 |
         
|
The fact that CBS anchor Katie Couric left Cairo after only two days on the ground and that NBC anchor Brian Williams lasted only one day more has left Big Foot journalism vulnerable to criticism. Los Angeles Times media writer Joe Flint opted for a disparaging attitude at his Company Town blog after he and I discussed the pros and cons by e-mail.
I had ticked off the virtues of the practice: the reasons why the networks should make the effort to send major anchors to the scene of a huge story. First, it sends a signal to viewers of the importance of the events being covered; second, it increases the likelihood of landing major newsmaker interviews; third, it encourages the network to flood the story with other resources to back the anchor up; fourth, it builds the anchor's long-term expertise, experience and perspective.
Flint countered with the disproportionate expense incurred by the anchors and their entourage: "Is this the best way for TV news divisions to utilize their resources?" he wondered, offering the irrefutable observation that "while the networks will say that the security of all their staffers is paramount, rest assured, a lot more precautions are taken when a $15m-a-year anchor is there as opposed to a freelance producer or part-time correspondent."
Instead, Flint argued, the same money could be spent on beefing up general regional coverage with reporters permanently assigned there. "Perhaps the answer is to do more foreign reporting and less fluff--rather than shipping a big name overseas every time a major story surfaces." His is the losing argument inside the suites of the network executives for the time being. The giant overseas story of 2010--the catastrophic earthquake in Port-au-Prince--generated a similar response as the Cairo protests: saturation coverage led by Big Foot anchors.
You must be logged in to this website to leave a comment. Please click here to log in so you can participate in the discussion.
