A "No Car Wrecks" Policy at your station?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am a young photog at a small market. I hate covering car wrecks. I think that they provide no real information to our viewers and at the same time fuel the stigma about our profession leeching off of other people's misery. I would like to start a discussion at my station about instituting a "No Car Wreck" Policy. But first I would like to see if any other stations in the country have taken a stance. I would greatly appreciate any input about what stations have policies, how are they implimented, and has it had any effect on viewership.
Thanks for your help.
Daniel Haggerty
 

McColl

Well-known member
It's important to put car accidents into a context where information IS conveyed. Are there traffic tie-ups? Fatalities? DUI? Cell phone inattention? Police chase?

There are a number of different reasons that a car ax can be newsworthy.

At the end of the day, though, it has been my experience that we put them on for the same reason you slow down to look at them on the side of the road... you just HAVE to look.
 

Lost in Alaska

Well-known member
I covered two in one day. Both had their reasons. The first one was right at the height of rush hour causing massive delays.

The second one was a single fatality. The kid driving was not wearing his seatbelt and was ejected and killed, his passenger was wearing hers and walked away without a scratch.
 

Phojo2

Member
We don't cover car accidents unless it's fatal. That could be a possible policy for your station. In the smaller markets, we would go when they brought out the jaws of life. Those usually signal more serious crashes.
 

JumpCut

Well-known member
We only do accidents where there are fatalities, serious injuries or something that is unusual.

As much as they may be unpleasant to shoot, they are the staple of local news. As was posted above, you might be able to tighten the rules so that only the more serious ones are covered, but in the end, I dont think you will totally stop coverage on them.
 

Sentinel94

Well-known member
I agree, you can't run every fenderbender out there, but the more serious ones catch people's attention. I always have people ask if we had any info on the crash that tied traffic up in the AM. People rubberneck all the time, so what's wrong with covering them? If it's news, you have to report it.
 

Newshutr

Well-known member
Working overnights like I do, can be boring. Sometimes it's the only thing that breaks up the monotony. If it's a policy, maybe they need to rethink it because, you never know if the mayor or the local sports star has been in a DUI or something like that.

It's my mantra.."It could be the mayor..it could be the mayor.."

Ok..not really..but you get the idea..
 

McColl

Well-known member
Not really on the topic of policy changes, but here's another reason we go on these.

Anything can happen, and you never know what you're dealing with until you check it out.

Two days ago I shot an ax. It was an 18-wheeler at 35 mph vs. a pedestrian. Ouch. She was in critical condition, but has been upgraded to stable. Which is good, because now she'll be able to stand trial.

You see, just before she tried to take her own life by stepping in front of that 18-wheeler, she had beaten her two children to death with a baseball bat. They were 4 and 8.

You never know until you check it out.
 

str8shooter13

Well-known member
A big challenge (and frustration) can be trying to get the Assignment Desk to send someone to spot news. Their attitude is often "we'll go if it's big", and by the time they finally figure out that it IS big, I'm out shooting an architectural study of an empty intersection again.

I am also an EMT, and I listen to the scanner in my Liberty almost religiously. The big fun is that I often find myself explaining in detail what's going on that we should be rolling someone to. It amazes me that we have people in our newsroom that have been here for years, but they still don't know that a "500" is a cardiac arrest call ("surgical 500" is trauma-related) or that a "980" is a deceased person (also the unit number of the Medical Examiner vehicle).

You do what you can with what you've got . . .
 

ewink

Well-known member
Originally posted by str8shooter13:
A big challenge (and frustration) can be trying to get the Assignment Desk to send someone to spot news. Their attitude is often "we'll go if it's big", and by the time they finally figure out that it IS big, I'm out shooting an architectural study of an empty intersection again.
We also have the problem. We don't cover AX's unless there is life threat injuries or fatal. Hlaf the time it's 'keep and ear on it' and when they call out the 10-79 it's too late to get any good video.

On the weekends I am the only photog after 4pm and also listen to the scanner religiously. My weekend producer is cool as in he will send me to shoot and if it turns out to be nothing serious, no harm no foul. If I didn't go, I'd just be doing nothing anyway. (I usually shoot my one pack at 2 when I come in...)

It helps to listen to the scanner in your free time in this job. You start to learn how to judge how bad something is from just the radio traffic. I know that if they send a Sgt. to an AX it's usually pretty bad, and a Lt. goes if it's fatal at the scene.
 

Shaky & Blue

Well-known member
Originally posted by McColl:
Anything can happen, and you never know what you're dealing with until you check it out.
That's a good point, and I've had a couple of those that didn't sound that bad that I checked out for the hell of it, then found that there was something weird or unusual about them that made it newsworthy.

HOWEVER...

The problem comes in the newsroom, where the idiot producer puts the wreck into the rundown before you even get there to check anything. When you call in to tell them it's nothing, they want you to shoot it anyway because they're already counting on it. What you get is a meaningless story about a fender bender written to sound more serious than it really was.

For example, I was once dispatched to check out a wreck that the desk thought they heard involved injured children. When I got there, there were no kids, just a couple of adults who had bumped their cars into each other. When I called it in, the producer first gave me the third degree about whether I had asked the emergency personnel on scene about the kids (I had, of course) and even suggested that I went to the wrong place and was at the wrong wreck (which I had also asked the firefighters, who told me that was the only wreck in the area). Then she told me to shoot it anyway.

When I got back, the line in the rundown was "child injured," and she wrote in her copy that "early reports of the accident indicated that children were involved." She didn't correct that information, but just left it hanging out there. I questioned whether that was misleading and was basically just told to shoot the video and leave the writing to the professionals.

THAT is why a "no car wreck" policy makes sense. Even when it's a fatality, it's rarely really earth shattering news except for the victims' families. Meanwhile, such a policy would help protect the integrity of the newscast from the stupidity of its own "journalists."
 

eyeshoot

Active member
Our station only covers fatals or huge traffic back ups. not like Miami who go live on fender benders, which I've seen.
 

Cambot Mk. II

Well-known member
Shaky & Blue-

A few questions:

1. Wouldn't that "producer" be guilty of broadcasting information gathered only on the scanner? As we discussed on the "Scanner" topic, it's illegal to record and broadcast scanner traffic, so wouldn't it be just as wrong to broadcast information from the scanner that wasn't verified?

2. Most shops have a policy against doing what that producer did, right?
 

(Sin)ical

Well-known member
Great points on this thread. Shakey...that's a great example of how line producers f**k up news on a daily basis. Cambot...those questions are ideal...I think the problem is when are the line producers/writers held accountable. Damn I miss home McColl...what a story! I've covered my share of accidents...mostly in WF, but the most interesting thing about an accident is how they can change everything for somebody. I agree with McColl that you have to check them out...to see what you have. It's not neccessarily capitalizing on the misfortune of others. You may find a story in the people who work accidents. I agree that the wreck will always be a staple in the smaller markets...time filler is the obvious, but it's a smaller population which means there's a larger chance that the audience know the victims.
 

(Sin)ical

Well-known member
Great points on this thread. Shakey...that's a great example of how line producers f**k up news on a daily basis. Cambot...those questions are ideal...I think the problem is when are the line producers/writers held accountable. Damn I miss home McColl...what a story! I've covered my share of accidents...mostly in WF, but the most interesting thing about an accident is how they can change everything for somebody. I agree with McColl that you have to check them out...to see what you have. It's not necessarily capitalizing on the misfortune of others. You may find a story in the people who work accidents. I agree that the wreck will always be a staple in the smaller markets...time filler is the obvious, but it's a smaller population which means there's a larger chance that the audience know the victims.
 

Shaky & Blue

Well-known member
Originally posted by Cambot2000:
1. Wouldn't that "producer" be guilty of broadcasting information gathered only on the scanner?
Since when did that stop them?

Originally posted by Cambot2000:
2. Most shops have a policy against doing what that producer did, right?
Since when did that stop them?

It would be nice if the news director could or would police the newsroom to avoid this crap, but the simple fact is that most NDs have too much going on to be able to keep up with the idiots they've hired. They don't set an explicit newsroom policy, because they think the people they hired have enough sense to know this without being told. When it happens, they don't notice unless someone directly brings it to their attention. That someone has to be the photog, because the only other person dealing with the facts of the story is the producer in question.

When you bring it to the ND's attention, he tells you he'll look into it, and that's the end of the matter. He doesn't do anything, because he thinks it must have been an honest mistake on the part of the producer because you and the desk gave that producer conflicting or incomplete information; or he looks at the problem and decides that it's already over and done with, and that there wasn't enough damage done to bring it up again; or he speaks with the producer, who lies about the whole incident and blames it on you, although you never get the opportunity to answer the producer's lies because the ND just doesn't feel inclined to pursue it any further and drops it. Thus, the problems don't get solved and keep happening, and the photog eventually learns to just keep his mouth shut and let them look like the idiots they are.

In that situation, a no car wrecks policy does make sense all around. When you have producers who will jump at any car wreck just to fill time, it is easier for the ND to just take them out of the picture altogether than to try to deal with the details of each individual wreck, especially when 99% of them don't really affect the audience. Instead of solving the problem, just remove it. In those few instances where you miss something important, you play catch up at first, then use your staff's superior contacts and resources to win the story overall anyway. ;)
 

videovet

Member
i work in a fairly large market. IN MY OPINION, anything that happens dozens of times a day connot possibly be news.
 

032

Member
we do stories about people and people drive and crash cars. a no car wreck policy is going to change as soon as a celebrity or politician gets ino an ax and your competition is all over it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top