The Politics of Television

The Blunt administration dropped a bombshell Tuesday night with the firing of a state contractor and the rounding up of dozens of suspected illegal immigrants.

In the TV world, it's called a big lede. The problem is that most of the state didn't get to see the powerful images that make the story compelling.

This is a friendly note to the Governor's office about the power of television and a missed opportunity.

A little after 5 p.m. today, KY3 News received a tip that the Blunt administration would be holding a press conference that would include the announcement of an illegal immigration bust involving state agencies. Our tipster told us there would be visuals involved, and that "this was big."

I started making calls.

We didn't have a press release yet. (And never got one?) But our NBC affiliate in St. Louis had one and sent it down. KSDK wanted to know if we were going to Jefferson City to cover it live, so we could feed them video via satellite. By this time, it was approaching 6 p.m. There's no way we could have made the 2 and half hour drive and got there in time. And I was still waiting back for a call from the Governor's office confirming "big news."

When I got that call back, I was told not to report anything about an illegal immigration bust because we could jeopardize an investigation. I took that as an acknowledgement that a bust was coming, but wasn't planning on reporting anything publicly until 10 p.m.

A spokesperson reassured me this was big news that we would want to top our newscast with. I took her at her word. A video feed of the Governor's comments would be sent to us at 8 p.m. But she was told she couldn't tell me anything more -- even on background or off the record. Wait and see.

So we had to depend on the local Columbia affiliate to deliver the goods -- the Broll . . . the video!
Producers with experience working with Columbia knew it wasn't going to happen. No disrespect here, but the smaller station that depends on many students doesn't have a history of getting elements to us in a timely fashion.

So we were left without any video of the actual crackdown. The meat and potatoes of a TV story -- Shots of federal officials handcuffing workers and placing them in a truck.

It may not seem like a big deal. We still put together a story, with bland visuals of the Capitol and soundbites from the Governor. It got the point across, but if the Governor's office did this right, it could have been a lot more compelling for us, and in turn, you the viewer. (By the way, that video from Columbia arrived to us just after our 10 p.m. deadline.)

Understandably, the Governor's office was very worried about this story leaking and hurting their bust. They wanted to keep it under wraps as much as possible. They didn't want to risk telling us ahead of time. But they should have.

Besides the fact that the news was already out -- (Our source ended up being right.) -- we could have kept our lips sealed. We are journalists -- we can keep secrets. It's inherent in our job, especially political reporting.

If the press office just gave us a heads-up Monday night, or even early Tuesday afternoon, we could have and would have made the 2 and half hour drive to Jefferson City to cover it. Our top-notch photography staff could have captured compelling visuals, and the story would have been more complete and thorough.

This is not an issue for print journalists or bloggers, but in the TV world -- the visuals make all the difference. You read a story about stem cell research. You watch a story about tornado damage. You read a story about a Senate subcommittee hearing. You watch a story about a terrorist attack. You can read a story about an immigration bust. But watching it -- seeing the faces of the people, hearing the sounds of the bust. That's a better story.

Maybe the Governor's office didn't want the TV images of the workers being hauled away in the bus.

But I doubt it.

You got a sense this was a big deal for them. You could hear it in their voices and the show of force in the press conference.

Sensitive with what was at stake, they probably just didn't trust us with the information beforehand.

But they should have.

A simple heads-up would have gotten them a bigger audience, a better story and a more lasting impact with the constituents they were attempting to reach.