By Michael E. Miller
By Ryan Yousefi
By Kyle Munzenrieder
By Sabrina Rodriguez
By Michael E. Miller
By Carlos Suarez De Jesus
By Luther Campbell
By Kyle Munzenrieder
But it wasn't the vicious criminal who seemed to provoke the angriest reactions. It was our local television news reporters: Channel 6's Hank Testor infuriating cops -- both onscreen and in the viewing audience sitting right behind Kulchur -- as he seized on an offhand remark from a police spokesman to spin out his exclusive "rainy day theory" about the rapist's identity. Or a Channel 7 field producer becoming visibly exasperated as his news director lit into him via cell phone. There weren't any new developments in the story, the producer insisted, to little avail. Something had to be aired to keep viewers tuning in, to keep ratings high, and to keep advertising dollars flowing. With that scene in mind, it's little wonder many TV reporters refer to their jobs less as journalism than as simply "feeding the beast."
The appearance in the film of a print reporter to offer a bit more nuanced analysis (the Miami Herald's Jim DeFede) did little to stem the theater audience's grumbling. The media's role in Code 33 seemed at best an irrelevant distraction from the real story, and often -- as with the herd of cameramen camped outside the home of a twelve-year-old rape victim -- an exploitative menace.
With every available study telling us that Miamians (like the rest of the nation) now get the bulk of their news from local TV, the distinctions between print and broadcast journalism are rapidly fading in the public's eye. As Chicago Tribune deputy managing editor James Warren recently griped to The New Yorker: "People don't associate investigative reporting with us, but with local TV news. They see what we do as no different from 'Could this pastrami sandwich kill you?' 'Could this screen door harm your child? Tune in at ten!' They don't see any difference between an investigative reporter and a blow-dried idiot."
So how bad is it? The University of Southern California's Norman Lear Center has just released a study that scrutinized virtually every Miami television news broadcast during the four weeks preceding November 2004's election day, recording each station's daily lineup from 5:00 to 11:30 p.m. The results are depressing, to say the least.
Though the stations' commercial breaks were filled with an onslaught of lucrative political advertising for local races -- mayoral candidates, county commissioners, judges, public defenders, State Attorney hopefuls, U.S. Representatives -- those ads were virtually all you learned about the glut of candidates. What little airtime was set aside for political coverage largely went to the presidential race or to generalized pieces about the voting process. Beyond choosing Bush or Kerry, you were on your own.
Miami's TV stations devoted eight times more coverage to accidental injuries such as car wrecks, and twelve times more coverage to sports and weather forecasts than they did to covering all of Miami's local races combined. Subtract ad time, snappy intros, sports, and weather, and the average 30-minute newscast devoted a grand total of 75 seconds to local races and ballot measures -- on a good day. "Local stations were fairly diligent about telling people where and how to vote," noted Norman Lear Center director Martin Kaplan in his study. "If only they'd done as well at telling people who was running and what the issues were."
Channel 10 led the pack with 12 percent of its news stories covering local races, and with 28 percent of its overall political stories discussing actual issues as opposed to simply announcing poll numbers or a contender's campaign strategy. In fact, of the twenty stories the English-language stations ran on the Miami-Dade mayoral race between Carlos Alvarez and Jimmy Morales (that's right, just twenty stories total in the month preceding the election), only seven were issue-oriented.
Spanish-language television was just as derelict, running a mere seventeen stories on the mayoral race during that same period -- thirteen on Univision (Channel 23) and four on Telemundo (Channel 51), with only two (both on Univision) addressing bona fide issues.
Turning to the county commission races, Channel 10 once again took the honors -- slim as they may be -- by running three stories on various commission candidates. Univision, Channel 4, and Channel 6 each ran a single story, with Channel 4 using that precious airtime to convey the earth shaker that these races were "likely to be heated and close." Could that be because most of Channel 4's viewers had no idea which would-be commissioners were actually on their ballots?
But it's unfair to single out Channel 4. Neither Channel 7 nor Telemundo deigned to spare a single second of airtime on a county commission race -- though both found room to highlight rap mogul P. Diddy's Vote or Die! campaign when it hit town.