Too Many Bodies, Too Much Blood: A Case Study of the Family Sensitive Newscast Movement

BILL SILCOCK University of Missouri Thirty minutes before deadline the KIVI-TV reporter took a phone call in the video editing booth. This is the Idaho Fish and Game department. The radio says your TV stations helicopter discovered the body of our officer, Conley Elms, floating naked, upside down in the Owyhee River. Will we see that on the 6 P.M. news? If so, we want to warn his wife. Twenty-four hours before, in a remote part of Idahos wilderness, Elms, and fellow officer Bill Pogue, sustained gunshots to the chest and back of the head. Claude Dallas, a fur trapper who portrayed himself as a self-styled mountain man, enraged over the game wardens inspection of his camp, ambushed them. Dallas dumped Elms body in the river and buried Pogues 40 miles away in the desert sand. Well, the reporter replied to the phone inquiry, yes, we did shoot Mr. Elms body from the air. Some of it will be shown. A news staff debate broke out in the crowded editing booth. The reporter, his photographer/editor, chief photographer, news director, and even the newscast anchor, all offered opinions on the ethical dilemma of how much video of Elms body to air during dinnertime. Any amount was too much for Elms wife, Sheri. Writer Jack Olsen would describe her reaction to that January 1981 newscast in his true crime book, Give a Boy a Gun.
Sheri Elms friends had stayed with her all day. She refused to accept that Conley was dead. Missing, yes. In trouble, maybe. But dead? Dead was impossible. The evening newscast showed a naked body swinging in the current. Just like Conley, the man had thick upper torso and spirals of fine black hair down his back. She rushed out the door and banged her head against the side of the house. Then she ran down the street. She didnt want to be home. (Olsen 1985, 139)

The story would generate two books, a Rolling Stone article and a made-for-television movie. This author experienced the above case in 1981 as a fresh-from-college KIVI reporter. Later that year, the Idaho Press Club would award a First Place in Television Spot News Award for our coverage. While launching one new reporters career, the broadcast embedded forever a jagged, painful image for at least one member of the audience, Sheri Elms, the victims wife. The impact of that image on one individual played a minor influence in decision making by the news team that night. More prominently debated was the exclusivity of their stations video. The story not only led the newscast but was slotted additional time beyond the typical 1:30 television news package story length. Fourteen years later, a trend labeled family sensitive news was born. The January 1994 brainchild belonged to John Lansing, news director of WCCO-TV in Minneapolis. Encouraging it was Lansings news consultant, Ed Bewely, of Audience Research and Development in Dallas. Lansings news staff conducted 100 focus groups and round tables and then decided to promote WCCOs 5 P.M. newscast as family sensitive. The movements intent was to clean up the depiction of crime coverage for newscasts aired during the dinner hour. This time period, 4 P.M. to 7 P.M., is when young children and family viewership rates high, hence the movements label as family sensitive.

Micro Issues: (The News Workers)

1. Should a new reporter have been assigned to such a high-profile case? Would a more experienced reporter and photographer argued for airing more or less of the graphic video? 2. Should the editorial gatekeepers (news director, chief photographer) have anticipated the potential for controversial video earlier and raised the issue of how to handle the graphic but truthful video much earlier in the news cycle?

Middle-range Issues: (The Community Standard)

1. What responsibility do television newsmakers have for the innocent victims, friends and especially family caught up in a sensational case of violence?

2. What bearing does an outside phone call from an interested party have on how a story with sensitive video is treated? 3. Should the station edit the video in a different way, allowing for more detailed footage for the late evening 10 P.M. newscast? 4. What impact should ratings and competitive pressure have on the decision of how much to air since only KIVI-TVs helicopter had the video of Elms body? 5. Did radio news reports of the bodys discovery by the KIVI chopper, aired at 5 P.M., bring pressure of performance by their journalism peers in the decision making of how much exclusive video to air at 6 P.M.?

Macro Issues: (Industry Standard)

1. Does any uniform code of ethics (RTNDA or SPJ) provide guidelines on handling such video? 2. Television newsrooms are nomadic cultures where staff members move frequently. How much does other market experience verses what is the correct choice for this community bear on the decision? Does the acceptable amount of graphic video vary from Boise to Boston? 3. What role does the thirst for awards play in a reporter and a news departments decision in how to handle coverage of sensational video?