My very last post of the semester: Going the extra mile

I cannot believe I am writing my last blog of the semester. The time really just flew by. Again, for the last of my reflections of my ethics and behavior, I have nothing poor of to report. I do want to talk about making sure I've got the video I need before I tear down my equipment though because I feel like the way I did it the first time will probably work.

Thursday I shot a standup at the Cole County Courthouse about why Jefferson City had sued its own county. The first take where I didn't stutter, I had the camera zoomed out a little too far. So, I redid the standup the second time and actually said 'the city has filed a suit in order to not have to pay more taxes.' The city really filed the suit, so they can keep more money in the future that they had not received from a county miscalculation. Would the city use some of this extra money to pay off more taxes? Probably. But would they use this extra money to not have to pay more taxes? That seems like a stretch.

After hearing my story air in the 9 o'clock on the CW, I used the wider standup where I could have been framed better because that standup had the right information in it. I didn't have to rush too much to simply put one of my standups in, but I had the gut feeling I should use the one with the right information in it more than the one that didn't. After watching the story, I went to my managing editor Elizabeth Frogge. I wanted her thoughts on what I should do. Fortunately for me, we were both on the same wavelength. She said I shouldn't sacrifice for a shot's framing, especially if the shot of the frame with the right information in it doesn't look terrible, which it didn't. I'm glad I gave the people all truthful information in my story in both the 9 and 10 pm shows.

This doesn't cover though what I should have done to get the right information and an even better framing. I had to hurry to go get b-roll of my CCC, Jefferson City Counselor Nathan Nickolaus, so I left after shooting my second standup. I did the standup near other people and felt a little awkward doing it. Therefore, I wanted to get out of there as soon as possible. So I did. Had I been able to do it over again, I would have re shot the standup until I got the information right with a good tight framing. If I truly want to be a journalist, I'm going to have to get over that fearfulness. I kind of wish I could go shoot that standup again and nail it with a good tight frame to prove to myself that I'm not scared of doing something uncommon for a TV story. Besides, my CCC had more time than he previously thought, so I really did not need to be in a hurry to leave the office. Ugh.

See my story
Send me an email

   

My last journalism reflection: Sports on NPR?

This week I'm really extending my boundaries. I actually went to the NPR Website to look, or listen I should say to a couple stories. Lucky enough for me, I first see a sports story on the World Cup bids going to Russia and Qatar for 2018 and 2022. First off, I really enjoyed the pieces, both of them. I'll get to the second here in just a bit, but the first one intrigued me because it gave me a perspective I may not have seen if I watched this story on Sportscenter. Because we live in America, I feel like the media would have at least some sort of negative slant to the U.S. not getting the world cup bids for either year. NPR told the story from a different perspective, another country's. The story sounded great.

NPR told the story from Russia and Qatar's perspective, two countries not known for their soccer. Qatar became the first country in the middle east to win a world cup bid Thursday. In the press conference, it seemed like the Qatar committee sounded so happy that FIFA (Federation International Futbol Association) had 'given them a chance.' The story coming from people there that have such happy feelings about winning the bid makes me happy for them getting it. NPR didn't do the story about how the 'U.S. did not get the respect it deserves in the soccer world once again.' Most other stations probably would have.

And now to the meaty story. Go figure that on the night where I'd want to watch one of the biggest NBA games of the season, I wouldn't be able to do it. Last night, Lebron James came back to his home area of Northeastern Ohio to screams of boos from the Cleveland Cavaliers fans. Can you blame the Cavaliers fans? No not really. Heck, I held extremely mad feelings myself towards the man who jumped ship from the city that loved him and in doing so broke the hearts of millions of Clevelanders. Hearing the package first though on the radio instead of TV brought a new meaning to the story. You have to visualize what had happened as you listened to the story. I'm not sure if I would have felt the same magnitude had I watched a package on this first instead.

After hearing all the boos, I almost got chills up and down my neck. It makes me want to actually watch the piece on television even more now. I can only imagine how bad he got hassled last night. Anyways, listening to these sports stories on the radio first just fascinated me because having to dream up the picture in your mind makes the story more impacting in a way than seeing it on television, if the reporter does it correctly. However, it might have been nice if the reporter had a CCC!

Listen to the story


King James 'smiling' as everyone boos him at the Quicken Loans Arena Thursday night.

I need to ask more questions

To me, I did nothing as bad or as controversial as some of the things I've talked about in my last two blogs on my own journalism experiences. This one just shows I need to be a little bit more careful when I report information. This past Monday, I covered the Columbia City Council meeting. I reported on the city thinking about raising parking garage rates in downtown because they've made a lot less money on this than they previously had thought they would. The situation has city officials wondering how they can transfer money over to the parking garage fund.

A couple of officials think they've come up with a plan. They want to transfer $400,000 from the city's parking meter fund, which makes a much greater amount of money for the city.They want to transfer that over to the city's general fund. After that, the city can then take that money and use it to help pay off the struggling four parking garages in downtown. The findings during the council meeting came during the 'reports' section of the agenda. In the web story I posted that night on komu.com, I reported the city had moved the money over. At the meeting, it sure sounded like they planned to do this. Unfortunately for me though, they never voted on anything. Good thing the morning producer called and asked me about it and asked if we should change it. I had already gotten back to my house and had started to prepare for bed.

What did I learn from this? You need to be much more careful with the way you word things. I'm not sure if the city officially transferred the parking meter funds over to the general fund or not. I'm not sure if mayor Bob McDavid has the authority to just do this, or if the city council has to vote. What did I need to do? I needed to ask the representatives after the meeting what became of this!!!! That would have cleared things up for me and allowed me to report the story the right way in the first place.

I say this issue did not impose as big of an ethical issue as my last two journalism experience blogs because nobody appears upset with me in how I reported the story for the 45 minutes it appeared online wrong. I'm very thankful the morning producer called and asked me about it because then we would have reported it wrong in the morning five or six times in a row. In a morning newscast, you run the same story six or seven times because the show goes on for at least two hours. Ours goes three. Then as more people could have heard it, they could have questioned whether or not I truly reported something that happened or not. Then I could have gotten in trouble!! Crisis averted.

 Mayor Bob McDavid has the task of figuring out where the city will get money to pay off the downtown parking garages.

See the revised online text story

See the video

See the rest of my videos

What'd you think of both?

My American Hour: Listening to 'This American Life'

My goodness...first off...I cannot believe 'This American Life' could devote an hour long to a news story called 'Petty Tyrant.' I mean this in a good way. That seems like something only shows like '60 Minutes' or '20/20' could do on television. If only great television shows can do one news story and tell it for one hour, I'm sure only great radio shows can do the same thing. Think how much time that would take. It would have to take an incredible amount of work, and if only one reporter tells the story, he or she would have to devote large quantities of time to the piece each and every day. Hopefully he or she wouldn't have to edit the thing too!

I'll be honest. I had never listened to a podcast before on 'This American Life.' Off the bat, you can see how a television story and a radio story differ. First, you usually hear more music as nat sound in your radio story than in your T.V. story. Television has the luxury of using nat sound to help describe a situation without necessarily saying something about it. In radio, you don't have the television there to make it easier for the viewer to understand. You have to describe the scene right before if you want to use nats. At one point during the piece, I heard the reporter say "That's Carl Stroc." It sounded like she described the person as if we could see them. I wonder whether or not she meant to do that. I also noticed a little bit more music in this piece than I'd probably here if somebody decided to do an hour long television story on it. Because radio journalists don't use as much nat sound, they need music to balance that out. After her lead, the reporter put in a five second music nat pop. I loved it.

If anyone knows why NPR reporters speak in such a monotone voice to where a story can put you to sleep, please let me know. I've wondered this before...why people doing stories for this station have no inflection or anything else. Then again, anybody who does public radio never really speaks with much inflection. I find that interesting more than anything else. Also, I know this piece goes on for an entire hour, but the anchor intro goes on for five minutes!!!! Holy cow. I'm not sure a television show could ever get away with an anchor intro that lasted that long. The anchor intro also sounded so informal, so conversational. It reminded me of my best friend standing five feet away from me telling me something.

I also did see some similarities between it and television. I heard a soundbite where the reporter followed it up with a couple more questions. I know this would definitely happen in a television story as well, and I know if this were, it would have been a shot with both the reporter and the source in it. You can tell because you can hear the reporter's voice. If a photographer would just do a closeup on the man telling the reporter something, you'd be hearing a constant voice from somewhere else but not being able to see it would be weird.

I also feel like I can tell where the commercials start in this piece. The reporter often ended with some nat sound and faded it out. I'm sure in radio fading out music and fading it back in has to be much more important than doing that in television. One final note with the music, it also seemed very 'light hearted' for such a serious story. I don't think a television reporter would ever use such 'cheery music' about a boss who pretends to have sex with his secretaries. All in all, you can see how a piece in radio transitions and flows differently than a piece in television. Hearing these challenges gives me a greater amount of respect for those that do radio.

Listen to the podcast

Steve Raucci: the man that ridiculed his coworkers.
What'd you think of the blog?

Another ethical issue

As I sit here writing about another personal news situation where I found myself questioning my ethics afterwards, I think about my past Tuesday night/Wednesday morning, when I covered the state auditor race in Missouri and Republican challenger Tom Schweich's party. I got to Clayton, a St. Louis suburb, where he held his watch party, and I stayed there until about 12:30 Wednesday morning. Tom only talked at a couple of points during the night, and each of them didn't last very long. He came out at one point and told the crowd he and his men were still in the back 'crunching the numbers' and that he appreciated everyone coming out. Later on in the night, he came out a second time to tell the smaller crowd that he didn't see how Democratic incumbent Susan Montee could come back. The sticky situation of the night came next.

After he came out a second time, I got in position for him to address the crowd for a third time and to tell them he'd won. We kept waiting and waiting, and he didn't want to say anything before the official results were in. Keep in mind, the restaurant where his party took place didn't have any huge barriers between the 'war room' in the back and all the people drinking in front. So after about five minutes, I decided to go back to the room where Schweich and his men had been the entire night. Sure enough, by the time I got back there, Schweich and Montee were talking over the phone. Montee had called to concede the race.

I started recording as soon as possible and once he hung up the phone, he jumped up in the air and flailed both his arms upward in celebration. It looked rather funny to the outsider because you don't see that type of reaction every day. After coming out the door, he told me not to use that shot. He said he hadn't seen the camera. I laughed because he seemed so excited right after he hung up the phone. By no means did he seem vicious when he told me this. Now though, came decision time. 

As a journalist, what do I do in a situation like this? I just got my best shot of the night. The scene seemed very light hearted. Do I persuade Tom into letting me use it? Not say anything and just laugh it off? Or do I not use the video at all? I went with option number two. I decided to use the video because I felt like I hadn't defamed him. Also, I knew Schweich would never see the video. He lives outside St. Louis. I knew my consequences would probably be fairly slim.

Also, my teacher told me in class, if a source does something and then tells you not to use it, it still counts as 'on the record.' However, if I had to do it again, I would have told Schweich what he did still counted as 'on the record.' I never did that. Our teacher told us you can use everything a person says or does unless they tell you 'off the record' before they do the action or give the sound bite. He told me not to use it after I had shot the video. However, I made it sound like I planned on not using it. As I said before, I would have done things differently if I had to do it all over again, and I feel like I would have been able to persuade an easy going guy like Schweich into using it if I just talked to him. I also know there could be repercussions on more serious issues like this in the near future if I don't take the right precautions.

Tell me what you would have done in this situation
Check out the new Missouri State Auditor's Website

The journalist I strive to be

After watching the piece Diane Sawyer did called 'Prostitution in America,' I wonder myself how many prostitutes live in Columbia. I know the middle of Missouri doesn't seem like a very populated area compared to other parts of America, but cities like Jefferson City and Columbia do have a decent urban population.   

While watching the video, I felt very sorry for Jessie who feels like people stop on her in the business, and she seems like she'd rather be doing something else. I tried though throughout it to think more along the lines of how hard it would be to do a story like this. I tried to think of this as if I sat in Sawyer's position. I first thought to myself, how in the world do you find Jessie? She seemed so open to talk about her job? I guess it would have to take a very long time to do. After all, if you listen to Sawyer's anchor intro, she says she's been working on the story for over two years. This piece has 'HFR' written all over it just like every other piece '20/20' does.

I wonder if Sawyer found Jessie online, if she had to call Reno Police before to see if they had any tips on her. Jessie seems like she acts very professional in her job and seems relatable to a woman that works in an office building. Regardless, another question comes to my mind as I write this piece. Would I ever be able to find a story like that and a woman who'd be that willing to talk to me about it? Would only a Diane Sawyer or Barbara Walters be able to do this piece because they have been two of the best woman journalists on the planet over the last 30 years?

This question reminds me so much of the first topic I wrote about, a story HBO's Bryant Gumbel did on president Barrack Obama. Could I have ever done as good a story as he did because I'm white? Would my news director have given the story to somebody else instead of me? I find it hard to believe that Jessie would open up to me as much as she did to Sawyer, but then again, I could be wrong. The only thing I do know for sure, I'd love to have my news director come up to me and tell me that they want me to do a story like this. I'd feel honored that they'd have that much trust in me in such a 'sticky situation', especially if I'm not of the same race or gender as the source. 



Watch the video
Want to send me an email?

How do you tell somebody no?

My latest news gathering blog deals with something I ran into while finishing up my latest class story. It dealt with the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the ADA and how some believe the city of Centralia, Mo. hasn't represented people well enough that have disabilities.  My blog for this week has nothing to do with the way I covered the story. I think I covered it fairly well. I certainly got both sides of this story. For those of you who don't know, according to the Great Plains ADA in Columbia, Mo., the city of Centralia, Mo. does not meet 39 ADA requirements for people with disabilities. I feel like I didn't make Mayor Tim Grenke look like an idiot and a discriminator of the disabled, which by the way, he does not intentionally discriminate against them. I did have a problem with something I did afterwards, though.

My central compelling character for this story involved a 50 year old Centralia man who has been in a wheelchair since 2004. He says he has fought the city for a long time about getting more accessible sidewalks, streets, and doorways at public buildings for the disabled. He says the city really didn't listen to him until the ADA report came out, and now that it has, some of those city employees think they've gotten a "bad rep."

I told the man I planned on talking to the mayor about the subject, and he asked me if I could get a copy of the interview afterwards. Without thinking about it too much, I said sure. This piece never aired on real television, so who did I really need to protect right? Wrong. I feel like I kind of "hung the mayor out to dry" a little bit because I decided to give my source the interview I did with his "nemesis." I'm not sure if because he had been very helpful to me and that he had a disability made me want to give him the copy of the interview even more or not. I guess I didn't want to disappoint him.

In retrospect though, I totally regret doing this. As I said before, I don't feel like I portrayed my mayor very well after letting my other source see this. Not that the mayor said anything bad about the disabled man, but I didn't give the mayor the copy of the interviews I did with the man in the wheelchair. Why should I give the disabled man copies of the mayor's interviews? In fact, as I wrote this, I got a text from the man in the wheelchair asking me about a question I had asked him that he never saw the mayor talk about. I just don't want to get into a sticky situation because of this and have the mayor find out about it. Then, it could really come back to haunt me.

Besides, do journalists really have time to go back and get copies of any stories people may do about them? No. We've got deadlines we have to meet. If every source we talked to wanted a copy of the story we did about them, journalists would never get anything else done. Even though I have not started reporting for KOMU yet, I should have told the man, "The Missouri Journalism School's policy states we can't give copies of stories to sources...sorry," even though I don't think they do have a policy. If I had given a source an interview I did for them and the story had aired for KOMU, I could get in big big trouble. I probably never would have done that for him though if the story had aired for KOMU. I'm a little bit smarter than that. From now on, I'll just tell my sources, "KOMU's policy states you can only retrieve video that the station puts on their website...sorry." Why can I say "KOMU" now? Because I got cleared to go to the station!!

See the story KOMU did: http://www.komu.com/KOMU/d7e2017e-80ce-18b5-00fa-0004d8d229cb/a1b3819c-80ce-18b5-0152-e88fbb4ba297.html

See what the city of Centralia said about their city a year ago: http://www.centraliamo.org/files/administration/forms/ADA_Notice.pdf


Mayor Tim Grenke

Really Morley Safer? Really???

So, I sat down in my business management class a couple days ago, and our teacher told us about a story 60 Minutes did on the Generation Y's about to hit the workforce. I'd first like to say this "piece of journalism" represents my generation as an absolutely lazy and worthless group of people that does nothing at work but sit around on "bean bags." This piece of journalism trashes Generation Y's. It absolutely trashes "us." To me, this piece of garbage should never have made it on air. This story aired to sell spots, to make money, and to please the people that watch 60 Minutes, not people 20-30 years old.

You can tell right off the bat how horribly this story represents "us" by listening to the anchor intro. "Stand back all bosses. A new breed of American worker is about to attack everything you hold sacred, from giving orders to your starched white shirt and tie."

I'm sorry Morley, but the last time I checked, I haven't heard of many millennials going into the workplace with machine guns and tanks to gun down their bosses. To be honest, this piece absolutely pissed me off when I watched it. I heard absolutely no factual information in the anchor intro, just a man who poorly explained the new generation up and coming. Morley wrote that anchor intro just to please the older generation that mainly watches the show. The piece shows the generation I'm a part of as cocky, brash, lazy, ignorant, and stupid. It sounds to me like somebody has some bitter feelings to the new journalists about to follow you. Times change man. A new generation will overtake mine someday as well. Hopefully, I won't feel as bitter about it as you apparently do.

But Morley, let me leave you with this thought. If the younger generation has ignorant and cocky characteristics and we know nothing about how the real world works, then you have many more ignorant and narcissistic traits yourself than any of "the new generation" kids will ever have. I think any person who writes a story like this needs to take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves, "Did I really just portray both sides of the story equally?" Come interview me on a topic like this. I'll give you a piece of my mind.


Take a look at part of the story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owwM6FpWWoQ
Apparently, we've never failed before either because our parents coddled us so much growing up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7iK__Z_Lw0


Morley Safer

Post Number Four: My latest attempt at bothering people while out with friends

My latest story for my broadcast class involves Jefferson City, Missouri trying to pass an ordinance that would ban smoking inside public places within the city limits, and what better video could I have than people inside a bar and trying to make my central compelling character a person that would be affected if this ordinance went into effect. After talking to bar owners in the city, I decided to try a place called TG's Lounge. I went to the lounge at the busiest time of the night.

I foresaw a problem of having dark video. I knew that if I wanted to see anything at all at TG's, I'd have to have a light on my camera there. That didn't go over too well with many of the customers inside, not to mention the fact that many of them were intoxicated at the time. I got many, 'what the hell are you doing?' stares in my vicinity and 'get that damn light out of my face' looks as well. I'll be honest, the light shined very brightly, but I needed some video, so I decided to forge on anyways.  

People thought I looked so weird shooting video of people at a bar that one group actually decided to start taking pictures of me shooting video. The restaurant had a couple of specials that night which really made it crowded, so besides the fact I looked like a stalker, it had very lots of people there. After a good five or ten minutes of shooting as many cigarettes I could find and getting evil stares from across the bar, I decided to leave. I didn't know whether I should risk making anybody else more mad at me. Before leaving the entire city though, I decided to stop by another place in town, Spectators, and talk to an owner I spoke to on the phone earlier.

He had a much more mellow crowd this night. He didn't have any specials going on or anything, so he had a smaller number of people heavily drinking. This restaurant had good lights too!!!! Ahh yes, what I had been looking for the entire night! This way, I didn't have to shine a really really bright light into a person's face and have them give me dirty looks the rest of the night. Perfect. While at this second bar, I got great shots of cigarettes on the table, smoke coming from them, and shots at different levels. It turned out very good. I have plans on going back to the city today to talk to another bar, C Dub's Pub and Grub. Their business might get hurt even more than Spectators.

With a story like this, I feel like I didn't give up. I could have 'thrown in the towell' so to speak after leaving TG's, but I saw this other bar as I drove to my first destination and thought to myself, the people inside here might be willing to 'play ball.' I left feeling much better about myself, which always helps me mentally after trying to shoot a piece. Now I need more sound bites.  

                                                              
                                                      Check out TG's Lounge at: http://www.alexandrosandtgs.com/index.html

Post #3: Writing to video that happened many years ago

My third post not just of the year...but ever. I decided to watch a piece ESPN reporter John Barr did on Denver Bronco's receiver Brandon Marshall's troubled past with the law. What a story that was and how interesting as well. That piece was 13 minutes long. I know that a minute and thirty seconds for us to tell a story is not long, but I'm not sure if I could do 11 1/2 more minutes.

It's hard to think about some of the technical things behind a piece like this because you're so in tune to what she's saying as she gives her experiences. Some of the most riveting pieces of information though are the phone calls that ESPN recovered from the days Marshall allegedly went looking for someone to hurt.
  
Really being able to listen to Rasheedah screaming in the first 911 call and then her friend in the second one as well help tell this person's story. Translating what each person said made a whole lot of sense as well because sometimes you couldn't understand what they were saying. John did a great job at visually showing a piece that happened as early as the mid 2000's. A lot of this footage is also video from documents (graphics) ESPN made and pictures Rasheedah showed them.  Because ESPN is ESPN, and they can make those kinds of graphics, I feel like every bit of video was written to itself. John really had proof of everything he was showing. That was pretty amazing. The zoom ins on the words in each of the police reports showing what the accusations were along with a very interesting email Rasheedah apparently received from Brandon is basically all the evidence she needed. The photos of her bruises don't go against her either.

The facts from this article all make sense and all go together. Does the fact that the Broncos and Marshall each wouldn't talk about this situation on camera shed them in even more of a false light? I think so. And again, if Barr couldn't even show a document saying the team and Marshall decided to decline an interview, he included that in his standup, which is what we've been told you're supposed to do. Say in your standup what you can't visually show.

I can learn a lot from a reporter like this. I had a situation last week where I felt like I was somewhat video poor doing a story on a trash referendum bill. If only now, I knew how to make amazing graphics that exceed my budget range as a journalism student at MU and can only be funded by big companies like ESPN and CNN, I'd be in great shape!

Watch John Barr's story now at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4A756xTC0s

A picture of Brandon Marshall and former girlfriend Rasheedah Watley during an off and on part of their relationship.

Post Number Two: My News Gathering Experience

With post number one now in the books, I now want to talk about my news gathering experience so far and my struggles to find out what the real story is from some of the things I've covered. I want to go back to my first story of the year: which had to do with the safety of kids walking to school in Columbia, Mo.
I didn't end up knowing that would be my story until fairly 'late in the game.'

I first thought that my story would be about the East Columbia Area Planning and Zoning Meeting that was going on and how the plan's draft to the city council might be affecting a family within the jurisdiction. I feel like that's a fairly decent idea. What was not a good idea was shooting as much footage as I did. I shot a lot of the planning and zoning meeting that night, a lot of stuff that was absolutely boring and irrelevant, no offense to anybody that was there. The fact was it didn't relate to my story.

When the planning meeting was over, there was a little comment q&a session. One little old lady stepped up and started talking about how she thought there needed to be more sidewalks in neighborhoods in future residential areas. I thought okay, this person might be my central compelling character, until I find out she doesn't live in the city limits. She thought there needed to be more sidewalks within the Columbia city limits, but that there really didn't need to be out in Boone County. So when I got a critique on my raw video afterwards, it was very low. I know now to never shoot as much from a city council meeting like that or all the video I shot of her and her husband at their home when what they want doesn't even have an affect on them.

So I went to a neighborhood that didn't have sidewalks and talked to some people in that neighborhood and asked them if they thought it was an issue. The problem was, they all said no. They told me to go near a school and see if the neighborhoods there had any sidewalks because that is where they'd definitely need some. One person pointed me in the direction of Smithton Middle School and Paxton Keeley Elementary. There I finally found a woman willing to talk to me. She had a daughter who walked to school every morning and the traffic by her house was absolutely horrible. When I was trying to shoot her as she was walking home from school one day, another kid got hit by a car. I started recording video no more than 15 seconds after it happened. Fortunately the kid was okay, but that kid getting hit there made my story complete.

If people didn't think safety was a concern at that intersection for children walking to school, they should after that happened. I was extremely lucky in getting video right after that incident. However, I remember something my teacher told me in lecture: 'Those who work hard get lucky.' I thought to myself: man this is that in a nutshell. I had been to so many places to find that story. My grade didn't necessarily show how hard I worked to find that story, but it did give me a bit of confidence in ways that I can 'go get' the real story in the near future.

See a story the Columbia Tribune did on the video I got at the scene:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/sep/10/

My first post!

My first blog ever and it gets to be on something none other than one of the best sports journalism series ever made: 'Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel.' First off, I'd like to say that HBO Sports is one of the best sports television programs out there. Nobody is better at telling sports stories going on now than ESPN, but nobody is better at telling sports stories that happened in the past than HBO Sports. I myself love looking at the history of sports, especially baseball. HBO did three one hour episodes called 'For Love of the Game' on baseball in the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's. Then they did another two hour special called 'Brooklyn Dodgers: The Ghosts of Flatbush,' which tells the story of the burrow's love and infatuation with their baseabll team, and how it was all of a sudden taken away in 1958. Both of those series were phenomenal. HBO truly is a 'network of champions.'

But back to my reason for writing this, I just finished watching a 14 minute piece Bryant Gumbel did on Barack Obama's love for the game of basketball. First off, what a great piece and second off, boy can Barack still play. Barack, or 'Barry,' as he used to be called is probably the most athletic president in this country's history. What I'm curious about though has nothing to do with Barack Obama.

I'm curious to know how much a reporter's race involves what story they get to do. Was Bryant Gumbel chosen to do this story because he is African-American? Because he's the anchor/ head hancho? (meaning he's probably a bit more crucial to the program's success) Did it involve both of these things? Or did it not involve either of the two?       

I have no idea. That's something only the production people at HBO sports would know. Did he want to do the story? Probably. My goodness who wouldn't want to interview the president? When it was planning day though, I'd be curious to know if this was a story that Bryant was set out to do from day one.
I would imagine that there are some people out there who might have taken it offensively that he was the one who got to do it, but I believe the question is, how much better of a story can Bryant tell than any of the other Real Sports reporters, who all are white?

I would say probably a lot better. Bryant would know the struggles young Barack went through coming over to the continental U.S. from Hawaii better than Andrea Kremer or Bernard Goldberg would because he may have gone through those harsh struggles himself (not coming over from Hawaii of course). Not taking anything away from Kremer or Goldberg, but they didn't have to go through the same things that those men might have had to go through during their young adult years. I believe Bryant could ask Barack a somewhat sensitive question about what basketball means to the black population in the U.S. and feel more comfortable about it then Kremer or Goldberg would. Plus Barack probably opened up more to Gumbel than he would have those other two for instance.

As a journalist, I would love to be able to relate to somebody not the same skin color as me just as well as somebody who's caucasian. That's something hard to do. I want to have everybody's trust equally. I guess very few people will ever know or really ever give much thought to this story that Bryant did because in the grand scheme of things, it's really not that important. It's just something that made me think whle I was watching the piece on their thought process. One thing's for sure though, I would have wanted to cover this story like none other to try and prove that I can relate to more people than just those that are the same skin color as mine. I'm sure Mary Carillo, Frank Deford, Jon Frankel, Kremer, and Goldberg felt the same way.      


Watch Barack's story yourself at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Lqm5emQl4