that you hold up on the story, they will. I don't mean they will kill the story, but they will hold it at the moment it places a life in jeopardy," he explained.
He added there was a long history of television cooperating with law enforcement in kidnapping cases.
Small recalled when the editor of an Atlanta newspaper was kidnapped, the execuitve later said the fact the story was on radio kept the kidnappers from turning on him.

Hubert Williams, President of the Police Foundation in Washington, suggested that because of the widespread use of live reporting, the media and police should discuss potential situations and have an understanding of each other's needs.
He felt the police had to engage the people holding the hostages in a manner in which the police can exercise control.
"To the degree that their actions are made known to the hostage holders, it causes the police to lose control, and diminishes the chances they will have a successful release of the hostages," he warned.
He felt there was a clear need to balance the needs of the media to get the information to the public, and the needs of the police to get the hostages back safe and sound.
"If these needs have to clash, the safety of the individuals should be a priority," maintained the police leader.

He thought broadcasters should work with police public information officers to establish workable guidelines.
He admitted you can't expect the police to do it alone. Their response will be to protect their own interests.
"Police don't understand the media's needs and sometimes feel the media is doing something improper, when they are only fulfilling their role," he added.

Williams' suggestions included:

October 20, 1990

Return to top of page.

Archbishop Is Held Hostage,
Police Request Stations Stop Live Shots

It was a little after 10:30 a.m. when San Antonio stations broke in with special reports that Archbishop Patrick Flores was being held by a man with what appeared to be a grenade.

This was a well known, well respected person who was in a very dangerous position.
"This area is more than 50 percent Catholic. The Archbishop is the religious leader for many, many people in this market," said Nick Simonette, Executive News Director, KENS-TV.

Newsroom managers quickly rolled their live trucks and began wall-to-wall coverage.
"We called in everyone --- all the anchors and all the nightside people --- because we knew this was going to be a big story," said KSAT-TV Executive Producer Susan Defino.

An hour into the coverage, police officials asked the news managers to discontinue live reports from the scene.

"The police said, 'The hostage-taker is watching television, and he is getting very agitated by what is going on here.' The police asked us not to show live transmissions from the scene," said Simonette.
The news manager questioned whether this was a safety situation with either the people inside or the police. The officer responded that it wasn't a safety issue for the police, but it definitely was for the people inside.
"The last thing I want to do is get anyone harmed. I agreed not to do live transmissions from the scene, but explained we still wanted to report what was going on out there. They were okay with that," Simonette added.

"We all pulled the plug on live shots from the area, including the helicopter," said Byron Grandy, News Director of KMOL-TV.

The police asked them not to do any more live reports from the road in front of the area.
"Frankly, you couldn't see much from that live shot. They may have thought the coverage would end, not realizing it wouldn't. Cutting off my chopper was tough," said Grandy.
He said KMOL's helicopter is well-equipped.
"We have a full-blown helicopter, and we stopped it because I thought it was the right thing to do. It was a difficult decision, but it was one we had to make. I'd do it again tomorrow in that same situation where someone's life may be at stake," he added.

At KSAT, Defino was in the control room, when she got a call from the police PIO asking that the live shots be halted.

The request from police included not broadcasting any personal information about the suspect.
They were on wall-to-wall, but Defino agreed.
"It was the most difficult decision I have had to make in my 10 years in television news, and there was no one to defer to," said Defino.
News Director Jim Boyle, the General Manager and Promotion Director were all at a meeting for Post-Newsweek's top executives.
Defino told the staff members they wouldn't talk about the suspect, his family, his demands, or the negotiation process.
"We stayed away from all of it," she said.

Simonette said the police never asked KENS not to use anything about the family.
"At one point, they did ask us to cease reporting live. I told them that I couldn't do that. This was a matter of public safety," he said.
Simonette said police were dealing with a fluid situation, and the PIO may have been told to try to control the situation as much as possible.
"More than likely he was asking different people different things, because he couldn't get us all on the phone at the same time," he said.
Simonette said even without being asked, he was reluctant to put on the air personal information about the suspect.

The police monitored the stations.
"The police were in constant contact with us. They were reacting to what individual stations were saying on the air, and then would call and ask them to stop doing that," said Grandy.
At one point, a KMOL reporter, who was in a building next door, worked with a priest to draw a diagram of the Archdiocese.
"The police called us and asked us to stop showing it, and I did for a while," said Grandy.
"The last thing I wanted was for the Archbishop to get hurt, and for the police to come out, after it was all over with, and say the media had created the problem," he added.

The newspeople were very sensitive to the deep emotional attachment people felt to this Archbishop.
"It was one of the reasons we were on so long. When the police called and asked us to not do something, we would lay off of it for a while. We ran some things later on," Grandy explained.

Without going live from the scene (from the ground or the air), it was a challenge to keep viewers informed about what was going on currently.
"We started to bring in guests to talk to us and to line up telephone interviews with community leaders who know the Archbishop," said Defino at KSAT.
They also had tape fed in from the scene. People were lining the streets praying.
"It is a very religious community. We used all that video, plus file video of the Archbishop. Even though we had killed the live shots, the crews were still shooting everything. That way we could decide later what we were going to use," she explained.
When the crews shot video of the suspect's wife and children arriving, the tape was held by Defino in the control room. She didn't want it on the air at that point, but certainly didn't want to lose it.
KSAT was also receiving specific information about the man's family, what he wanted, and what was going on inside.
"Our crews were calling me and telling me this, but I wouldn't put it on the air, even though other stations were airing some of it," she said.
The police had directly asked her not to air it on her station.

Plus, Defino said what was being reported was not crucial to the story.
"There would be a point when the crisis was over, then we could run it, and could show all that we were withholding.  We made a point to say on the air that there was more to the story, but we were not going to air it because we didn't want to make a bad situation worse. We said the police had asked us not to do live shots from the scene, and that we were cooperating," she said.

At one point, Defino paged the PIO and told him that other TV and radio stations were carrying information about the suspect.
Again, he asked KSAT not to run it.
"We had already made the decision not to. We knew it was factually correct, but we decided not to do it," she explained.

The religious leader survived.
"At 7 p.m., there were masses that started at churches throughout the city. That's when we got word that the Archbishop had been released," Defino said.

KSAT kept two photographers stationed outside the Archdiocese watching the two exits.
The assignment manager called Defino in the control room to tell her the Archbishop was out. Their photographer could see him walking out the door, and he called the desk right away. Having their own eyewitness at the scene was all the confirmation they needed.
"We were on the air, and got word to the anchors. The anchors announced that the Archbishop had been released, and he appeared to be in good health," she said.

They had the video of him coming out, because they did not move the two photographers all day.
"They were in crucial positions covering both doors, and they did not move," Defino said.
A couple of minutes later they photographed the suspect coming out.

"It was great day of news because it ended the way it ended. He walked out and you could see that he was fine. At 10 p.m., we ran the video we were withholding all day. We could show the suspect's family, and report the details of who he was, and why he did what he did," she said.

The following day, several news conferences, including one by the Archbishop, were carried live.
"During the press conference, he talked about what happened to him. He said at about noon, they turned on the TV, and they were watching KSAT. When he said that, I thanked God that we had done what the police asked us to, because he was watching our air!" Defino said.

Take time to think in the beginning.
"Think about your people. Make sure you have the right people in the right places, as opposed to just scattering them. It is too easy to start flying people out the door," warned Grandy.
For example, KMOL had a religious expert who knew the Archbishop. Instead of rolling him to the scene, they kept him in-house to help with the continuing coverage.
You want to utilize the expertise your people have in different areas.

Get organized before it happens.
Grandy said they will work to constantly improve KMOL's plan for responding to major spot news, particularly outlining the positions that needed to be filled in this kind of situation.
"The minute tape hit the door, it went right upstairs. Upstairs was loaded with tapes. You should have had someone who is just a tape person --- someone who is responsible for organizing tape. They can tell the producers what is available," said Grandy.

Utilize all your technical capacity.
KMOL producers put information on a lower-third ticker.
"People could e-mail their thoughts and prayers for the Archbishop. We use the ticker for information and viewer interaction," said Grandy.

In Orlando, a man who was going through a divorce, took hostage his 4-year-old son and a waiter in a Disney World hotel.

As police scrambled to get in position and evacuate guests from the hotel, the gunman called WKMG-TV.
The front desk sent the call to the assignment desk. The call was then routed into an edit bay, so they could record it.
"The desk had already heard the chatter on the scanners, and knew there was some kind of hostage standoff.  We had already scrambled the chopper and had crews in route to the hotel," said Pat Burns, News Director of WKMG-TV, Orlando.

Reporter Todd Jurowski talked with the hostage, and made sure he was okay, and then talked to the hostage-taker.
"We got his name and found out what he wanted," said Burns.
The man said he hadn't seen his children in a month, and he wanted to talk to his wife. He said he was going to kill himself.
Meanwhile, news managers called the Sheriff's Department and confirmed the names, so they knew he was the right man.

The man claimed to have several weapons and a bomb.
"He wanted to go live on the air. We told him no, that we weren't going to allow him to go on the air. We urged him to call the police," said Burns.
The man hung up.
The reporter did a cut-in.
"We explained in general terms what he was asking for. The cut-in showed the aerials of the scene, and people being evacuated. Our reporter talked about the telephone conversation," said Burns.

"Right after we went off the air, the man called us right back to add some details! We recorded part of that conversation as well. We didn't run any of his sound until 5 p.m., after the Sheriff held a news conference, and explained they had pulled the plug on his TV. We wanted to make sure he wasn't watching us," said Burns.

The hostage-taker wanted to be on the telephone live on the air.
Burns told us, "I wasn't prepared to do that.  It is not our job to insert ourselves into the story. I certainly wasn't going to put my anchors in the position of negotiating with someone who was holding hostages.  We urged him to talk to the police who were outside his door. We felt a special responsibility, because he was watching us. We didn't want to do anything that was going to cause a tragedy.  This is a serious situation that goes beyond news. We have an obligation to cover it, but I am not going to try and negotiate with a person who is holding a gun to someone's head."

Any number of things could have happened during a live interview.
"At the very least, we could control what went on the air. If he got upset, hung up the phone and called someone else, that is fine. But we felt by confining it to a recorded conversation we had some measure of control," he added.

The day after the incident, WKMG got an exclusive interview with the waiter who was held hostage.
"Of course, everyone in the newsroom wanted to know why they picked us to call," said Burns.
The hostage told them the gunman picked the station at random out of the phone book.

Police Wanted To Ban 
Live Coverage At Scene

California police and their political allies   pressed to have law enforcement be able to decide when television could report live in a hostage crisis or in a tense situation where a suspect was barricaded inside a building.

The bill would have given the incident commander on the scene of a "law enforcement emergency" the authority to order television and radio stations to either cease or not begin live broadcasts.
"Everyone talks about cameras in the courtroom, but this is a far more insidious law that was being proposed," said Bill Bauman, News Director of KCRA-TV, Sacramento.

As far as law enforcement was concerned, the issue was supposedly public safety. For the broadcasters, the issue was freedom of the press and many, many practical questions about the officials and their proposed powers.

The broadcasters tried to explain their specific problems with the idea.
At the request of the California Broadcasters Association, Bauman and Jim Sanders, News Director of KOVR-TV, Sacramento, met with some of the bill's supporters. The idea was to give the law enforcement representatives the perspective and insights of two veteran newsmen.

The session was confrontational.
"It began with them saying basically that we were in a sleazy business, and we're only in it to make money. They said we make decisions about live shots with dollar signs in our eyes," said Bauman.
"It began acrimoniously, and it went downhill from there," he added.

"It is unfathomable to me that they don't understand that the decision as to whether to go live or not is an editorial decision that is protected," said Jim Sanders.

The advocates claimed this was not censorship, and it was just a reasonable adjustment of current procedures.
"They see a fine line of differentiation --- that I do not see --- between taped broadcasts and live broadcasts. They say they aren't telling us we can't report it. They're just saying we can't go live. What that means is that I can't report it in the manner in which I choose to report it. I can only report it in the manner in which they choose," Sanders said.

Lives versus live reports?

They came at this from a public safety point of view, Bauman explained.
"They say they want to minimize the danger to police officers and hostages by not having a live broadcast. They think that a live broadcast can endanger lives," he said.

The advocates were unable to point to a California case where law enforcement personnel had been injured, or negotiations extended, because of television coverage.
The bill's supporters cited an incident in August of 1995,  a Simi Valley police officer was killed by a mentally unbalanced person who was barricaded in his home.
The standoff was covered live via helicopter by the Los Angeles stations. The sheriff's association claimed that during the course of the coverage, one could clearly see the positions of the officers who were preparing to move on the suspect. The claim was that the live coverage put the officers at risk.

Bauman asked the group whether anyone ever called the newsrooms in Los Angeles and asked them not to go live.
The answer was no.
"They want to pass a law, but they didn't even ask the stations to stop the live coverage! I've been in this business for 22 years, and every time a police officer has asked me to do something because of a safety issue, I have always complied," said Bauman.

Television executives routinely avoid coverage that could endanger anyone's life.

The KCRA news executive referred to an incident in Sacramento where police confronted four gunmen with 30 hostages .
"I was on the phone with the Sheriff for about four hours! He made a whole series of requests --- every one of which we honored. There were hostages being held inside, and we knew the SWAT team was trying to work its way into the back of the store," he recalled.

KCRA's reporter stood miked and ready to go once the Sheriff said it was okay. Finally, after 5 p.m., the Sheriff said it didn't matter whether they went live or not, so they went ahead.
"People forget that incident began about 2:30 in the afternoon. No one went on live until after 5, because the Sheriff had made a request that everyone honored," Bauman said.

Officials and news executives must communicate.

Bauman's point: Pick up the phone and call me, and I won't do it.
"You don't need to pass a law that is obviously unconstitutional, when all you have to do is pick up the phone," he said.

He felt the police wanted to pass this law in lieu of training, and in lieu of having a relationship with the news managers of the television and radio stations.
"Every time they cited an example of a live television broadcast endangering someone's life, I asked them if they ever picked up the phone and called the News Director and asked the station not to go live. They all said, 'No,' that they had never made a request," said Bauman.
He added, "I've never known a News Director who would not honor a reasonable request from a law enforcement officer on a safety issue."

Jim Sanders agreed that news managers wouldn't refuse high ranking officials who feel police and/or public safety may be endangered in some emergency.
"The last thing I say to a reporter as they are going out the door to go to one of these situations is, 'Go in slow, stay a couple of blocks away, find the command center, and then get back to us. Let us know what the situation is. Then, we'll start making decisions,'" Sanders said.
"I'm not going to jeopardize anyone's safety. I'm not going to show officers deploying on live TV, and tell the world they are going in the back door. I don't know any broadcaster who would," he stressed.

Police wanted the power to decide

There were two very different viewpoints here.
"Our basic difference is that law enforcement officers feel they need to have the power to suspend a live broadcast, and that's their bottom line," said Mark Powers, of the California Broadcasters Association.
"Our position has been is that there is no need for that huge power shift. What we need is better communication and plans in advance as to how we are going to work these things out," he said.

Besides the First Amendment concerns, the broadcasters argued that there were no verifiable standards in this bill that an officer could use to evaluate a "situation which could jeopardize the safety of persons involved or could prolong the incident."
The bill lacked any method for protest or appeal.
It did not hold the officer in charge accountable for his decision.

Powers said the fact that such legislation was even proposed sent "a chilling message." He believed it would have put pressure on officers to halt live broadcasts of every crime scene.

No official would have any incentive to allow the broadcasts, because they could only lose if they allowed a live broadcast and something happened to an officer.
"From their point of view, it is a lose-lose situation. If you put that kind of power into their hands, they can't help but use it," he maintained.
Powers said the fear was that a gunman could monitor what the police were doing outside just through a television set. The suspect might be able to see which door they would be coming in. The real fear of law enforcement was that the element of surprise was going to be lost, said Powers.

The advocates maintained this idea did not disrupt the guarantees of freedom of speech and press. They argued that narrowly tailored restrictions were legal.
"They sound very rational with the claim that they are not keeping you from taping that incident to re-broadcast it. What they are doing is saying you just can't do it live. It's not that they are going to shut down everyone. They are just saying you can't do it live. To most legislators, that sounds like a reasonable thing. You can show it five minutes after it is over. The real battle is over the real time," he said.

Police were uninformed about how the news teams work

The law enforcement officers had very little understanding of how broadcasting works, Bauman said.
During the meeting with the news directors, a lobbyist for the sheriff's association expressed his fears that some "young, punk reporter" out at the scene of a hostage crisis would decide to "make a name for himself" and go on the air live.
Another officer complained about the media "filming" this and "filming" that.
"First of all, we haven't shot film in 20 years. And, secondly, more importantly, no one on the scene makes the decision to go live! Decisions to interrupt programming and do live shots are made by people like me, either in an office, a newsroom or in a control room," he pointed out.
In the control room there is one button. When that button is pushed, the reporter is on the air live.
"The problem here is that they want to come into my control room and control that button!" he argued.
Bauman said the law enforcement representatives at the meeting couldn't understand how the media managers would be so upset about the legislation.
"They felt it was a reasonable request, and they wanted to negotiate, in order to find some areas of compromise," he said.

Bauman believed the legislation was driven by fear of the technology on the part of law enforcement.
"Lipstick cameras and the new generation of helicopter cameras are unbelievable. They are afraid of the technology," he said.

Sanders agreed.
He said, "You could call this an anti-helicopter bill, or an anti-technology bill. They're are looking down the road and seeing what they think our improper uses of equipment and/or capability will be, and they want to nip it in the bud right now."

Establish avenues of communication

Bauman said the relationships between law enforcement and the media have deteriorated. There is a lack of communication in many communities, coupled with a complete fear of the technology.

Good relations are beneficial to both parties.

Bauman pointed to the Sacramento police chief who had regular meetings with news executives.
"All he does is make a pot of coffee and pick up some bagels. There is usually no agenda, although he often brings someone in to talk about a case or a policy," said Bauman.

The meeting was primarily to see where relations stood and to air grievances. If there were any recent incidents, they talked about it.
"The whole thing is dialogue and face-to-face communication. If I am in my office or in the newsroom, and someone tells me, 'It's Chief So and So, or Captain So and So or Lieutenant So and So, and he wants to talk to you, Bill.' I'm taking that call," Bauman said.
He said that if that person told him that they had a situation they believed would be life-threatening if KCRA did a live broadcast, there wouldn't be a broadcast.

Sanders believed having good relationships with police officials and sheriffs was key.
"They must be able to trust you, and you must be able to trust them. That doesn't mean that you're too cozy with them. It just means that you both professionally understand where one another's lines are and whose job is what," he said.

Broadcasters must behave responsibly.
"We all know in this day and age that it is necessary at times to err on the side of caution. I know that given today's competitive situation, that may be hard to do. But, as I always say, 'First is great, right is better,'" he said.

Think before you go live, he urged.
"Think about what it is you are doing, and what it is accomplishing, and be responsible. The worst thing you can do is make that big mistake. If you make that horrible mistake, there is no coming back from it," he warned.

Sanders said, ""To me a live truck is like a loaded gun. You don't goof around with it. You must stop and think about it. Does the potential warrant the limited benefit?"

Bill failed in committee

Four committee members, who were targeted by the California Broadcasters Association for lobbying by news executives, abstained from voting on the bill. That is what made the difference.

News managers were relieved that it didn't make it out of committee.

"I am very pleased to see that it failed," said David Duitch, News Director of KXTV, Sacramento.
"It was a bill that we didn't think could stand a court challenge. Clearly, we don't think police officers should take on the role of news director," he added.

Powers warned that similar legislation would probably be introduced again next session.
"The issue is here to stay," said Powers.
In the meantime, the broadcasters were going to work to come up with guidelines for how to best handle covering hostage situations.
"The committee was basically saying that they weren't comfortable shifting the balance of power to the police, but they are also very uncomfortable with the fact the police officers are exposed out there, and the police don't seem to know when a live broadcast is happening and what is being shown," said Powers.
"They are very concerned about the coordination that is going on at the scene.   We were able to convince them that shifting the balance of power wasn't the way to force coordination, that all these incidents they brought up would have happened whether or not they had this law, because no one was ever asked to shut down," Powers explained.

He added that the bill could be brought back to life if there was an incident where police or hostages were hurt because of live coverage.
"Right now they don't have anything to hang their hat on. What we want to do is make certain in the months we are given that we do something constructive to prevent that from happening," Powers stressed.

Return to top of page.

A Barricaded Man
Asks To Talk To A Reporter

It happens periodically. There is a dangerous suspect, sometimes with hostages, and he wants to talk to the news media before surrendering.
Police want to resolve the crisis quickly, and may ask a reporter to get involved.

Here are the specifics of an incident in Chicago.

Suddenly a reporter was in the middle

A bank robbery suspect asked to speak to a reporter after shooting a detective and barricading himself in an apartment.

The police turned to veteran WLS-TV reporter Paul Meincke for help.
"Paul has a reputation as a solid journalist. That played a role in why he was asked," said News Director Jennifer Graves.

It all happened very quickly. A hostage, the detective, was lying inside bleeding and badly wounded.
Graves said, "Paul alerted the newsroom that he was going in, and there was no time for discussion with a manager."

"Something went wrong"

An armed man held up a bank branch based inside a grocery store and escaped with $239,000. He was now hiding at a friend's condominium. An FBI task force made up of federal agents, Chicago police and county sheriff's deputies surrounded the building, and prepared to try to capture the suspected bank robber.

A police detective, disguised as a delivery man, knocked on the door of a third floor condominium.
The suspect didn't believe the ruse, and ran back inside the apartment and grabbed a handgun. The man shot the detective in the face and he fell to the floor inside the unit. The bullet lodged at the base of his skull. FBI agents traded gunfire with the suspect, who was hit in a leg, but they had to retreat into the hallway. The standoff had begun, with the wounded detective trapped inside.

Police appealed to reporter

Meincke was on the way to another story, when the desk beeped him.
He said, "When we arrived on the scene, we learned it was a Chicago police officer who was part of a federal team serving a bank robbery warrant."

Meincke did a live cut-in at 11:30 and a wrap-up at noon.
Just as he finished, the police PIO called to him.
"He motioned me over and told me the suspect wanted to talk to a reporter. He explained they couldn't get to their man until he talked to a reporter," said Meincke.

The PIO asked if he would be willing to do it.
Meincke asked, "You're not going to get me killed are you?"
He was told he would be safe. The PIO explained the suspect had been holed up in the room for two hours, and although the detective was still alive, he was bleeding. It was imperative that the police reach him.

"At that point, we didn't establish any ground rules for what I should or should not say. He merely briefed me on what the suspect had been saying," said Meincke.

The suspect, a tax accountant, was ranting about the Bush administration wrecking the economy and IRS agents hounding his clients.
Meincke generally knew what he was going to hear.

The reporter briefly alerted the newsroom that he was going in.
On the monitor back at the station, the managers could see him donning a bulletproof vest.
Graves said, "When I saw him put on a bulletproof vest and walk into the building, my first thought was for the safety of our friend and colleague. We were very careful with the information, and did not broadcast it until we knew Paul was out of harm's way and safe," said Graves.

They were well aware that the suspect could be watching television and could react to whatever he saw on the air.
"We were careful not to tell our viewers that we had a reporter inside. It was not revealed until after he was out," she said.

The police had established their command post in the neighboring apartment. Meincke could see the FBI negotiator talking on a cell phone with the suspect.
His turn was next.
"The negotiator told me to try to keep it to a minute, and not to mention the wounded officer. Those were the only two things they told me. They didn't want me to say anything that would upset the apple cart. So, I was just a sounding board for the man," he added.

Meincke was taken to the bathroom of the apartment that had become the command post. He put down the lid on the toilet, sat down, and on a cellular phone spoke with the suspect.
"I introduced myself, and he introduced himself. Then, he went point by point through the points that he wanted to make --- age, profession. Never once during our conversation did he mention that he had been shot. He said he was being denied the ability to cash checks from his clients, so he had no income," said Meincke.

When he said he had no way to provide for his family, the reporter asked him if he robbed banks. He replied, "I don't look at it that way."

Meincke took notes on the conversation, watching the negotiator for a signal.
"When he said to me, 'I know I am going to need a good attorney,' I felt it was a logical wrap-up point. I gave it back to the FBI," the reporter said.

A short time later, police moved in and the suspect surrendered. Two squad cars escorted the ambulance carrying the detective and they rushed him to the trauma specialists at Northwestern Memorial Hospital.

Reporter briefed reporters

Meincke met with the police spokespeople before meeting with his fellow reporters.
"I was a little uncomfortable with that part, because a journalist had become part of the story," he said.
For example, he knew from what he saw in the command center that the wounded officer was a Chicago detective. Some news organizations were already reporting it. But it had not been confirmed.
He did not confirm it for them.
He explained, "Police had not notified all of the next of kin yet. I didn't have a problem not releasing the information yet, but I didn't want to lie about it."

Meincke talked to the reporters. Some of this discussion was on the air as it happened.
"We went on with it live as he explained it and how the situation ended," said Graves.

"It was such a unique experience. You are seldom --- if ever --- cast in that position, and then your fellow reporters are asking questions of you," he said.
"I viewed it like being a pool reporter. I felt I had an obligation to tell everything I knew, within reason, but nothing that would jeopardize the investigation, as was requested by the cops, and secondly nothing that would further harm the victim or the suspect," he added.

Reporter's role was not promoted

The news managers were careful not to hype the role the reporter had played.
"Throughout the afternoon we discussed 'what is the story?' Obviously, our reporter became part of the story, but that was not the focus of it. The story was still that a Chicago police officer was shot as he was serving a warrant to a suspect, and that he was fighting for his life," said Graves.

The station has several late afternoon newscasts.
"We did use sound with Paul in other reporters' stories, and we had Paul telling the story, and explaining what he was asked to do," she said.

At 10 p.m. that night, they had Meincke again explain what he did and what the suspect said.
"But we were very careful not to lose sight of what the story was. It wasn't about Paul. It was what happened to the police officer in the line of duty," said Graves.

Meincke said he would have been embarrassed if the station had touted his involvement.
"It would not have served us well to promote it. You just don't self-promote in a situation like that. It would be really counter productive. Police told me they chose me because they trusted me," he said.
"I have had a good working relationship with the PIO over the years. We don't always agree, and when we don't we tell each other. I think he figures I am fair, and that I wouldn't showboat or monkey up the works by trying to do too much with it," he said.

"I was a tool, and we all knew it. But if we can achieve something for the greater good, then let it happen. I don't think it damaged our profession in any way," he added.

This was a time for a reporter to treat the story as dispassionately as possible.
"Treat it clinically and analytically and not emotionally. Even though your emotions may be super-charged, you must be Joe Friday, and just give them the facts, and keep your personal opinions and impressions out of it," said Meincke.

Looking back on the affair when we spoke with him, the reporter believed everything was done properly.
Meincke said he might have felt differently, had he been asked to meet with the suspect face-to-face. But he said, in this case, the police wouldn't have allowed it.

He felt there weren't many guidelines for what to do in a situation like this.
"You need to trust your gut, and you must know the truth going into something like this. You must know what the situation is and you must know what your role is going to be," said Meincke.

"If you have the time and the opportunity, the first thing you want to know is what the safety precautions are for your employee," said Graves.
"Then, don't lose sight of what the story is. The story was not our reporter being involved. We were careful in our newscasts. We did not over-sell it," she stresses.

A week later there was another hostage drama.
"A man walked into a bank. He never demanded money. He said, 'Push the alarm button, and call the media.' It wasn't even a robbery, but he kept a group of hostages for four hours. He was just seeking attention," said Meincke.
But this time, police did not ask for help.

September 10, 2001

Return to top of page.

Do You Yield Your Air to Rioting Prisoners
or Risk the Deaths of Hostages?

In the end, executives at all three stations agreed to the inmates' demands and broadcast an impromptu prison news conference live.

"We had to decide: do you risk the precedent that is going to be set by yielding to extortion? Do you risk the lives of the hostages being held by the inmates?" said Mike Kettenring, President and General Manager of WSMV-TV, Nashville.
"The state authorities were telling us they felt the inmates were serious and the hostages were in jeopardy. I didn't see any other alternative," he added.

The inmates were upset about new uniforms with leg stripes and the long-term problem of overcrowding. The rioting started at a prison outside Nashville and spread quickly to three other institutions.
One inmate told reporters, "It didn't take but four or five inmates to go around and get everyone's courage up to riot!"
"You would have to call it a full-scale riot. The inmates had knives," said Correction Department spokesman John Taylor.

At all four facilities where there was rioting, the inmates demanded to talk to the news media. But, only in Nashville did they insist on live coverage.

"The inmates realized that if they put lives in jeopardy, they could get live coverage. It wasn't lost on them that they could raise the stakes to a point where we felt we had to play the game with them," said Kettenring.

Since the request for the news conference came from Department of Corrections officials, as part of their negotiating to regain control of the prison, there was really no way the station executives felt they could refuse.
"All three local television stations were at the prison covering the story and Corrections officials came to us and asked that we set up a news conference and carry it live for the safety of the people being held behind the walls," recalled WSMV News Manager Alan Griggs.
"That made our choice a lot easier. We didn't want anyone to get hurt and based on that, we decided to go ahead and go live. We could second-guess ourselves later," he said.

It was an extraordinary adjustment. At all other times, the television operations are totally under the control of the broadcasters. Many powerful people and organizations fail to gain access to the stations' programming. Many more persons and organizations with modest financial resources are unable to present their messages.
Griggs added, "I certainly had qualms about doing it then and I still do, but there wasn't much else we could do.   The bind you are in is that you're balancing somebody's life with your own set of personal ethics. Of course, a person's life should come first."

Correction Department officials drew the reporters and their station executives deeper into the action.

Reporter John Seigenthaler, Jr. was covering the story for WSMV when the officials came out and said they wanted three reporters --- one television, one print and one radio --- to go in and talk to the inmates. Seigenthaler "won" the coin toss and went inside without a camera.

The officials hurried the newspeople through the prison and took them to the main yard where the inmates could see them.
"There were all these inmates gathered around who had been burning and running free in the prison yard. It was obvious it was a very serious situation, more serious than I had realized from the outside," he said.
Seigenthaler had seen the smoke, but  thought there was more control on the inside than there was.
"Once I got inside, it became clear the warden and the negotiator were very concerned about the situation and wanted to do something about it quickly," he said.

The officials requested the live news conference, and they made clear they wanted it right away.
"Getting live out of the inside of the prison can be a complicated maneuver. Usually, we're talking about a 30-minute setup," said Seigenthaler.

He called the photographer outside the prison and told him they were going live and to start bringing the gear in, and then contacted his bosses at the station.
"When I got on the phone, Alan Griggs had already been discussing the situation with the General Manager and gave the okay, because prison officials had asked us to do it. We knew there were no good choices, but going live was the best of all the bad choices," he said.

Nine inmates participated in the news conference. It lasted about 20 minutes.

All three stations broke into programming to take the live feed. Seigenthaler did a brief introduction saying the prison officials had asked the stations to allow the inmates to speak on live television.
"I asked the inmates who wanted to talk first and then asked them their name, what they were in for and how long they were in for. One of them said he was in 328 years for murder, armed robbery, attempted murder and kidnapping," the reporter said.
"I really wasn't sure what the situation was with the hostages at that point. As far as I knew, when we started the interview, all the hostages were still behind the walls," he explained.

Seigenthaler was reluctant to antagonize the inmates with hard questions until he knew the hostages were safe.
"We basically allowed them to say what they had to say," he said.
When it was time for questions, and the reporters had been assured the hostages were safe, (they were released as the press conference started and the inmates saw themselves on television) the questions became pointed. After a few questions, Seigenthaler wrapped it up and tossed it back to the station.

That night, managers at WTVF-TV expanded their newscast to an hour and re-played the entire prison news conference during the second half of their program.
"A lot of people didn't see it at 2:30 or 3:00 in the afternoon when it ran," said News Director Mike Cohen.
"We thought it was a fairly powerful statement and it allowed people to form their own opinions about the inmates and what they wanted," he said.
Cohen said all of the news conferences at the various state facilities showed how savvy the inmates were about where things stood in the court cases regarding overcrowding.
"It became very clear that these inmates watch the news and read the paper," he said.

WSMV's General Manager, Kettenring, felt the riot developed because of the existing conditions in the prison.
"From our perspective, it was the state's refusal to abide by federally mandated orders that put this television station and the other stations in the predicament in which we found ourselves. If as a television station, we ignored a FCC ruling as flagrantly and as long as the state has ignored the federal mandate to correct prisons, this television station would have been shut down years ago," he said.

Other news managers supported the decisions of the involved executives.
"I think they made the right decision," said Jim Swinehart, News Director of WBIR-TV, Knoxville.
He added, "It's a no win situation. You have to bend to their demands. Sometimes other people use us, too.  When lives are in danger, we've got to take that into consideration. If we can do something to protect those lives, I think we need to do it and that should be our first concern. They had hostages in there and threatened to kill someone unless they got on television. I'd take my cameras in there. I'd let them on television. It's worth it to save lives."

"You've got to make your decision based on that particular situation," said Chris Schmidt, News Director at WREG-TV, Memphis.
"You've got to depend on the experts who are in Corrections. If they're telling you they need your help to resolve the problem and you don't help them, there could be additional loss of life ... What are you going to do? You don't have any choice. We've all been concerned since it happened that it might happen again," he said.

After it was all over, the Nashville executives advocated planning a response in advance.

Their suggestions included:

Return to top of page.

Ohio Prison Riot:
When Television is Part of the Story

It was a dangerous, constantly changing event.
Rioting inmates were, of course, far from stable. But, more importantly, there were many questions about the competence of the state officials. They appeared to have had little understanding of television --- an element that is often crucial if there is to be a settlement. Prisoners often want to air their complaints publicly in hopes of affecting change. And, they sometimes seek an independent witness in hopes they won't be beaten when they finally give up.

"One of the original 19 requests from the prisoners was that our anchor, Bob Orr, do a live broadcast from the prison with the prisoners reading a list of demands --- in exchange they would release a hostage," said WBNS News Director Paul Dughi.
Dughi said when correction officials first approached them about airing the demands, news managers "agonized" over the decision.
He said it was a dilemma.
"You never know what you would do until you are in the situation. We had to make a gut-level decision and ask ourselves whether we should spend the time and try to be a part of solving the situation peacefully. Or do we just do our job?" said Dughi.

The station executives were worried about turning over control of their airwaves to prisoners and giving editorial control to corrections officials.
"Did we allow the prisoners to come on our air, and to air their grievances? Yes. Is that news? Yes. Are their demands news? Yes, I think so," said Dughi.

All three local Columbus affiliates, as well as other stations around the state, carried the inmates' broadcast.

Unfortunately for WBNS, while Orr was working with corrections officials arranging the live broadcast, he was unable to continue his reporting duties.
"There were times when Bob was on the phone, but not on our satellite truck, because that was the only way to get to him," Dughi said.
There were many times the truck was in transition.
"It wasn't as simple as them giving us the nod, and us going and setting up the satellite shot. There were times when we moved the truck four or five times --- set up, tore down, set up and got ready, then tore down again," he said.

The WBNS crew was in and out of the prison yard with the satellite truck as negotiators tried to reach an agreement with prisoners.
Finally on Friday, the broadcast was supposed to happen at 10 a.m. It didn't occur until about 2 p.m.

"There is no question corrections officials were using us in the negotiations. They moved the satellite truck in to show the prisoners they could get a satellite truck there, then moved us out. Of course, they weren't telling us anything that was going on behind the scenes at the time," said Dughi.

Much disagreement arose over whether it was a pool situation once the prisoners asked for live coverage.
"When we were contacted about doing the broadcast, it was not an issue. Once we got in, corrections officials said other media were complaining. They asked us if we could make the feed available," Dughi said.
He responded that WBNS would be happy to provide other TV stations with the satellite coordinates and they could do whatever they wanted with it.

However, Tom Burke, News Director of WCMH-TV was critical of WBNS's handling of the events leading up to the broadcast.
"In my opinion, they were unwilling to give up their exclusivity of the situation to become a pool crew and pool satellite truck," Burke said.
The WCMH executives admitted that, initially, it was not a pool situation. However, the other station managers felt they should have access to the material, too.
"There was no way they were going to put an exclusive on their air," said Burke. He felt the competing stations couldn't let Orr get inside the prison for an exclusive report on what the prisoners demands were, without trying to protest it as an unfair advantage.
WCMH managers, lawyers and representatives from their network called officials to protest the arrangement.

Dughi maintained that being taken into the prison as the station to do the broadcast didn't give them a significant competitive advantage. "What competitive advantage did I have? I didn't have my anchorman available for a couple of my prime newscasts," he said.
"These guys set up a satellite broadcast in less than 30 minutes, moved the truck, sighted the bird, laid two or three cameras and cable. Then, they had to sit there for two hours, tear it all down, and 20 minutes later set it up again. They went through hell for a couple of days," said Dughi.

He said once they got on the air, everything they had was available to everybody else.
"What competitive advantage did I have other than the fact that it was my anchor there?" he asked.
However, Dughi conceded that there was a certain promotional value to having your station be the one providing the broadcast.
"We took pains to remind people that we were the ones facilitating the feed they were watching," he said.

By the time the broadcast happened, managers at WCMH and WSYX were under the impression it was to be a pool feed. However, a WBNS mike flag appeared in the shot.
Dughi defended the use of the station's mike flag, saying no one ever made that a condition. He contended corrections officials simply asked if everyone could have the feed, to which WBNS agreed.

The broadcast was originally set for 10 a.m. They were in place at 8 a.m. But they didn't know when it was going to happen, and when it finally did, they received 60 seconds notice.
He said it would have been wonderful for it to have been completely planned out the day before, and coordinated among all the stations. But that wasn't the way it happened, he said.
"To a certain point, I would have done the same thing they did.  But, it was hard getting them to give up their advantage. Even though it was a pool feed, they retained some elements of advantage, including the mike flag and a Q&A they did with the anchor afterwards. It became very petty, given the seriousness of the situation," he said.

Dughi said the decisions they made were made under fire.
"The pressure of the situation is you have a major crisis going on. Suddenly, you are not only covering the story, but are vitally involved," he said.

Dughi learned they couldn't trust the negotiators or the corrections officials.
"They were doing anything they thought they could get away with to solve the situation," he said. He added, that in their shoes, he probably would have done the same thing.

For example, one of the things that held up the broadcast was corrections officials called WBNS and said the prisoners weren't getting the station's signal.
The corrections officials said the prisoners had a better picture from WLWT-TV in Cincinnati.
"They asked us to call WLWT and get them to carry the broadcast," Dughi said.
He called and they made arrangements.

"We were on the air, and the corrections officials tried to tell us what we could say on the air. They said, 'Tell Bob not to talk right now.' They told us it was a critical time and they wanted to make sure they had the prisoner's attention," Dughi said.
WBNS producers told Orr they would fill the time in the studio.
"The negotiator got on the phone and told us to get the people in the studio to shut up. I asked what difference did it make if the prisoners couldn't see us? He said they could see us and the prisoners were watching on WBNS," he said.
"Right there, I knew we had been used. All they were trying to do by getting WLWT to carry the broadcast too, was to get more coverage," said Dughi.

"We jumped through hoops to try to pull off all of this, and they mislead us through the whole process," he added.

Another key lesson: You must be careful when using certain broadcast terms and assuming others know what they mean.
Officials asked for a "clean feed." WBNS managers gave them a feed without supers.
"It turns out what they wanted was a picture on our air without any narration at all!" said Dughi.
The discussion was almost comical. Corrections officials were demanding a "clean feed." Dughi was explaining they were getting a clean feed.

In trying to set up the second broadcast that same night, WBNS management had no problems doing the broadcast, and had no problem with certain restrictions, but they had to maintain editorial control.
Dughi explained, "We knew it might be a four- or five-hour broadcast, and we knew we couldn't put up the signal for that long and not talk. We were going to tell viewers what was going on and what they were seeing.  This became a major drawn-out argument. They told us we couldn't have editorial control. We told them we couldn't give it up."

It turned out the prison leaders didn't understand what "editorial control" was.
Corrections officials thought it meant something akin to the editorials in the newspapers. They were worried that the station would be talking about how badly the prison officials were handling the situation.
Meanwhile, Dughi wanted to be able to report facts, such as the number of prisoners coming out, the ways they were coming out and how the process was going.
"They used a buzzword that we in broadcasting use. When they use a specific word or phrase, you assume they know what it means," he explained.

After the issues of the clean feed and editorial control were resolved, the negotiations weren't at a point where anything was going to happen.
"We sat there for four hours," said Dughi.
In the end, WBNS lost the majority of its coverage for its 11 p.m. newscast because they had to be in position for the surrender that didn't happen until five days later.

Early the next morning, the negotiator called Dughi at home saying they needed Bob Orr again right away. Orr, who had been there around the clock for four days, was taking a break. He wasn't scheduled to be back until Monday morning.
The negotiator said they needed the station's satellite truck right then. Dughi responded that he wasn't sure he had the staffing there on a Saturday morning to do an extended live satellite broadcast on short notice.
"I asked him to give me some time to see what I could put together," Dughi said.
But, no one called him back.
"The next thing I know the corrections officials come out and hold a news conference blasting us. Suddenly, once again we are the story," said Dughi.

When asked why WBNS wasn't there to do the broadcast, corrections officials replied it was an issue of exclusivity. The implication was WBNS didn't want to share the story. At least one station reported WBNS was holding up negotiations.

WLWT, Cincinnati was subsequently asked to do the next pool broadcast.

Dughi said it was a case where communications broke down at all levels during discussions with corrections officials concerning the live feeds.
"We wanted to protect our viewers and our integrity about what we would and wouldn't do. If anyone claims the problem was over exclusivity, it is not true," he stressed.

Much of the time, official release of information was modest. Often the only prison representatives speaking to the press were merely press relations people. One result of all the official silence was that rumors flourished.

When the inmates finally came out, it was a long process. Stations pre-empted huge amounts of time to cover it live.

WCMH stayed with it the entire seven-and-a-half hours, squeezing the live picture back in the upper right corner of the screen.
"To a certain extent, we were able to pacify those people who were tired of the story, but at the same time keep the live picture on the air. Whenever something would break, we would pull it full, and take the audio of the pool reporter," Burke said.
At 10:30, the people with blindfolds across their eyes emerged. It was obvious they were hostages.

Dughi said you must be prepared for criticism, no matter what you do.
It was one of the biggest stories in the region in years. Lives were on the line, it had all the drama of a good news story. But viewers got tired of it. By the time the release came, some didn't care about seeing it.
WBNS had the Chuck Norris movie on that night. They used a small box at the top of the screen during most of the movie, but when the hostages came out at 10:30, they pre-empted the movie.
"There was outrage. It was unbelievable. We took hundreds and hundreds of phone calls complaining," said Dughi.

To give you an idea of how expensive it was, the Columbus news directors had some figures they were willing to share.

WCMH spent around $70,000 to cover it.
"That's a ballpark figure. The bills are still coming in," said Burke.

The extended live coverage resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in lost revenues.
For example, the four hours of live coverage when the prisoners surrendered WBNS pre-empted Oprah, the hour-and-a-half news block, the evening news, Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy.
"We went four hours with no commercial interruption in our biggest local money-makers," said Dughi.
Then, they cut in and out of prime time when things happened.
"We lost over $100,000 in revenue that day alone in lost commercial spots," he said.
However, Dughi felt they didn't really have a choice except to go with the live coverage.
"Our reputation is built on being the news station in town. That's what we want to be long term," he added. It was important to the image and reputation of the station.

WCMH lost about $65,000 in local revenues in just that one day.
Burke estimated the coverage of the standoff cost them about $75,000, including $20,000 in overtime.
His advice: when a story goes to 24 hours a day, get someone in the newsroom to set up a schedule. WCMH had three crews covering the story 24 hours a day, and some people worked 18 hour days. "Many times we had more coverage than we needed," he admitted later.
Consider sending an office manager or an operations manager to run the efficiency part of the story.
"We may have been able to save overtime," he added.

Use your cooperatives to bring down the cost of satellite time. Can you take a generic live shot every now and then, instead of doing your own for each show?

Bill Payer, News Director of WSYX-TV, had covered prison riots before. He had a good idea of the resources this story would need.

His advice in case you are faced with one like this:

1. Work on the assumption the story is going to last a long time. Throw as many resources as you can at it.
"Don't think like a typical news person --- planning four hours ahead," he warned. Lucasville was basically a small village. Crews were going to need places to sleep, and there weren't going to be lots of options.

2. Make certain your people have plenty of cash.

3. Provide decent work space.
The station had a microwave truck on the scene and a van. About half way through, WSYX rented an RV for crews to work in.

4. Put in hard line telephones.
The WSYX managers were not satisfied with the communications package in their rented SNG truck and put in their own telephone lines.

5. Beware of rumors, even when they come from police sources.
Corrections officials were erratic in the flow of information they gave the press. At the same time, all of the rumors had the ring of truth because they were attached to law enforcement officers.
"The rumor about the 40 bodies in the gymnasium was very, very widespread, and there was always a law enforcement link to it," said Payer.
The reason these rumors are so enticing is news people get most of our spot news information from police sources.
"We often think they are impeccable sources," he said. Be very cautious about reporting material without at least one eyewitness, who is a credible source.

6. Take pains to catalog your tapes. The material must be organized and logged in a retrievable fashion.

7. Create a graphic for your coverage, and name it immediately.

8. Try to control your overtime by organizing your efforts.
"You end up spending a lot of resources in time periods that logic and experience tell you nothing will happen. But you know you have to staff those time periods," Payer said.
His solution was to staff the midnight Friday to 8 a.m. Saturday shift himself.
"I had run out of people. I wasn't going to ask anybody else to do it. The good news is that I was able to catch up on all my paperwork," he said.

Following the riot, Payer planned to put together a more formal disaster plan that specifically addressed prison riots.

May 10, 1993

Return to top of page.

They came at this from a public safety point of view, Bauman explained.
"They say they want to minimize the danger to police officers and hostages by not having a live broadcast. They think that a live broadcast can endanger lives," he said.

The advocates were unable to point to a California case where law enforcement personnel had been injured, or negotiations extended, because of television coverage.
The bill's supporters cited an incident in August of 1995,  a Simi Valley police officer was killed by a mentally unbalanced person who was barricaded in his home.
The standoff was covered live via helicopter by the Los Angeles stations. The sheriff's association claimed that during the course of the coverage, one could clearly see the positions of the officers who were preparing to move on the suspect. The claim was that the live coverage put the officers at risk.

Bauman asked the group whether anyone ever called the newsrooms in Los Angeles and asked them not to go live.
The answer was no.
"They want to pass a law, but they didn't even ask the stations to stop the live coverage! I've been in this business for 22 years, and every time a police officer has asked me to do something because of a safety issue, I have always complied," said Bauman.

Television executives routinely avoid coverage that could endanger anyone's life.

The KCRA news executive referred to an incident in Sacramento where police confronted four gunmen with 30 hostages  (See THE RUNDOWN 1991, pp. 115-118).
"I was on the phone with the Sheriff for about four hours! He made a whole series of requests --- every one of which we honored. There were hostages being held inside, and we knew the SWAT team was trying to work its way into the back of the store," he recalled.

KCRA's reporter stood miked and ready to go once the Sheriff said it was okay. Finally, after 5 p.m., the Sheriff said it didn't matter whether they went live or not, so they went ahead.
"People forget that incident began about 2:30 in the afternoon. No one went on live until after 5, because the Sheriff had made a request that everyone honored," Bauman said.

Officials and news executives must communicate.

His point: Pick up the phone and call me, and I won't do it.
"You don't need to pass a law that is obviously unconstitutional, when all you have to do is pick up the phone," he said.

Bauman said the police wanted to pass this law in lieu of training, and in lieu of having a relationship with the news managers of the television and radio stations.
"Every time they cited an example of a live television broadcast endangering someone's life, I asked them if they ever picked up the phone and called the News Director and asked the station not to go live. They all said, 'No,' that they had never made a request," said Bauman.
He added, "I've never known a News Director who would not honor a reasonable request from a law enforcement officer on a safety issue."

Jim Sanders agreed that news managers wouldn't refuse high ranking officials who feel police and/or public safety may be endangered in some emergency.
"The last thing I say to a reporter as they are going out the door to go to one of these situations is go in slow, stay a couple of blocks away, find the command center, and then get back to us. Let us know what the situation is. Then, we'll start making decisions," Sanders said.
"I'm not going to jeopardize anyone's safety. I'm not going to show officers deploying on live TV, and tell the world they are going in the back door. I don't know any broadcaster who would," he stressed.

Police wanted the power to decide

There were two very different viewpoints here.
"Our basic difference is that law enforcement officers feel they need to have the power to suspend a live broadcast, and that's their bottom line," said Mark Powers, of the California Broadcasters Association.
"Our position has been is that there is no need for that huge power shift. What we need is better communication and plans in advance as to how we are going to work these things out," he said.

Besides the First Amendment concerns, the broadcasters argued that there were no verifiable standards in this bill that an officer could use to evaluate a "situation which could jeopardize the safety of persons involved or could prolong the incident."
The bill lacked any method for protest or appeal.
It did not hold the officer in charge accountable for his decision.

Powers said the fact that such legislation was even proposed sent "a chilling message." He believed it would have put pressure on officers to halt live broadcasts of every crime scene.

No official would have any incentive to allow the broadcasts, because they could only lose if they allowed a live broadcast and something happened to an officer.
"From their point of view, it is a lose-lose situation. If you put that kind of power into their hands, they can't help but use it," he maintained.
Powers said the fear was that a gunman could monitor what the police were doing outside just through a television set. The suspect might be able to see which door they would be coming in. The real fear of law enforcement was that the element of surprise was going to be lost, said Powers.

The advocates maintained this idea did not disrupt the guarantees of freedom of speech and press. They argued that narrowly tailored restrictions were legal.
"They sound very rational with the claim that they are not keeping you from taping that incident to re-broadcast. What they are doing is saying you just can't do it live. It's not that they are going to shut down everyone. They are just saying you can't do it live. To most legislators, that sounds like a reasonable thing. You can show it five minutes after it is over. The real battle is over the real time," he said.

Law enforcement officers had very little understanding of how broadcasting works, Bauman said.
During the meeting with the news directors, a lobbyist for the sheriff's association expressed his fears that some "young, punk reporter" out at the scene of a hostage crisis would decide to "make a name for himself" and go on the air live.
Another officer complained about the media "filming" this and "filming" that.
"First of all, we haven't shot film in 20 years. And, secondly, more importantly, no one on the scene makes the decision to go live! Decisions to interrupt programming and do live shots are made by people like me, either in an office, a newsroom or in a control room," he points out.
In the control room there is one button. When that button is pushed, the reporter is on the air live.
"The problem here is that they want to come into my control room and control that button!" he argues.
Bauman said the law enforcement representatives at the meeting couldn't understand how the media managers would be so upset about the legislation.
"They felt it was a reasonable request, and they wanted to negotiate, in order to find some areas of compromise," he said.

Bauman believed the legislation was driven by fear of the technology on the part of law enforcement.
"Lipstick cameras and the new generation of helicopter cameras are unbelievable. They are afraid of the technology," he said.

Sanders agreed.
He said, "You could call this an anti-helicopter bill, or an anti-technology bill. They're are looking down the road and seeing what they think our improper uses of equipment and/or capability will be, and they want to nip it in the bud right now."

Bauman said the relationships between law enforcement and the media have deteriorated. There is a lack of communication in many communities, coupled with a complete fear of the technology.

Good relations are beneficial to both parties.

Bauman pointed to the Sacramento police chief who had regular meetings with news executives.
"All he does is make a pot of coffee and pick up some bagels. There is usually no agenda, although he often brings someone in to talk about a case or a policy," said Bauman.

The meeting was primarily to see where relations stood and to air grievances. If there were any recent incidents, they talked about it.
"The whole thing is dialogue and face-to-face communication. If I am in my office or in the newsroom, and someone tells me, 'It's Chief So and So, or Captain So and So or Lieutenant So and So, and he wants to talk to you, Bill.' I'm taking that call," Bauman said.
He said that if that person told him that they had a situation they believed would be life-threatening if KCRA did a live broadcast, there wouldn't be a broadcast.

Sanders believed having good relationships with police officials and sheriffs was key.
"They must be able to trust you, and you must be able to trust them. That doesn't mean that you're too cozy with them. It just means that you both professionally understand where one another's lines are and whose job is what," he said.

Broadcasters must behave responsibly.
"We all know in this day and age that it is necessary at times to err on the side of caution. I know that given today's competitive situation, that may be hard to do. But, as I always say, 'First is great, right is better,'" he said.

Think before you go live, he urged.
"Think about what it is you are doing, and what it is accomplishing, and be responsible. The worst thing you can do is make that big mistake. If you make that horrible mistake, there is no coming back from it," he warned.

Sanders said, ""To me a live truck is like a loaded gun. You don't goof around with it. You must stop and think about it. Does the potential warrant the limited benefit?"

Four committee members, who were targeted by the California Broadcasters Association for lobbying by news executives, abstained from voting on the bill. That is what made the difference.

News managers were relieved that it didn't make it out of committee.

"I am very pleased to see that it failed," said David Duitch, News Director of KXTV, Sacramento.
"It was a bill that we didn't think could stand a court challenge. Clearly, we don't think police officers should take on the role of news director," he added.

Powers warned that similar legislation would probably be introduced again next session.
"The issue is here to stay," said Powers.
In the meantime, the broadcasters were going to work to come up with guidelines for how to best handle covering hostage situations.
"The committee was basically saying that they weren't comfortable shifting the balance of power to the police, but they are also very uncomfortable with the fact the police officers are exposed out there, and the police don't seem to know when a live broadcast is happening and what is being shown," said Powers.
"They are very concerned about the coordination that is going on at the scene.   We were able to convince them that shifting the balance of power wasn't the way to force coordination, that all these incidents they brought up would have happened whether or not they had this law, because no one was ever asked to shut down," Powers explained.

He added that the bill could be brought back to life if there was an incident where police or hostages were hurt because of live coverage.
"Right now they don't have anything to hang their hat on. What we want to do is make certain in the months we are given that we do something constructive to prevent that from happening," Powers stressed.

May 6, 1996

Return to top of page.

Did Police Lie --- Or Misspeak
In Miami Beach?

When police surrounded a houseboat and eventually found the suspect's body, news executives felt misled by a police statement that no body had been found by the elite Special Response Team that entered the houseboat. A man's body had been lying in clear sight in a bedroom.

Here is the story of the challenge of covering a massive stakeout, and trying to confirm what police claimed was not true.

There were many challenges for news executives when the hunt for suspected killer Andrew Cunanan centered on South Florida.

Little official information was available.
Internationally known fashion designer Gianni Versace was shot to death on the street near his home. The police carefully controlled the release of information through news conferences. One-on-one interviews were hard to get.
At the same time, there were many supposed sightings of suspected serial killer Andrew Cunanan.
What do you report that advances the story, yet is responsible?

A week after Versace was shot, a large law enforcement team surrounded a houseboat. One early claim was that perhaps a man on the boat had fired a shot.

Police requested an embargo on live coverage. They said they wanted to avoid a suspect(s) inside seeing police movements on television, endangering officers' lives.

You are covering one of the biggest police actions in years. Traffic is tied up for miles. News helicopters are hovering above. Do you pull the plug on your live coverage?

Police: No one is in there.
Sources: He's in there, and he's dead.

After a four-hour siege, an assault team searched the boat.
The Miami Beach Police Department public information officer did live interviews saying that not only was there not a body inside the houseboat, the media had blown this out of proportion.
However, reporters on the scene saw high-ranking officials arrive. Well-placed sources began to say that not only was there a body, it was Andrew Cunanan.

How much confirmation do you need before you go with it?

Having reliable, highly placed sources was vital.
Almost from the very beginning of this story, it was hard to work.

When Versace was shot in front of his home, WTVJ-TV was the first to report the Cunanan link.
A red truck taken after a cemetery caretaker was murdered in New Jersey while Cunanan was fleeing was discovered in Miami Beach.
"We matched the VIN numbers of the vehicle that was found in the parking lot to William Reese, the man who was killed in New Jersey. We have three or four reporters who have some incredible sources, and they really worked their sources on this one," explained Ramon Escobar, Managing Editor of WTVJ.

The authorities were very slow to reveal information about the Versace execution.
"The shooting happened at about 8:45 a.m. By 9:30, police knew it was Cunanan, and yet they didn't release it officially to the press until an 8 p.m. news conference," said Cheryl Stopnick, Assistant News Director of WFOR-TV.

It was the pattern of things to come in the days following Versace's murder. Stopnick said it was basically a media blackout.

"In the week that followed the murder, and we needed information, they said they couldn't comment. Cunanan was still in our community, potentially lining up his next victim or trying to steal a car. We did a whole piece on the media blackout --- how they were not responding to our questions, and how the public had the right to know if there was a serial killer here," she said.

Stopnick said there were cases where police refused requests from local media for interviews, but did interviews with network programs such as Today and PrimeTime Live.
"The story was affecting our people. There was national interest, but if they were going to choose to do one media over the other, they should be talking locally to people who are potentially at risk.   The police had just decided they didn't want to deal with us anymore. That was wrong, and we called them on it," said Stopnick.

Part of the problem was that it was a multi-agency effort.
In light of the lack of official information, reporters continued to work their sources within the departments who were giving information off the record or on background.
"We discussed carefully what might be speculation and what might be fact. Sometimes we had things we didn't go with because we couldn't get it confirmed from a second source or an official source. You don't want to go on the air with rumors or speculation, but you want to give the public something, because people were fearful," she said.

Police surrounded the houseboat on Collins Avenue at about 4 p.m.
"We were getting reports of a burglary or shootout at a houseboat on a waterway that bordered the main street where there are a lot of high rise condos and hotels," said Stopnick.

It was clearly not a routine burglary or shootout.
"It became quickly apparent it was something more when many different law enforcement agencies began showing up. They blocked off this very busy thoroughfare for several blocks on either side of the crime scene, and they were not allowing people to return to their homes," she said.
"Our photographer was the first to get there and he was actually inside the perimeter of the crime scene. He went across the street into one of the hotels, and had a vantage point from the penthouse directly across the street. He could shoot everything as it was going on," she said.
He couldn't get the tape out until it was over, but he had a good camera position because he responded early.

"It seemed as though every single law enforcement officer in South Florida swooped down on this houseboat, so we knew something was going on," said Escobar at WTVJ.
The whole area was chaos.
They weren't letting anyone in.
When WTVJ sent other reporters, they had to fight to get into the scene.

On one side were hotels, and on the other was the canal where the houseboat was.
"We sent a reporter on the other side of the canal --- in the house that was directly across from the houseboat. The FBI and law enforcement went house to house clearing out media, claiming they were 'in the line of fire.' But it was private property. We even called our lawyer on this. We told her not to move, and the people in the house allowed her to stay in the house," said Escobar.
She did phoners.
"She saw the other side of the houseboat, and could see movement, and could tell us if there was anything going on," he said.

Between 5 and 5:30 p. m., police began faxing requests to the television stations for an embargo of live coverage.
"It is our policy that we do not honor blanket embargos. We assess each embargo on its own merits, and we make a decision on a case-by-case basis," said Escobar.
"We were already on the air, and I did not see any purpose for an embargo. What I did feel was legitimate was their request for us not to broadcast live any police (Special Response Team) movements towards the house," he said.

The SRT, the equivalent of a SWAT team, responded in this kind of situation. No one would knowingly reveal police positions and movements.
"That we agree with. It has always been our policy. But you must reiterate it to your staff members. In the heat of the moment, they can get excited. We put the message out to all the crews that we were not going to broadcast live any movements by the Special Response Team," he said.

"The key here is the booth. You have to tell the booth, and constantly remind them. You want your people in the field to shoot everything. We want them to shoot the SRT movements. We got video of them going into the houseboat. But we played the tape back later," he explained.

The managers at WSVN and WFOR also balked at the request for a blanket embargo of live coverage.

"We came to a friendly agreement with police," said Alice Jacobs, Vice President For News at WSVN.
"As long as our helicopter shot stayed tight on the houseboat, and we did not show any movement of the SRT teams, we could stay on the air. We complied with that, because obviously, we don't want to put anyone's life in jeopardy," she said.

WFOR honored the embargo by widening the helicopter shot and being careful when using it.
"We showed the house and some police activity. But no one could see specifics. We told viewers that we were not showing them tight pictures from our helicopter, because police have asked us not to. We picked our moment to show live shots from the helicopter when we felt the shots would not be critical to the police operation," added Stopnick.

During the three-hour period when police asked that the SRT movements not be broadcast, the stations cut between very wide shots of the houseboat and the police presence, updates from the reporters on the scene, and tape that was shot earlier.
After their evening news blocks, the stations returned to regular programming, cutting in as the developments warranted.

When the SRT went into the houseboat, the police officials again asked the stations to limit coverage from the scene.
"We were on the phone with the police and on the phone with the control room, deciding when to go ahead and say that they were in the house. We held up until they were in the house, and for a few minutes afterwards. But one of our competitors went on the air, so we decided we should go," said Stopnick.

Police were still asking them not to air it. But the WFOR managers felt it was time to continue with the story.
"They called back later and said that we had violated the embargo. My response was that we honored the embargo and waited until the police officers were inside the house --- and we waited a few minutes beyond that --- but at some point we must serve the public. We must tell people what is going on with a story we have been covering for several hours. We stand by our decision. No one's life was placed in jeopardy because we went on. Then, after we did, other stations went on the air, too," she said.

At 8:45, the Miami Beach Police public information officer was live by phone with WFOR. He said nobody had been found.
"He also made it clear that they were going do a more thorough search, but as of that point, they had found no one," Stopnick said.

Cunanan's body was in plain sight, sprawled on a bed in the upstairs master bedroom. A .40-caliber handgun was there. Its serial number was the same as that of a weapon stolen from a man Cunanan was believed to have killed in the Midwest.

Metro-Dade Police tactical officers later said they located the body of a white male dead from a gunshot wound within two minutes of making entry --- and reported that to the Miami Beach police.
``Once we went in and identified that there was a deceased male in there and nobody else, that information was relayed [to Beach police] and the scene was relinquished back to their custody,'' Metro-Dade Police spokesman Denis Morales told the Miami Herald.

"Whether he (the Beach PIO) misspoke or he had incomplete information, I don't know. I don't think he outright lied to us, because he went on with every TV station and said the same thing," Stopnick said.

By then it was around 9 p.m. WFOR and the other network affiliates still had two hours until their newscasts.
"Everybody was still out at the scene. There was going to be a news conference by police at some point, so everybody was still working the story," she said.

WFOR newsroom managers began to stand down and plan for the coverage at 11.
"We hit all of our reporters again at the scene, wrapped it up by about 8:55, promised more coverage at 11, and then re-grouped to get our coverage on for 11.   Even if there had been no body in the houseboat, this was a major police action and an inconvenience for thousands of people. This was huge story regardless," she said.

When they got the word it was "clear," WTVJ news managers also went back to regular programming. They kept the crews at the scene and were monitoring the situation, keeping the camera trained on the house.
"We stayed at the scene, because you never know. This story was so bizarre that we had no idea what was going on.   We wanted to protect ourselves, so we stayed. It just seemed weird. For what looked like the Fifth Armored Division to descend upon a houseboat for a regular burglary? That did not make any sense to any of us. Then, to go in and have nobody there? It just didn't add up," said Escobar.

Some WTVJ managers had taken a break to grab a quick dinner, when they were informed that a WTVJ reporter had a source who told her there was a body inside, and it might be Andrew Cunanan.
"There had been four helicopters hovering over the scene, and my first thought was that the police were under a lot of pressure and had tried to clear out the media," said Escobar.

WTVJ had eight people who had been working the story since Versace's murder.
"We went around the room and asked who had a source they could call to try to confirm this," said Escobar.
"We only had one source who told us flat out that it was Andrew Cunanan, that he had killed himself and he was in the house. It was a very reliable source from one of our best reporters. That one I was comfortable with. But our standard is to go on the air with two very reliable sources. We had secondary sources, but they were people who had heard it from someone else. We didn't feel those were appropriate," Escobar said.

Around 10 p.m., another reporter called with "a half source."
"It was a wink and a nod, but that wasn't good enough. We needed him to answer clearly three questions: Is he dead? Was it suicide? Is it Andrew Cunanan?" said Escobar.
"At 10:20, the reporter called back again, this time with a very reliable source who had answered all three questions, 'Yes.' At that point, we had two very reliable sources, in addition to all of our secondary sources. Then, we got a third source. We decided to go with it," he said.
"We were running to get on the air. Our reporters were calling to tell us the head of the FBI task force and the head of the Miami Beach Police were arriving. I knew we had it. We went on the air at 10:24, and were the first to confirm and report it," said Escobar.

WSVN was the second to report there was a body inside, although they did not confirm it was Cunanan's body until the news conference shortly after 11 p.m.
"We had a lot of people telling us they thought it was him, or they heard it was him, but nobody could tell us it was him. So, we couldn't go with it," said Jacobs.
At 10:49, they reported they had confirmed there was a body inside.
"We told people what was going on at the scene. There were extremely important people showing up, and we pointed them out for our viewers, and explained that they don't just arrive at any normal crime scene. We told viewers we had confirmed that there was a body inside, that a lot of people were saying it might be Cunanan, but that we did not know that. But we knew something was up. All of those very high-profile people were out there, and they were all looking very happy. We took the viewers through the scene and explained what we thought was happening," said Jacobs.

Unfortunately, they had begun their 10 p.m. news with the PIO's statement that there was no body.

The WFOR reporters were also suspicious that something unusual was going on.
"Our reporters wondered if the houseboat was empty, why hadn't all these police agencies, including the FBI, left? They knew something was up. They were working it in the field. Our reporters suspected someone was in there --- either alive or dead," Stopnick said.

At 10:10, WFOR recorded a promo that basically said, "Did police come up empty-handed?" It ran at 10:38.
"We didn't feel we had enough solid information to pull it. If we had solid information, we would have pulled it and done the promo live," said Stopnick.
"There were a lot of rumors and sightings that we were filtering through all week long. We had to make sure we were telling the public confirmed information," she said.
They weren't comfortable that the information they had was good enough to take the leap.

These were not inexperienced communications officers and officials.
Roberto Vizcon, News Director of WSCV-TV, Channel 51, said that the Miami area has one of the most sophisticated PIO systems in the country.

The PIO for Miami Beach was subsequently reassigned. But Vizcon felt the incident created some mistrust between the PIOs and the media that would last.

The next day, the mayor and the city manager of Miami Beach were critical of their police department's statements.
The mayor said, ``I don't think they lied, but they certainly erred."
The manager said, "I can't think of any circumstances that justify putting out misinformation in this case."

Police Chief Richard Barreto addressed the news organizations.
He said, ``I want to apologize to anybody in the media who may have been confused or inconvenienced."
He acknowledged his officers had incorrectly told reporters that no body had been found. He claimed the bad information was due to a series of misunderstandings by his people.
Barreto maintained one of his officers heard the Metro SRT officers use the term ``clear'' after they swept the boathouse. To the Metro team, that meant there was no threat present.
However, the chief said that a Miami Beach officer heard that and thought it meant there was nothing inside, it was "clear."
``The term `clear' was misinterpreted by one of my officers to indicate they had not located the body,'' said the Chief.
That incorrect information was relayed to the department's spokesman who was speaking to reporters by phone from headquarters.

Why didn't he correct the information quickly?
Barreto claimed his officers had to control traffic and determine where they would hold a media briefing.

City Manager Jose Garcia-Pedrosa said he and other authorities knew within an hour that the body was Cunanan's. However, television reporters were left with impression no body had been found.

At WTVJ, Escobar said he didn't know if the misinformation was a deliberate effort to mislead the news media.
"I hope it was not. But there have been incidents in the past where we feel we haven't been given the whole truth," he said.

"Everyone is blaming everyone else. One person is saying there was miscommunication. Another person is saying the SRT lied. Another that the Miami Beach Police misunderstood," said WSVN's Jacobs.
"How do you misunderstand there is a dead body upstairs --- and then let the misinformation be broadcast for the next two hours? Someone knew we had misinformation, but no one called to tell us we were wrong," she said.
She felt they could have simply said they weren't going to release any information immediately, but it was a big story and the newspeople should stand by.
"The body was laying on the second floor sprawled out on a bed. There was no way they missed the body," she maintained.

Here are suggestions from these managers.

Create a team for a big story.
"Develop a team whose only job is to do this story. Make it consistent," Escobar advised.
WTVJ managers put together a team of eight people. It included anchors, reporters and desk people.
"Every day we worked the story. We took the special projects unit off of all the sweeps pieces they were doing, because this was more important. We dedicated all of their time to this, too," he said. During this eight-day period, all these eight people did was to work the story over and over again.
"That paid off. When you have a story this big, throw everything you have at it, because that is what is going to pay dividends," he said.

Check and double-check everything.
Escobar said, "Newsweek got it wrong. Newsweek did a story about how a woman in Brazil spotted them at a party.  On a story like this, rumors rule the day. You must be extremely careful. I was shocked that Newsweek got it that wrong. We did a story the next day, showing how Newsweek got it wrong. They were flat out wrong. We didn't want to make the same mistake."

Managers are the gatekeepers.
"Make certain you are buttoned up. Don't speculate. Everyone was speculating. As news managers, that was our sole function --- to make sure we got the facts right. Do not speculate," he said.
"You constantly had to be monitoring every piece of information that went on the air, deciding if it was valuable enough to go on the air. Speculating can kill you," he warned.

Don't let down your guard.
"Don't discard the story until you are absolutely sure there is no story there," said Vizcon of WSCV. "No matter how efficient you think a public information officer is at a police department, don't take it for granted. Always try to make sure you have your bases covered," he said.

"This was a very unique situation. I don't want the lesson to be not to trust your PIO, because we have to trust them," said Jacobs.
"We all live and die by those few people who are supposedly telling us what is really going on. How many times do reporters arrive at a scene, and an officer tells them they don't need to worry about it, or that it is a big deal and we should stick around? Sometimes that's all they'll say, but it leads us to what stories we cover. To this day, I'm still going to believe the PIO, and hope that he is telling me the truth," she said.

Misinformation like this does have repercussions.
"It made a lot of viewers very angry.  We had viewers call the next day saying they went to bed thinking everything was all clear, and they woke up the next morning to ask 'What happened?' That hurt us," Jacobs said.

August 4, 1997

Return to top of page.

News managers, reporters and photographers shared with us the firsthand views of what it is like to be suddenly reporting on a disturbance.

Return to RUNDOWN Database Search

Return to TV RUNDOWN on The Web home page