Ouch. That one was my fault. Once upon a time, I was suspended from anchoring (a recurring theme here) for giving blood.
Yes, the whole story is more complicated than that. Our station had gotten an alert from the base blood bank in Seoul, South Korea. Apparently, a soldier was in surgery, leaking blood like a sieve -- and they were running out. I gathered three co-workers and lined up to donate. Unfortunately, we got back significantly later than we had planned. We were late for taping. The show taped at 4, to air at 6. Instead, we taped it at 4:20, and still aired at 6.
I didn't see the problem. There was a soldier in need. I helped out. He lived. The newscast aired on time. As a soldier, I thought I had chosen the high road. My supervisor disagreed. We agreed to disagree - and I was ordered off the anchor desk for a while.
Hey, I don't like being naive. It just comes naturally sometimes.
That's a toss-up between live squid and dog soup. The squid was served under glass, sliced and cooked (somewhat) in a cast-iron pan. Yes, every squirm was visible. Yes, it was delicious. It reminded me of gumbo.
As for the dog, Korean men consider it quite (how do I put this delicately?) "potent." It's not legal, but it's served across the country. I'm not even sure I was served real dog. One of my co-workers brought it in for lunch one day. It might have been almost anything, but it didn't taste like chicken.
You mean besides "everything?" Besides not doing their homework before a story? Besides lacking the background information necessary to tell a fair story?
Considering recent controversies involving accuracy in reporting, that's an excellent question.
I remember one reporter covering a post change of command (a short and simple VOSOT story) who said she had no idea about anything military, and didn't know a thing about the post or what the soldiers did there. Perhaps five minutes before the live shot was a bad time to learn.
Tonight, a local anchor referred to the bombing of Hiroshima as the only nuclear weapons attack in history. Hello? Those folks in Nagasaki just vanished on their own?
Here's a common mistake that still burns me up when I hear it: A report on someone who "wins" or "won" the Congressional Medal of Honor. No one "wins" the Medal of Honor. People "earn" it. People risk life and limb - and sometimes die - in heroic circumstances, and are "awarded" it. Athletes win medals, not servicemembers. Oh yes, and when I last checked, it was the Medal of Honor, not the Congressional Medal of Honor. Check out http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/pis/med_of_honor.html and http://www.awod.com/gallery/probono/cmhs/ if you don't believe me.
Does this sound nit-picky? Tough. Accurate reporting isn't easy. It's the job.
If reporters can't get the details correct on easy stories, where
do we get the credibility to address the complex issues?
The smartest person I know in TV news is Wally Cornelison -- and I hope he forgives me for using his name. He was the program director of the American Forces Korea Network -- and could run a newsroom or station anywhere in the world. I'm not sure he'd appreciate my calling him an "elder statesman" of military news, but that's how I see him. I'm sure he's forgotten more about news than I've learned. I would work for him again in a heartbeat.
On the tube? I could take the easy way out and say Ted Koppel,
but I think I'll go with ABC's Robert Krulwich. He's a hoot. He
makes complex stories understandable. I like that. On the other
hand, I have no idea who actually writes his stuff, so - Hey,
Robert, if that's your stuff, my hat's off to you. Have you considered
teaching?
Copyright 1998, Thomas L. Mangan
Back to new SevenQuestionsmain page