My Experiment With Rep. Robert Wexler on Fixing One Media Flaw That Angers A Lot of Viewers/Listeners

This was an experiment. The question: Can unanswered questions which arise on a live broadcast, with not enough time to ask them live, be answered?

The experiment worked. We got an answer. We’ve published it in an article by Cheryl Brien-Wright-- If Increased Sanction Resolution 362 Could Give Bush License for a Naval Blockade, Why Support It?

And here I am writing about it. It’s a different level of conversation that goes into greater depth than the sound byte that broadcast news or radio allows.

This is doable. I’d like to see it start a precedent. And it doesn’t have to just be a question that the anchor/interviewer comes up with. It would be a big step towards a better Media if the MSM encourage viewers and listeners also suggest questions.

It would be a big step forwards if interviewees came with expectations that they would participate in post interview responses. It’s not reasonable to expect responses to a lot of questions, but it is reasonable to ask for responses to a few questions, hopefully pulled together from the interviewer AND listeners/viewers by the production and editorial staff of the show where the initial interview aired.

This would not just be a clerically annoying task. It would give interviewees a chance to flesh out their answers and add additional comments and nuances, including comments that go beyond the answers to the questions. It would let interviewers drill deeper to get to the heart of the matter. Some interviewees would duck and weave and continue to avoid answering questions. But some will embrace the opportunity and perhaps even, as it appears Wexler did, dig up additional info that adds to the picture.

I give Rep. Wexler a lot of credit for stepping up to the plate on this, especially regarding a thorny issue that puts him on the horns of a dilemma between his liberal base, which clearly opposes this resolution and the 60% of his supporters in his district who are Jewish and who see strong support as Israel as a major issue. By the way, part of the way Cheryl and I addressed the whole Israel/AIPAC Jewish lobby issue was to ask progressive Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun, for his take on the bill and the Iran Israel situation. His response was so good; we published it too, as this article Why They Are Seeking a Blockade of Iran

What we’ve done here doesn’t answer all the questions and there will be readers who are not satisfied with Wexler’s response. I am certain there are many who will see anything other than withdrawal of his sponsorship for the bill as less than adequate. But we’ve don’t something here that bears repeating. If I can do it, so can Bob Schieffer, Wolf Blitzer, Joe Scarborough, Keith Olbermann, Dan Abrams, George Stephanopolous, Tom Brokaw and a host of other people who never have enough time to ask all the questions they’d like to or should. One might argue that TV magazines, like 60 Minutes and 20-20 already do the follow-up. But they make up a tiny portion of the news.

The interesting thing is, this will be a low cost, but very profitable endeavor for the MSM networks that should dramatically increase their web traffic. And it could lead to news breakthroughs and content that are very significant, even headline worthy.

The internet is changing the world. The bottom up approach to politics won the election for Obama, and it is already changing the way news is done. Adding web published follow-ups to broadcast interviews that don’t get to the bottom of things is a great way to make the media more bottom up, more open and deeper. I wonder if any of the interviewers I mentioned above will try it. I think they’ll like it. This is so easy, with so much potential to improve the quality of TV journalism; it’s hard to imagine why they don’t all jump on this. 

Last, I'll try giving this idea a name. Call it a  broadcast net-follow-up. 

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4