4/8 - Michelle Relerford Summary, Christine Gratton (Erin O'Toole)

Speaker: Michelle Relerford
Notes by Christine Gratton
Discussion Leader: Erin O'Toole


Departing greatly from the recent string of print-based speakers, Boston news anchor and University of Connecticut grad Michelle Releford casually and candidly shared her experience working in the broadcast-news business. Void of past speaker’s emphasis on heavy-hitting economic issues and questions of the future role of journalism digitally, Releford presented a realistic portrait of the personally taxing long road one needs to forge to reach success in broadcast.

Yet throughout her talk, some “alarming” realities in the TV news industry became increasingly apparent, especially when compared to traditional print journalism. Erin O’Toole based the first part of her discussion segment on this observation. She harped back to Releford’s comment that TV news stories really have no limits in content or delivery as long as they aren’t controversial enough to beckon a lawsuit (or as Releford put it, “If you don’t get sued, it’s OK”). Erin asked the class what their reactions were to this blunt statement.

Joe responded first, saying that he was “shocked” to hear that this is the only ethical standard that broadcasters like Releford need to abide by. He believed that by doing so, broadcasters are completely disregarding their journalistic duty to minimize harm. In the fight to get ratings, he said, it is appalling that this principle gets thrown out the window.

But Brendan played devil’s advocate, citing the fast-paced nature of TV news as the ultimate culprit. He said that at a station like Releford’s, where there are five or six newscasts everyday, there’s limited time to thoughtfully weigh any ethical dilemmas. As long as you’re being sensitive and not breaking the law, he said, the story should ethically suffice. The class seemed to agree with this.

Erin then moved to another ethical “red flag” in Releford’s talk—the fact that reporters become desensitized after witnessing and reporting on tragedy after horrific tragedy.

Emily said she thought it was strange that someone could be so numb to such harsh subject-matter.

Joe agreed, and added that he was even more disheartened to hear that reporters actually joke about real stories of death and destruction—that this “dark humor” really goes on in the newsroom.But another student countered, saying that joking like this wasn’t a reflection of the reporter as a person, but more a coping mechanism they use to get through the job.

Erin then interjected to ask if this desensitization was only true because of the visual nature of TV, or if print journalists fall victim to becoming numb, too.
One student said that “to survive in this industry, you must have a tough skin,” both in print and TV.
Beren noted that becoming numb is inevitable after a lot of exposure to gritty tragedies, and further pointed out that this is true of many occupations—people serving in the military, police officers, nurses, etc. Another student continued this thought, saying that it doesn’t exclude one’s sense of humanity to be humorous about a tragedy.

Others agreed that this defense mechanism of detaching oneself from the harsh and gruesome realities of reporting only in turn allows you to more effectively do the job everyday, and as long as you show compassion and sympathy to the people the tragedy affects, desensitization, and even humor, are ultimately OK.

Professor Dufresne then shared his own, similar experience at a newsroom he worked in whose staff morbidly joked by placing bets on when selected people would die. The “dead pool” was shocking to him at first, but ultimately he learned that removing oneself from reality is necessary to some degree, as constant exposure to doom and gloom eventually takes an emotional toll. But he warned us that it is important to ultimately come out of this stage with wisdom about human nature, and not remain completely jaded and callous forever.

Erin then directed the discussion towards the importance of appearance in broadcast. When asked during the talk if beauty equates to success in the world of TV news, Releford said that being well-put-together was all that mattered, not being beautiful. Erin then posed the same question to the class: how much does appearance really matter?

One student believed that Releford had downplayed its importance entirely, and gave an example that she has never seen an overweight female news anchor on TV. To her, appearance will always be an issue with women broadcasters.

Erin agreed, noting that contracts will even include a specific weight the broadcaster needs to keep, or a certain hair color she must maintain throughout.

Another student added that even in our broadcast journalism classes here at UConn, professors spend a significant amount of class time talking about TV reporters’ appearance, thus obviously verifying its importance in the industry.

More continued to agree, and Pat even noted that a TV anchor not looking presentable on-air is like a newspaper reporter using a crazy font in a story; neither will be taken seriously.

Someone then asked if it could be possible that a normal viewer wants to see a normal-looking anchor? But the class responded with a definitive “no;” people want to watch these “infobabes,” as Professor Dufresne dubbed them.

Attractiveness, Alyssa concluded, is associated with being smarter and more competent, so people naturally want to watch good-looking anchors.

Another topic touched on lightly in Erin’s discussion was the issue of Releford’s job stability in light of the current economic rollercoaster ride. Releford called the economic situation “very real” and “really bad,” Erin said, but she hasn’t seen any layoffs. Erin asked the class if they were concerned by this statement
.
Amy thought Releford’s statements didn’t add up, and were simply “bizarre,” and Emily agreed that Releford was definitely “missing something.” Emily continued to say that Releford’s station being owned by a private company provides a bubble from the current situation, but not reality (Releford’s station is an affiliate of NBC owned by a private company, Sunbeam Inc., and not NBC Universal Inc.).

Here, Professor Dufresne pointed out that Releford’s contract didn’t end until 2010, giving her at least temporary job security. The real question, he said, should have been if she was nervous for when it ended.

Jesse concluded that it’s reassuring to know that there’s more job safety in broadcast when your station is owned by a private company rather than by a major network. Everyone seemed to agree.

The take-away cards ranged from four major aspects of Releford’s talk: the aforementioned ethical concerns of desensitization and lax limitations on story content, the amount of travel necessary in broadcast, Releford’s clarification of different-sized market standards, and issues concerning her personal life, character and salary.

TAKE-AWAYS:
• Beren Jones: “If ya don’t get sued, it’s pretty much OK.” That seems markedly different than the previous speakers.

• Joe Callahan: It’s easy to become desensitized to negative news with constant exposure. When reporting, make it seem natural and that viewers are interested.

• Aaron Roy: The ability to travel around the country seems appealing.

• Amanda Wisniowsky: I was surprised about how much moving around Michelle did throughout her career.

• Britton Taylor: I think it was really interesting how Michelle talked about the different markets making reporters do more/less tasks.

• Patrick Swidler: After seeing her on Channel 7 in Boston, it was nice to see her and hear her speak in person. My favorite aspect of the presentation was her advice regarding the different markets and what it takes to make it in each respective market.

• No name: I thought she brought a fresh perspective on her job and working in broadcast.

• Jesse Grab: I thought that her most interesting comments were about how her job has affected her personal life and that this is a realistic concern.

• Alex Sanders: It is discouraging to hear stories of a $15,000 salary and not enough money to pay bills. The world of journalism does not look promising.