I am sorry to read this. There are people like me out here in the hinterlands watching our local news and weather, seeing people come and go, and casually thinking, oh, they must have moved on to something bigger and better.
Not really considering the grueling job it must be to report about all the stuff happening in Iowa on a daily basis these days, nor the pushback a weatherman can receive for just telling about reality.
Another excellent piece, Dave! Your observation regarding the Iowa we now live in provides a sharp contrast to the education state we used to live in, where Gov. Ray invited and promoted diversity and the bottle bill was a good thing. There are lots of other examples to consider, such as allowing the jury system let Iowans decide how much money damages are appropriate, instead of artificial tort reform caps to protect powerful industries. Iowa nice has become Iowa hates. Such a pity!
When I was the Des Moines Register's restaurant reviewer, I'd receive nastygrams now and then, but generally nothing like the threats Chris Gloninger received. It's so disturbing this happened to him. I'm sad to see this happen to anyone, but looking at the greater picture, I wonder how often journalists out there have decided to avoid mentioning anything that could set someone off, simply because it's not worth being pilloried on social media (or worse, threatened). We're really losing something here.
Well .... one would hope not in the reporting realm. But I will say that I've seen criticism change markedly since social media. For example, I've been reading the New Yorker for 35 years, and I've noticed that these days, often, their critics are less inclined to point out weaknesses in a work -- it's mostly all praise. A recent reviewer of Taylor Swift veritably gushed, and I have to wonder if the writer was frightened of the "Swifties" out there who would lambaste her on social media if she pointed out any flaw at all. Of course, most people think Taylor Swift IS perfect, so that might not be a great example ... but the point is, I'm surprised at the reluctance of critics to give a wholly balanced review--both the great and the not-so-great of anything anymore.
I also know that one of the restaurant critics who came after me threw in the towel after a year in part because she simply couldn't take the social-media pile-ons. She was silenced.
Somewhat related: Another New Yorker article I just read spoke of medical researchers who felt "almost blackmailed into supporting [some] therapies because of the fear of being attacked on social media" [as lacking some kind of human compassion for not going along with a therapy they don't believe works].
My point is that I think there's a lot more risk of saying anything that can set people off, and gather a mob, and I do wonder if it's making people not want to say certain things. In fact, I wonder if there are meteorologist who simply "won't go there" when it comes to climate change because of what happened to Chris Gloninger. From your longtime experience, can you see that happening?
It’s certainly possible. Social media and the internet give some people the anonymity to do and say things they would never do in face to face conversation. That could happen in the old days, with a letter or phone call. But electronic communication makes it so easy.
Being in media these days requires a thick skin and a healthy deafness to the noise.
A couple of comments, Dave. As a retired TV producer, I remember receiving serious threats to our on-air host, not related to politics but because she was female. The police followed up on the more severe stalker-like messages. We took the disappearance of Jodi Huisentruit seriously. Second, television reporters can't hope to spend the time needed for investigative reporting. Chris G. brought all the depth of knowledge with him, and applied it to our local situation. That's precious. It will be missed. Which leads to third: in my experience, television reporters depend heavily on two sources: the newspaper and the police scanner. The demise of newspapers' staff has a serious impact on deep inquiry of all types, including finding information that those in power wish to keep hidden. Whistle-blowers need someone they can trust to reveal insider information to. And they need news organizations' protections to keep their identities secret. Newspaper reporters used to have the time to dig deep, and the credibility to be used as a source for television reporters. Without this work, corruption flourishes. And fourth: It is terribly stressful and depressing that so many people reject evidence and facts these days. Many viewers have been trained to disbelieve mainstream reports, even reports that could save lives (I'm thinking about Covid denials.) It's terrible to raise important alarms and be ignored and targeted.
Hello Nancy - your comment about whistleblowers got me thinking, where or who would be best to contact these days should someone have something significant they wish to report? You mentioned trust which would be important. Also credibility. My first thought would be one of my trusted news media, but is that best?
Hi Jim, my opinion still holds with trusted reporters. Their organizations (should) protect them and the whistleblowers. There really isn't any other institution that can keep names secret that I am aware of. I have seen good research coming from university professors, but they are not protected legally. Some university research is funded by powerful corporations which might sway the results, so that funding can be an issue. And, those professors with credibility may only be able to research corruption in their "spare time." Full time corruption needs full time research in my opinion.
Nancy, I suppose every newsroom is different. In the newsroom I ran, we used police and fire scanners only as an indicator that something was going on and we needed to send staff out to the scene. We did NOT use info off the scanners, just what we learned from what we saw in the field.
In my 43 years in the business, we always kept an eye on the competition. Not just the newspaper, but the other TV and radio stations. I felt it would be quite arrogant to think that our newsroom would ALWAYS know everything happening in town. Having said that, if the competition found out something we didn't know, we'd go check it out with our own staff. I never wanted to "steal" a story from a competitor and we certainly didn't want them stealing our exclusives.
No question your overall point is valid. All journalists have less time to dig these days, less time to scrounge around and find out what might be going on. As we used to say, feed the beast. And it wants to be fed multiple times per day.
Good points, thanks Dave. Feeding the beast is a great way of putting it. Especially with current pressures of texting "breaking news" all day long. That beast is very hungry! The AP and UPI used to feed us stories, as well, but most were national, not local.
Scanners aren’t even as useful as they used to be. When Des Moines went to a digital radio system a few years ago, they allowed the primary police dispatch channel and one “talk” channel to remain in the clear, but encrypted everything else. Tactical channels I can understand, but they encrypted their speed traps! Not like everyone doesn’t know that they always set up on 235 coming down to the river, but seriously? That used to be my Saturday morning entertainment in master control—listening for the speed units on the radio and following the chases with the skycam…
Out here in California I haven’t seen that. Most local agencies are in the clear, which is a good thing for public transparency.
I'm so glad you addressed this, Dave. As a former news anchor, I received numerous threats, too. Especially after the disappearance of my former colleague Jodi Huisentruit. It was awful.
I can't tell you how much these threats impacted my health and well being. The people who make them are sick, desperate and dangerous. They refuse to acknowledge their world is changing. So they choose to take it out on well intended journalists who deliver important information.
My heart goes out to the KCCI meteorologist who endured this. Sadly, he's doing the right thing for himself by taking a step back.
Thanks for your perspective, Amy. I think it’s always been more problematic for women in on-air roles. Lots of weirdo guys out there who say inappropriate things about appearance or make assumptions because of the way someone looks. Stations want their staff to be “open” on social media and talk about their personal lives. For women, that can be an invitation to abuse. Male staff members rarely have the same problem with unwanted feedback if a personal nature.
There’s absolutely no excuse for what was done to Chris. The courts were disgraceful, letting the criminal off with a slap on the wrist. There should have been jail time.
It’s getting to everyone in the business. Back in January, we were dealing with “atmospheric rivers” causing major flooding in Northern California, crews at two mass shootings and a local homicide, and then the shooting in downtown Des Moines. It was making me physically sick, sitting at the switcher, and I told the crew chief that I needed to go home. Thankfully, no problem. I wasn’t the only one; a few days later the GM brought in a crisis counselor.
I got out of local TV news because we were grinding people to dust. At a recent seminar I met a woman who said on weekends in a medium market she was expected to MMJ a couple of packages, then produce and anchor the show. When she told her boss she couldn’t get it done, she was non-renewed and replaced by two people.
I am sorry to read this. There are people like me out here in the hinterlands watching our local news and weather, seeing people come and go, and casually thinking, oh, they must have moved on to something bigger and better.
Not really considering the grueling job it must be to report about all the stuff happening in Iowa on a daily basis these days, nor the pushback a weatherman can receive for just telling about reality.
Thank you for opening my eyes.
Very good column, Dave. Thanks for sharing. The settlement news is an admission of guilt.
Another excellent piece, Dave! Your observation regarding the Iowa we now live in provides a sharp contrast to the education state we used to live in, where Gov. Ray invited and promoted diversity and the bottle bill was a good thing. There are lots of other examples to consider, such as allowing the jury system let Iowans decide how much money damages are appropriate, instead of artificial tort reform caps to protect powerful industries. Iowa nice has become Iowa hates. Such a pity!
When I was the Des Moines Register's restaurant reviewer, I'd receive nastygrams now and then, but generally nothing like the threats Chris Gloninger received. It's so disturbing this happened to him. I'm sad to see this happen to anyone, but looking at the greater picture, I wonder how often journalists out there have decided to avoid mentioning anything that could set someone off, simply because it's not worth being pilloried on social media (or worse, threatened). We're really losing something here.
Wini, I would certainly hope threats like this don't have a moderating effect on what is reported or not.
Well .... one would hope not in the reporting realm. But I will say that I've seen criticism change markedly since social media. For example, I've been reading the New Yorker for 35 years, and I've noticed that these days, often, their critics are less inclined to point out weaknesses in a work -- it's mostly all praise. A recent reviewer of Taylor Swift veritably gushed, and I have to wonder if the writer was frightened of the "Swifties" out there who would lambaste her on social media if she pointed out any flaw at all. Of course, most people think Taylor Swift IS perfect, so that might not be a great example ... but the point is, I'm surprised at the reluctance of critics to give a wholly balanced review--both the great and the not-so-great of anything anymore.
I also know that one of the restaurant critics who came after me threw in the towel after a year in part because she simply couldn't take the social-media pile-ons. She was silenced.
Somewhat related: Another New Yorker article I just read spoke of medical researchers who felt "almost blackmailed into supporting [some] therapies because of the fear of being attacked on social media" [as lacking some kind of human compassion for not going along with a therapy they don't believe works].
My point is that I think there's a lot more risk of saying anything that can set people off, and gather a mob, and I do wonder if it's making people not want to say certain things. In fact, I wonder if there are meteorologist who simply "won't go there" when it comes to climate change because of what happened to Chris Gloninger. From your longtime experience, can you see that happening?
It’s certainly possible. Social media and the internet give some people the anonymity to do and say things they would never do in face to face conversation. That could happen in the old days, with a letter or phone call. But electronic communication makes it so easy.
Being in media these days requires a thick skin and a healthy deafness to the noise.
A couple of comments, Dave. As a retired TV producer, I remember receiving serious threats to our on-air host, not related to politics but because she was female. The police followed up on the more severe stalker-like messages. We took the disappearance of Jodi Huisentruit seriously. Second, television reporters can't hope to spend the time needed for investigative reporting. Chris G. brought all the depth of knowledge with him, and applied it to our local situation. That's precious. It will be missed. Which leads to third: in my experience, television reporters depend heavily on two sources: the newspaper and the police scanner. The demise of newspapers' staff has a serious impact on deep inquiry of all types, including finding information that those in power wish to keep hidden. Whistle-blowers need someone they can trust to reveal insider information to. And they need news organizations' protections to keep their identities secret. Newspaper reporters used to have the time to dig deep, and the credibility to be used as a source for television reporters. Without this work, corruption flourishes. And fourth: It is terribly stressful and depressing that so many people reject evidence and facts these days. Many viewers have been trained to disbelieve mainstream reports, even reports that could save lives (I'm thinking about Covid denials.) It's terrible to raise important alarms and be ignored and targeted.
Hello Nancy - your comment about whistleblowers got me thinking, where or who would be best to contact these days should someone have something significant they wish to report? You mentioned trust which would be important. Also credibility. My first thought would be one of my trusted news media, but is that best?
Hi Jim, my opinion still holds with trusted reporters. Their organizations (should) protect them and the whistleblowers. There really isn't any other institution that can keep names secret that I am aware of. I have seen good research coming from university professors, but they are not protected legally. Some university research is funded by powerful corporations which might sway the results, so that funding can be an issue. And, those professors with credibility may only be able to research corruption in their "spare time." Full time corruption needs full time research in my opinion.
Nancy, I suppose every newsroom is different. In the newsroom I ran, we used police and fire scanners only as an indicator that something was going on and we needed to send staff out to the scene. We did NOT use info off the scanners, just what we learned from what we saw in the field.
In my 43 years in the business, we always kept an eye on the competition. Not just the newspaper, but the other TV and radio stations. I felt it would be quite arrogant to think that our newsroom would ALWAYS know everything happening in town. Having said that, if the competition found out something we didn't know, we'd go check it out with our own staff. I never wanted to "steal" a story from a competitor and we certainly didn't want them stealing our exclusives.
No question your overall point is valid. All journalists have less time to dig these days, less time to scrounge around and find out what might be going on. As we used to say, feed the beast. And it wants to be fed multiple times per day.
Thanks for writing!
Good points, thanks Dave. Feeding the beast is a great way of putting it. Especially with current pressures of texting "breaking news" all day long. That beast is very hungry! The AP and UPI used to feed us stories, as well, but most were national, not local.
Scanners aren’t even as useful as they used to be. When Des Moines went to a digital radio system a few years ago, they allowed the primary police dispatch channel and one “talk” channel to remain in the clear, but encrypted everything else. Tactical channels I can understand, but they encrypted their speed traps! Not like everyone doesn’t know that they always set up on 235 coming down to the river, but seriously? That used to be my Saturday morning entertainment in master control—listening for the speed units on the radio and following the chases with the skycam…
Out here in California I haven’t seen that. Most local agencies are in the clear, which is a good thing for public transparency.
I'm so glad you addressed this, Dave. As a former news anchor, I received numerous threats, too. Especially after the disappearance of my former colleague Jodi Huisentruit. It was awful.
I can't tell you how much these threats impacted my health and well being. The people who make them are sick, desperate and dangerous. They refuse to acknowledge their world is changing. So they choose to take it out on well intended journalists who deliver important information.
My heart goes out to the KCCI meteorologist who endured this. Sadly, he's doing the right thing for himself by taking a step back.
Thanks for your perspective, Amy. I think it’s always been more problematic for women in on-air roles. Lots of weirdo guys out there who say inappropriate things about appearance or make assumptions because of the way someone looks. Stations want their staff to be “open” on social media and talk about their personal lives. For women, that can be an invitation to abuse. Male staff members rarely have the same problem with unwanted feedback if a personal nature.
There’s absolutely no excuse for what was done to Chris. The courts were disgraceful, letting the criminal off with a slap on the wrist. There should have been jail time.
It’s getting to everyone in the business. Back in January, we were dealing with “atmospheric rivers” causing major flooding in Northern California, crews at two mass shootings and a local homicide, and then the shooting in downtown Des Moines. It was making me physically sick, sitting at the switcher, and I told the crew chief that I needed to go home. Thankfully, no problem. I wasn’t the only one; a few days later the GM brought in a crisis counselor.
I got out of local TV news because we were grinding people to dust. At a recent seminar I met a woman who said on weekends in a medium market she was expected to MMJ a couple of packages, then produce and anchor the show. When she told her boss she couldn’t get it done, she was non-renewed and replaced by two people.