Not long after having written that I no longer watch local television, I was reminded of why that is during the prison incident in Port-of-Spain last week.
Given the rumours circulating about a major happening in the capital city, I tuned into local stations to get the facts.
The broadcast television coverage was dreadful across the board. This major news story exposed the weaknesses of our media houses in live coverage of significant events.
Of the three major television stations (all of which are based in Port-of-Spain), none of them could be bothered to go live from their own backyards. Sure, they had the word "live" superimposed on images they broadcast. In all instances, though, reports were delivered via cell phones. It was a radio broadcast on television.
Most of the accompanying footage appeared to be unedited material shuttled back to the stations. There may have been some live elements, at least for the video. In a "live" situation, it is reasonable to expect that field video won't have the polish of edited content. Most of the images I saw, though, were unwatchable.
With the exception of CNMG, the television stations rake in vast amounts of advertising revenue. As far as I know, most, if not all of them, have outside broadcast units. These OB units are far more advanced and fleet-footed than what I was accustomed to when I was in the media (TTT used a converted 25-seater maxi). Yet, last week the public had to endure scratchy cell phone warbling from journalists in the field.
In my day, media managers bellyached about the exorbitant costs associated with deployment of OB facilities. In 2015, this is unacceptable and shows contempt for consumers of the news product. The quality of local broadcasts must evolve; service to customers should always be improving. But why bother, right? Advertisers are lining up to elbow-in their television commercials and the public doesn't seem to mind the abysmal quality too much.
My other observation was the cringe-worthy reporting from most of the field journalists. Jarring diction, poor grammar and vernacular made for potent, vicarious embarrassment for viewers. One exchange between a news anchor and a reporter had the distinct tone of cavalier rumshop banter. Perhaps they should have gone live from a hawk an' spit on Independence Square.
In another instance, the news anchor "pulled up" the reporter in the field for peppering his ramblings with unverified information and supposition.
A journalist stationed somewhere outside of the Port-of-Spain General Hospital casually referenced "all de drama that is takin' place." Elsewhere, a cell phone correspondent puzzled over whether a hand grenade qualifies as an explosive device. Invariably, the reporters were ill at ease in the "live" coverage scenario.
The whole debacle reflected the media houses' reluctance to invest in their equipment and human resources.
Ideally, there should be senior (not just old) news producers co-ordinating live coverage, gathering information from official sources to supplement the facts reporters are able to gather on the ground. This would reduce the tendency of journalists to fill air time with unsubstantiated ole talk.
Additionally, media houses should have frequent live coverage contingency drills. In fact, live field reporting should become a regular part of news coverage to hone reporters' skills and build experience.
Media houses would do well to allocate one day per week for training sessions with their workers. In the newsrooms of yore, grizzled veterans would traditionally impart knowledge to cub reporters. With dwindling numbers of senior journalists, regular training sessions are an absolute must.
The Media Association of T&T issued a release which seemed to acknowledge complaints from members of the public on the quality of reporting on the prison break. MATT states that they provide training opportunities for journalists, which is certainly encouraging.
However, reporters, notwithstanding the failure of their employers, must take some responsibility for improving their skills. Ultimately you are the ones who must face the public with your work, so you should be driven to put your best foot forward. The Internet provides an infinite array of resources which can be used for personal development.
Criticism can hurt, but if it is received with the right attitude it can be a blessing. Many years ago, I was eviscerated in a column by esteemed newspaper man George John for an interview I'd conducted on a morning show. His column, focused on entirely on my performance, characterised me as incompetent and slovenly of thought. It was mean-spirited, unrestrained and, above all else, factually accurate. I accepted that it was my responsibility, regardless of the availability of resources, to constantly work towards a higher degree of professionalism.
Journalists cannot continue to close ranks when the criticism hounds beckon. The press freedom card has a limited-use policy. Media houses must invest in their reporters, reporters must invest in themselves. The public ought to be able to look up to journalists as symbols of erudition, impartiality and professionalism. The profession of journalism must do everything necessary to earn that respect.