Bringing Closure to Anchors’ Glibness

No sir, no more television scams that elevate theater over truth. The movie “Quiz Show” recalls a level of TV deception in the 1950s that is no longer possible. Not today, especially not in news, where everyone worships at the shrines of honesty and integrity.

Yet. . . .

What’s to be made of a Sept. 20 memo to KCBS-TV Channel 2 anchors, news writers and producers from Larry Perret, the station’s new news director?

First, backtrack a few weeks, when the station’s reporters were implored by management to reinforce a “perception” that “Action News is everywhere” by signing off their stories in the field with a specific address or neighborhood (“Reporting from the corner of. . . .”).

All right, a little show biz, along the lines of KABC-TV Channel 7 requiring its news staff to constantly promote the “Eyewitness News Van.” But now comes this Channel 2 memo from Perret titled “Closure,” a copy of which was made available to The Times:

“We require an abundance of ‘live’ reports in our newscasts. They’re important because they add immediacy and credibility to our coverage. Viewers believe ‘live’ reports are more reliable because they are not censored. That’s a bonus for us. But there also is a danger in all the ‘lives.’ We must guard against it.”

The danger ! All right. Very encouraging. At last, a local news executive noting not only the advantages of live coverage and in-the-field wraparounds that create the myth of live coverage, but also the extreme perils: There are no safety nets. The “live” process is too swift for fail-safe measures. The opportunity for error is far greater than for someone taking time to craft a videotape report--you know, the old-fashioned way.

The message of live TV, then: Use care!

But that isn’t the message of Perret memo.

“The danger is this: The anchors could appear to be reduced to simply playing the role of traffic cop who after each ‘live’ report utter, ‘Thanks for that live report.’ ”

Yes, by all means prop up news anchors, giving the appearance that they actually have something substantive to contribute, even when they don’t. And how to do this?

“The anchors must provide a sense of closure to these stories,” Perret’s memo continues. “The producers and writers must help them do it. Instead of simply saying ‘Thanks,’ the anchors should provide additional information, add context, give perspective or insight, or a historical perspective. Any of the above will help give a sense of closure to a ‘live’ report.”

That would make anchors look like sages instead of the mere news readers most of them are, and caring sages, too. Yet how can anchors do this without actually having personal knowledge of stories? Perret wouldn’t want them to utter something just to keep up appearances, would he?

The memo: “Instead of telling the entire story, leaving nothing for the anchor to say, let’s save something for them to add. For example, ‘That’s a frightening story, Brad. We’ll be looking for reaction from City Hall.’ Or, ‘The problem just seems to be getting worse. Let’s hope your report helps us find a solution.’ Etc.”

That’s a frightening memo, Larry. The problem just seems to be getting worse.

A creation of outside consultants emphasizing form over content, the theatrics of “anchor-involvement” began permeating TV news operations years ago. Under Perret’s predecessor, in fact, Channel 2 itself has encouraged these scripted performances. But sometimes it takes a few words from the new boss to keep everyone transfixed on the station’s priorities.

“Complete the story,” Perret urges. “Involve the anchors. Help them provide closure.” As the old quiz shows did for favored contestants, in other words, $50,000-a-year news writers are instructed to create and put into the mouths of these anchors--one of whom, Ann Martin, reportedly earns $1.7 million a year--pretend ad-libs designed to make them appear credible.

As a result, Channel 2 anchor lips appear to have been energized. Here was 4:30 p.m. anchor Bob Jiminez on Wednesday after reporter Mary Park’s live stand-up on a nursing controversy at San Bernardino Hospital: “Well, every hospital has its policy, and on this particular case, it’s being challenged.” Yes, yes, closure !

Here he was again after another reporter’s live stand-up about a travel newsletter: “That’s much more detail than everybody gets in the back seats of airliners.”

And here was Martin on Wednesday’s 11 p.m. newscast, following reporter Harvey Levin’s live wrap-up of his taped O. J. Simpson update: “Awfully interesting, Harvey, how those little bits of information keep coming out. . . .”

And how those anchor lips keep moving.

*

Reporter lips, too. What an auspicious start on Channel 2 Wednesday for former KABC-TV Channel 7 reporter Linda Breakstone, “breaking” the story that district attorneys for Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties would announce that day their intentions not to pursue child molestation charges against superstar Michael Jackson.

Actually, what Breakstone and “Action News” claimed to have broken was old news.

At 10:05 a.m. Wednesday, Channel 2 interrupted its live coverage of a preliminary hearing in the O. J. Simpson murder case to proclaim that “Action News has learned” that the Jackson investigation would end, but that prosecutors would have the option of changing their minds within the six-year statute of limitations.

“Breaking the news for us,” anchor Jiminez announced, was the station’s newest reporter, the veteran Breakstone, who then proceeded to fill in viewers on her scoop.

Again trumpeting its incredible coup, Channel 2 brought back Jiminez at 10:30 a.m. to remind viewers that the “latest member of the Action News team has learned this morning exclusively that no charges will be filed against Jackson.”

And still later in the morning, after a televised press conference by the two counties’ district attorneys that confirmed the Jackson report, Jiminez assured viewers that “this comes as no surprise to Linda Breakstone.” Cut to Breakstone, who agreed. “We found out what was going on this morning,” she said.

The question was how she had found out.

Let’s see, now. If she had been watching the previous day’s noon newscast on her new station, Channel 2, she would have found it out from her new colleague, Levin, who had reported “strong indications” that Jackson would not be prosecuted. Well, that was still a tad speculative. But if she had read Wednesday morning’s Los Angeles Times, Breakstone could have learned definitively of the no-prosecution decision from a front page story by Jim Newton. And if she had been watching television that morning, she could have learned it from the other stations reporting the same story. In other words, you’d have to say that Breakstone has vast sources.

This is indeed baffling, a mystery for which there appears to be only two possible answers. Either Breakstone and her new bosses at “Action News” didn’t glance at the morning newspaper or monitor other stations Wednesday, which would make them uninformed idiots, or they did see the paper and other TV reports but proceeded with the “learned . . . exclusively” fib anyway, which would make them liars.

In either case, this is a frightening incident that could taint the gleaming credibility Channel 2 has built up with its numerous live reports and scripted anchor ad-libs, a crisis that news director Perret will surely want to address in another memo.