Live 'ongoing' TV news coverage can be misleading By JIM SCHUH of The Gazette It is midmorning this past Saturday, and I just finished watching 45 minutes' worth of "ongoing coverage" of the government's seizure of Elian Gonzalez on TV. What I saw reinforces my belief that continuous coverage of at least some news events results in distortions and sometimes goofy mistakes. On MSNBC, the anchor lady spent several minutes talking to a so-called "security expert" about what he thought was wrong with the way the government took Elian from his relatives' house. (He thought the feds should have left their outer riot duds at the office, put on flak jackets and then covered them with ordinary street clothing to minimize the terror people inside the house probably experienced. He may or may not have known what he was talking about.) After showing still photographs of the boy's capture - including one featuring an agent in riot gear holding an automatic weapon, the anchor spoke of federal agents entering the house "with guns blazing." It was an unfortunate mistake, since the feds didn't fire any shots. The anchor misspoke, leaving the impression - especially for anyone turning in at that moment - that a big gun battle had taken place. That episode helps to show a problem with continuous, live coverage - in order to fill the airtime, anchors and reporters have to keep on talking - often without time to think about what they're saying, as producers and directors bark at them through their earpieces. It's a no-brainer to say that live coverage has the tendency to exaggerate an event. Think back to the night we saw Los Angeles authorities following (chasing) O. J. Simpson on the Southern California freeway system. The networks treated us to helicopter shots of a white Ford Bronco driving along the freeways at 40 miles per hour, with as many as 15 police cars following along. Not two hours of real news value there. Even Simpson's lengthy murder trial on TV was a disservice - we saw way too much, and without the benefit of the editing process, our understanding suffered. Airplane crashes usually command lengthy TV coverage, complete with "experts" postulating what may have gone wrong. Often, it's they who are wrong. The problem with live chronological coverage of unfolding events is that it forces reporters to speculate and report things they wouldn't think of mentioning if they had the chance to reflect for a while. Even though they know audiences continuously tune in, they can't keep on repeating the same information over and over again. So they try to fill airtime with something new and fresh, leading to guessing games and imprecise reporting. Balance suffers and the audience is shortchanged and subjected to useless details that never would show up in an edited report. Still, some of us "news junkies" tune in the cable news networks when something big happens and sit through all sorts of conjecturing and postulating, hearing from so-called experts the networks just rousted from bed. That process frequently muddles the story, doing little to help us understand it. I spent a lot of years in radio - also a chronological medium - aware of the immediacy it can deliver (as compared to print) - but I'm also conscious of its limitations. Broadcast media, although technologically savvy, don't and probably never will have the capacity to broadcast live and concurrently edit material to give us balance in what we see and hear. That's just the way it is. So I suggest you watch the continuous TV coverage if you like, but also be fully aware that what you see is likely to be punctuated with misinformation and distortions. To be safe, combine your interest of major events with a later printed report - one that's able to pass along information after the dust has settled. You'll get a much-improved understanding. * * * Watch out! Some companies using direct mail to get business are sneaky. I received two "reminder" postcards last week telling me it was important to call an 800 number for information regarding my automobile. Maybe you did, too. In fact, the cards were a sales pitch - from a New Jersey firm that sells auto warranty policies. They listed my vehicle identification numbers, which they got from the Motor Vehicle Department. About the only clue to the firm's business was in the small-print return address. I got another letter last week from a Virginia firm, marked "URGENT" in big letters across the front. I guess I didn't consider the contents urgent, because I threw them out and don't even remember the pitch. Did you ever notice something marked "urgent" really isn't? In a perverse way, I admire the guys who put these solicitations together - they actually make me read their junk because it looks important or official, and they hide the fact they're trying to sell you something. Buy their offerings if you like, but don't be fooled into thinking their pitch is anything critical or official! You may reach Jim Schuh at the Gazette, or by e-mail at jpschuh@excite.com.