THE TIMES POLL : TV’s Handling of Riots Gets Favorable Grade

Television coverage of last week’s civil unrest got high marks on responsibility from Los Angeles city residents interviewed for a Los Angeles Times Poll.

Overall, 68% of the 888 adults questioned in the poll said that they considered TV coverage to be responsibly handled. Twenty-eight percent said coverage was irresponsible, and 4% were not sure.

“I saw some of (the TV reporters) get a little testy, but really I thought the people in the field were sensitive to what was going on and tried to be informative,” said poll respondent Gail Gay, 58, of San Pedro. “I give them a lot of credit.”

The poll was conducted Sunday and Monday under the supervision of Times Poll Director John Brennan and covered a wide range of questions related to the verdicts in the Rodney G. King beating trial and the rioting that followed. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

A majority of those polled said they watched at least “a fair amount” of the trial of the four Los Angeles policemen accused of using excessive force in arresting King. The verdicts of not guilty last Wednesday triggered the rioting seen on television. Asked how much they watched, 20% of the respondents said they saw “a great deal” of the proceeding and 35% said they saw a fair amount. Another 35% said they tuned in, but did not watch much, and 10% said they saw none of the trial.

TV’s report card on responsibility remained the same among most groups interviewed: Broken down according to sex, income and education, most people still gave the medium an approval rating for the riot coverage. There were some differences among the respondents in terms of ethnicity, age and the part of town in which they live.

For example, only 55% of blacks interviewed said that they felt TV did a responsible job, compared to 65% of whites and 75% of Latinos.

Also, only 59% of respondents who live in the southern part of the city gave TV high marks, as opposed to 76% in Central Los Angeles, 62% on the Westside and 69% in the San Fernando Valley.

“They focused too much on what (the rioters) were doing and how the police weren’t responding,” said a black resident of South-Central Los Angeles who lived through the Watts riots in 1965. “To me, it made (viewers) think, ‘Wow, the police ain’t bothering--let’s go and get something, too.’ ”

But the woman, who said that she was afraid to give her name, said she did not blame TV stations for showing the videotape of King’s beating in the wake of the verdict--an act that some critics have cited as potentially inflammatory.

“So much that has been going on through the years was pushed under the rug,” the woman said. “This time, it was out in the open, and I think that was very good.”

Fred Blassetti, who lives in Granada Hills and is white, said he thinks TV fueled the riots.

“They more or less enticed people to do what they did,” Blassetti said. “They could have reported that there was a lot of looting taking place, but not shown (looters) laughing into the camera, saying, ‘My name is so-and-so and the police aren’t stopping me.’ ”

Siria Aguins, who lives in East Los Angeles and identified herself as Latina, said that while she believes that the events and the accompanying coverage may have caused stress among some viewers, TV acted very responsibly.

“I have heard comments that if it wouldn’t have been in the media and (the rioters) wouldn’t have gotten the publicity, they wouldn’t have done the looting,” Aguins said. “But I think that’s false.”

On the contrary, Aguins said, TV reporters and anchors were able to give the public information about the locations of dangerous areas, enabling residents to avoid them.

The poll asked city residents to volunteer their top reasons for what caused the violence. Only 4% mentioned the news media, far behind thugs and agitators (27%), rage and anger (18%), the economy (16%) and Police Chief Daryl Gates (13%).

Local TV news directors saw the generally positive responses in the Times Poll as vindication for their coverage, which has been criticized in recent days by some media-watchers and politicians.

“I think it validates a lot of what we felt,” said Nancy Valenta, news director at KNBC Channel 4. “I thought we acted responsibly, that we acted in a vein of trying to be explanatory instead of inflammatory about what was going on.”

Valenta said her reporters tried to “balance showing people what was going on in the streets with the positive message coming out of the (First A.M.E.) church.”

But Warren Cereghino, news director at KTLA Channel 5, said he was concerned about the mixed reviews among viewers of different ethnic groups.

“I’m really most intrigued that only 55% of the black people felt we were being responsible in our coverage,” Cereghino said. “I don’t know what to make of it. I’m also surprised by the very high number for Latinos who thought we were being responsible.”

Younger viewers gave TV a greater approval rating on responsibility than older viewers. Fully 78% of respondents between the ages of 18 and 25 believed TV behaved responsibly, with just 18% saying coverage was irresponsible. By contrast, 65% of adults between ages 26 and 44 said TV was responsible, 69% of those between 45 and 64, and 56% of those older than 65.

John Lippman, news director at KCBS Channel 2, said that he was not surprised. “The younger people are more comfortable with the role that television now plays, and the technology that television now uses to bring the story to the viewers,” he said.

‘Responsible’ TV Coverage

More than two-thirds of respondents to a recent Los Angeles Times Poll considered the TV coverage of the violence in Los Angeles “responsible.” But considerable differences of opinion were given depending on the ethnicity and age of the respondent.

Source: Los Angeles Times Poll, May 3 and 4