TV coverage of standoff hard to understand
It is hard to say what was tougher to explain -- why the man on the 190 Monday night was holding a gun to his head or why the three local news departments carried the standoff live when very little happened for about two hours and 30 minutes before he was captured.
This was easily a story that could have waited for regular coverage on the 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. news and also been covered with a news cut-in when it was resolved.
The man was driving a vehicle with Florida plates and he had nowhere to go after being surrounded by SWAT teams and other police agencies. The television stations also reported that the agencies would be in no hurry to resolve the standoff because their goal was to have it end without violence.
The standoff - which closed the Niagara Thruway on both sides - also seemed to be ideal to be carried entirely on the stations' Web sites rather than pre-empt coverage of the nightly national newscasts and preempt or delay popular entertainment programming.
At around 8:30 p.m., Channel 4 News Director Joe Schlaerth said he planned to stay with the story until police were in control or "God forbid, something else happens."
About then, Channel 4 co-anchor Don Postles was getting impatient, though probably not as impatient as fans of CBS' popular Monday comedies. He thought it was time for the man to come to his senses "and realize he's not going anywhere."
Undoubtedly, by then many viewers were hoping that the stations would come to their senses and shift the story entirely to the web.
After the man was charged, subdued and captured and the law enforcement agencies justifiably praised for resolving the situation without serious injury, Channel 2 was the first to quickly head to regular network programming and Channel 4 (which showed a replay of the capture) was the last.
What did you think of the stations' decision to carry the standoff live for so long?
--- Alan Pergament
It is totally ironic. Obviously, the story was broadcast, just in case the guy actually blew his brains out. That would put some local anchor on national TV (and of course, Buffalo on TV for something other than snow).
The irony is that they had a 7 second tape delay. It defeated the whole point. If the guy blew his head off, they TV station would cut it off just before the brains splattered all over the 190. I guess only sadistic freeks in the news rooms would get to seek the blood and guts.
For the rest of us, we just get to think about what we missed. I guess the domestic abuser who sat on his cell phone with a gun to his head for over 2 hours got one over on all of us this time. I am sure he is well medicated now.
Posted by: Nothing But The Truth | May 13, 2008 at 02:07 AM
Here's a little more irony. The TV critic for the News (insert your own adjectve before the title 'TV critic') criticizes the stations for staying with a story live on the air until the end... yet the News' OWN breaking news article on its Web site last night referenced comments made by a police expert/retired state trooper who was PART of Channel 4's coverage.
Apparently the News' own news reporters were finding the 'wall-to-wall' coverage somewhat valuable.
Posted by: Zamedy | May 13, 2008 at 10:09 AM
You kill me - the stations cover the story and audiences are glue to breaking news and you complain. Yet you somehow leave out 7's coverage even thought they were there first and had more viewers than either 2 or 4. The power of tv over dead tree newspapers rules again. You need to go a museum and do us all a favor.
Posted by: Truth Tell | May 13, 2008 at 11:06 AM
They were hoping for a shootout. the bloodier, the better. An example of the old media joining the new media.
Posted by: Don H | May 13, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Zamedy wrote - "yet the News' OWN breaking news article on its Web site last night referenced comments made by a police expert/retired state trooper who was PART of Channel 4's coverage."
I'm not sure how that contradicts Alan's point. Of course the story was going to be covered and you would talk to relevant experts (and they could have interviewed him, even if he wasn't on the air).
I guess Alan's analagous point would be whether you were willing to have your internet service tied up while you were forced to watch him type the quote into his computer.
Yes, you wanted some live coverage, but after an hour or so of the same camera angle and 50th version of saying "we can't really confirm....(insert speculation here)", the coverage had run its course.
I was glad the News departments informed the viewers there was a tape delay, so I didn't have the stress of unwillingly viewing the worst case scenario.
Posted by: ElmaGolf | May 13, 2008 at 02:19 PM