A Publisher Has Tough Take On "48 Hours" Broadcast -- Update: The EP Responds
"48 Hours" Executive Producer Susan Zirinsky has apologized to the Columbia Daily Tribune for the show's error in altering a front page of the paper in a recent broadcast (for all the details, see here). Well, Henry J. Waters III, Tribune publisher, provided his opinion on the topic and it's not kind toward "48 Hours." In a column published Monday, Waters objects to much more than one altered photograph and describes the episode as an example of "how show business masquerading as journalism is practiced on television." From Waters:
Shows like CBS' "48 Hours" take real events and jig them up to titillate viewers. The producers thought they had something hot in our own local case involving the murder of Tribune Sports Editor Kent Heitholt. When the story didn't quite pan out as they hoped, they tried to salvage what they could by spinning the facts.The broadcast examined the trial of Ryan Ferguson, who was convicted of the killing and examined some of the issues involved and questions raised. Waters isn't buying it:
It all started when Tribune columnist Tony Messenger reported information from pretrial records indicating the prosecution would have a significant hurdle to jump. Testimony from star witness Chuck Erickson seemed questionable. He told police he had not remembered the crime he and Ryan Ferguson had committed until recently, when news stories jogged his memory. He could not remember a few details he would have originally known. When "48 Hours" discovered Messenger's column, its minions got in touch and followed the case avidly, expecting Prosecuting Attorney Kevin Crane would fall on his face, failing to get a guilty verdict.Waters saved his harshest criticism for the end:As the trial unfolded and the case against Ferguson became more evident, the outcome "48 Hours" clearly coveted evaporated. The producers shifted the show's slant from a sensational report about a failed prosecution into a broad hint about failed justice. Anyone who closely watched both the trial and the show could not avoid seeing the spin.
If the television crew members had merely intended to report the trial fairly, their anticipated sensation would have never materialized, so they had to invent it.In fairness to the broadcast, Zirinsky acknowledged the error as a violation of CBS News standards and expressed regret over the incident. As she pointed out to PE, this case is not unlike many cases where questions continue to be raised after the verdict comes in. That's one reason there are appeals, after all. But the Tribune publisher sees it a different way and we thought you should know.
Update: We also wanted to let you know that Zirinsky has responded to Waters in a letter to the editor that was passed on to PE:
"48 Hours" has covered hundreds of trials. When deciding which trials to cover, we look for cases with controversial and interesting legal questions and issues. That was certainly the case with the trial of Ryan Ferguson. We had no stake whatsoever in the outcome. Conviction or not, this was a newsworthy case.Zirinsky concluded:As your own newspaper pointed out, there were serious questions raised by Chuck Erickson's initial videotaped police interview. It appeared as if Mr. Erickson knew almost nothing about where and how the crime took place. Moreover, there was no physical evidence to link either him or Mr. Ferguson to the scene.
Instead of taking "real events and jig[ging] them up to titillate viewers," as you proposed, in fact, we simply followed and reported on the progress of the trial. We had no agenda beyond reporting on a fascinating and controversial case.
In our broadcast, district attorney Kevin Crane very ably presented his side in court and in our interviews with him. We gave a great deal of time to him and to the courtroom testimony of his main witness, Mr. Erickson. We wanted to include interviews with Mr. Erickson and his family in our program, but, as we reported, they declined our repeated requests.
We neither implied nor stated that Ryan Ferguson was wrongly convicted. We broadcast the statements of the jurors, who made clear that, based on all the testimony, they believed Mr. Ferguson was guilty. Similarly, we reported that the trial had convinced Mr. Heitholt's daughter, who had previously been unsure if law enforcement had the right man, that Mr. Ferguson was guilty.
All of that is not "show business masquerading as journalism," as you accuse, but simply accurate and fair reporting.
What is most unsettling about your strenuous attack is that you accomplished precisely what you found us guilty of: "a simple-minded rush to injustice." You made inaccurate assumptions about our intent and presented only part of the story, failing to include in your op-ed piece the actions we took to correct our error.