Q&A; WITH JOHN BEARD : At Channel 11 News, ‘It Just Feels Better’

How many minutes of Michael Jackson’s alleged sex scandal does it take to degrade a local newscast? For John Beard, the mustachioed broadcaster who anchored the news for 13 years at KNBC-TV Channel 4 before jumping in disgust to KTTV-TV Channel 11 last month, the answer was 16.

Other factors besides Jackson mania certainly prodded Beard to beg out of his $950,000-a-year contract at KNBC in favor of Fox-owned KTTV and a 50% pay cut. Channel 4, for example, had hired Paul Moyer as its primary anchor the previous year and bumped Beard from his high-profile 11 p.m. job. He also balked at Channel 4’s recent policy of making some anchors pull double duty as reporters.

But Beard, 45, made no secret in recent months that he thought KNBC had turned to sleaze, tease and irresponsibility in its quest for ratings. In a memo made public when he departed, he admonished management: “If you call it news, make sure it is. (Example: 16 minutes of Michael Jackson isn’t.)”

But on the very night Beard sat down for this interview about just what kind of news he considers worthwhile, KTTV led its own 10 p.m. newscast with 12 minutes of, you guessed it, Michael Jackson.

*

Question: Are things really any different here?

*

Answer: Every day there are arguments in the newsroom: Which way do you go? Do you have one reporter do Michael Jackson in a minute and a half or do you have five guys do it in 12 minutes? One will get you a bigger audience. One is a more responsible way. I don’t always win, but I feel I’m closer to the consensus here at KTTV than I was over there.

Q: Is that why you asked out of your contract?

A: I don’t want to get into a brick-throwing thing, but, of course, part of why I came here is because I didn’t like what was going on over there. What they do here is closer to what I believe should be done: more straightforward, less sensational, more balanced, more professional. It just feels better. I don’t think I’m idealistic; I’m not Ed Murrow. But a lot of people get all of their information and news from television, and as long as television cuts corners and focuses on the most titillating thing, then we are doing a disservice to the viewers. These are the people who drive things and buy things and vote based on what they learn from television. It’s a huge responsibility.

Q: So what should you be providing each night?

A: I think you should try to give them as much as you can about what is important. I’m not saying you ignore a story like Michael Jackson, but maybe you just cover it when there is a distinct news development. At the same time, I know there is a bias toward stories that are more dynamic in a visual way. A spectacular piece of video of one of those racing boats crashing will be (placed) higher in the show than it should be. It only affects one or two people, but it’s likely to be teased and showcased as a hook to get people to watch.

Q: So should that kind of story and all the blood-and-gore stuff be downplayed in favor of news about City Hall?

A: Here’s the problem. Ideally a newscast would have what happened today in city and county government and in Sacramento and in Congress and over at the U.N. and on the medical front, but nobody is going to watch that if that’s all there is. So there has to be a mixture. But, at the same time, you can’t have the car-chase channel just because people will watch a car chase for hours and call their friends and tell them it’s on. I understand the forces at work here. I don’t think anyone will successfully put on a newscast locally that is “MacNeil/Lehrer,” which is a damn shame.

Q: Is that what you’d like to see?

A: Yes, but it won’t work from a financial standpoint. I once advocated that we stop doing sweeps series. And we tell our viewers about ratings periods and why they see series on lesbian nuns and all that in sweeps, but explain to them that we won’t play that game because we don’t do that deviant kind of sensational stuff like the competition does. “We do news, and if you want that, you know where to go.” I ran it past the guy in charge and he said, “I could do that, and we would get beat and they will then replace me with a guy who will go back and do what makes money.”

Q: So what’s the answer?

A: Balance. You can give them a little bit of sweetener, some spice, but you have to do your job and give them what is important first. Let’s take crime. If you come into the city and watch local news, you will be afraid to go outside. What you see on TV is such a distortion. I’d like to see specific crime covered less, and sociological or environmental causes of crime explored more. But that’s difficult. It’s much easier to point the camera at what’s loud and noisy than to put together some think piece. But it’s wrong.

Q: These are sort of big questions of news philosophy that are dictated from on high. What is your role as anchor in all of this?

A: Continuity and context. A writer or reporter might work on several stories a day. One day they’re writing about a crime bill and the next about a breakthrough in cancer and the next, Michael Jackson. The anchor has the advantage of seeing every story evolve over time and can shape and change his copy so that viewers get some context and understand why it’s important and how it’s related to other events.

Q: How much do you find yourself changing and shaping things each day?

A: Not so much. One of the things I wanted when I came here was editorial control, and I didn’t get that. But there is input. I’m not the main voice. I’m a voice.

Q: When KNBC brought in Moyer, you weren’t the main guy anymore. Here, you are. Is that important to you?

A: I never felt I was the focus of the news department over there even before Moyer. It’s not something I felt I needed. It was more a matter of philosophy. Maybe the Moyer thing was a component, but it was a small part.

Q: KTTV still trails KTLA Channel 5’s news at 10 p.m. in the ratings by a wide margin. Do you think you will beat them?

A: (KTLA anchor) Hal Fishman is No. 1 for a reason. He’s a solid, trusted guy and he’s been there for a long time. So if we beat Hal Fishman, it will be because we have damn good product on the air. It isn’t going to be easy. A lot of people have tried to beat Hal, and he’s still up there sitting pretty comfortably. But I think we can do it by doing a better job. By doing the stories that are important to people, the stories of record that people should know about. But, at the same time, knowing you have a young audience on Fox, you put in some stories that appeal to them.

Q: Like what?

A: I’m not talking about doing tie-in things where you do a “Beverly Hills, 90210” star deal. But, maybe, after giving them the important news of the day, you give something that happened in music. You can’t cut corners and just try to get the kids to watch, because then you lose the core news audience. Everyone of every age ought to be able to watch the show on any night, get the important news of the day and find something that relates to them in addition.

Q: What do you see happening in this city in terms of local news responsibility?

A: It’s hard to say. Maybe it’s going to degenerate even further at some stations with all this flash and trash, and hopefully you will also have a more solid approach on other stations. Maybe that is healthy. The ratings pressure is immense and you are always going to have somebody willing to cut corners and do what I consider irresponsible unless there is some kind of community backlash or advertiser boycott or something like that. But, if it makes money, it will thrive somewhere. I’d just prefer to do something else.