Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Saturday

Interview With Kelly McBride, Armstrong Williams

Aired October 26, 2002 - 13:48   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Three weeks of media coverage in the D.C. area sniper case -- was it too much, or did it actually aid in bringing in the two suspects that are in custody in Maryland now? Some 20/20 hindsight on how it has been covered all across the media organizations. CNN's Carol Lin joins us now from Montgomery County, Maryland, with the very latest. Hi, Carol.
CAROL LIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Heidi. It is a different age now when we cover these major news stories, it is 24/7. You know, it's hard to get away from the sniper coverage, but you can find yourself glued to the TV set trying to hear the next clue that these investigators are going to give at the microphone, did they have any idea of who these people were, did they have any more pictures of the suspect cars, was that profiler going to come on and give me a description of someone that I could even spot on the street? You could find yourself glued to the television set.

And yet, there was that infamous night when Chief Moose came out and chastised the media for giving out information that could have jeopardized the investigation when they had found that tarot card in Bowie, Maryland, near where that 13-year-old boy was shot and critically injured.

We want to explore this detail a little bit more, because all of us in the media tend to hear from the public, whether it's our own families or people on the street, criticizing or even praising much of what we do. But we thought we'd get an independent perspective when we bring in Kelly McBride. She's with the Poynter Institute. She's on their ethics faculty and she analyzes news coverage of major events.

And also joining us today is Armstrong Williams. He is a syndicated columnist, and also the chief executive of his own public relations firm here in Washington.

Good afternoon to both of you. Thanks for joining us.

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Good afternoon.

KELLY MCBRIDE, POYNTER INSTITUTE: Good afternoon.

LIN: Armstrong, let me begin with you. Did the media help or hurt in this investigation, do you think?

WILLIAMS: Just way too much. You know, we're part of this giant media, but it was just too much. You would think that nothing else was going on in the world, especially in the United States, when you watched the coverage of the sniper. Instead of...

LIN: But Armstrong, people were getting shot on the street.

WILLIAMS: Well, yeah, but you know what, the problem is, is that much of the information that you were revealing, it was not accurate, you had to retract it. You could not be patient enough to find out whether the information was accurate enough to report it. That did not happen. Everybody wants to be first. It's a fierce competition, it was turned into a circus, and that's why, as you just said, that Chief Moose had to come out and chastise the media.

In fact, one of the reasons why Chief Moose's popularity was so high was because of how he dealt with the media during this harsh period that we were in for the last two or three weeks, because you could tell his disgust, you could tell his anguish, even when he gave his press conference as recently as a couple of nights ago when this person asked this question, "chief, have you gotten inside the person's head to find out why he was doing this?" And he said, "My God, you're talking about members of these families have lost loved ones, we're not psychoanalyzing anybody right now, this is still an ongoing investigation." It was just too much. It was just an overkill. I'm sorry, but it was.

LIN: All right, Kelly McBride, the fact of the matter is, though, was the chief was oftentimes using the media to get messages out to the sniper or snipers. And in fact, it was that key piece of evidence when he came to the microphones at midnight that night and he said, look for 1990 blue Chevy Caprice. Here's the license plate number, and within an hour CNN airing it, that truck driver called in and said, we've got him down here in Frederick, Maryland.

MCBRIDE: Yeah, I don't think the question is should the coverage have been 24 hours. I think the question is, how should it be covered? There are a couple of pitfalls with 24 hour news. One is verifying facts. There's an accuracy problem. And there are many more traps to fall into in making mistakes.

The second is how you fill the time when there is no information. And the experts, the talking heads, I'm hearing that a lot of people are annoyed with that. And I suspect that the use of the experts will be re-examined, perhaps that went a little too overboard.

But I think that the story merited 24-hour coverage and I think that the public has come to expect 24-hour coverage. I know that I wanted to turn my TV on and find out if anything new had happened.

I think there's one more thing that can happen, and that is we need to be more transparent in the media about how we do what we do. And we need to...

LIN: What do you mean by more transparent?

MCBRIDE: Well, I think we need to explain, who are these experts? Why did we choose them? Who are these sources that this information is coming from when it's leaked? And I'm not saying disclose the names of confidence sources, but I'm saying, explain the process of reporting better so the public can judge us and determine for themselves whether they are doing a good job.

LIN: Yes, go ahead.

WILLIAMS: One point I want to make, I mean, even in the instance with the white van, and I know much of this came from inside sources within the investigators' department, people say, how do you go from a white van to the Caprice that was found? Even the witness who came forth and claimed that he saw the sniper who had olive skin, I mean, if you had listened to that, some of my friends and I were watching that and we just said outright, this guy is lying. This guy has no idea what he's talking about.

And yet we put that out there. And then all of a sudden, the next day, we had to retract that. We just have to sometimes be patient.

But I disagree with my colleague. I don't think we're in the age of 24-hour-a-day coverage. I think most people will tune in for three or four hours throughout the day, but I think most people turn on to something else because you increase their fears, you create fears for children. I have people saying to me that their children were waking up in the middle of the night screaming and hollering. And the media plays it.

I just think we have to be more responsible and accountable to the public. I don't think there's anything, even war, that warrants 24-hour-a-day coverage.

MCBRIDE: Well, I don't think that the public needs to watch it 24 hours a day, but I think that the demand for it to be available when the public is ready for it was the point that I was trying to make.

People want to watch when they have time. They don't want to watch at 6:00. They want to do it whenever they have time. If you're leaving it on 24 hours and your children are watching it, then you're probably abusing the news, you're not consuming it the way that it's intended to be consumed.

WILLIAMS: But it's one story. And there are so many other stories that go on in the country that it necessitates that you report it to the American people. There is just a lot of stuff that was just lost over the last three weeks that never made the news that warranted being in the news.

(CROSSTALK)

LIN: ... there are banners at the bottom of the screen.

(CROSSTALK)

MCBRIDE: The crawlers are a whole other subject.

LIN: Yeah, the crawl is a whole other story. Listen, we could talk about this all day long, but I think we've got a fairly balanced perspective there. Most news organizes do have standards and practices. I know we here at CNN vet our guests very carefully. But the fact of the matter is, so little was known, you're right, in this rolling news coverage environment that oftentimes, you know, opinion, even expert opinion can travel into speculation.

Nevertheless, I think we can all agree that there was some good information that did get across to the public.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

LIN: And thank goodness the public acted and they called in and helped break this case. Thank you very much, Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute and Armstrong Williams.

Heidi, you know, you hear it on the street, I hear it on the street. You know, you can be the hero or the goat in a story like this. But hopefully there is balance. And a lot of these profilers are coming out, saying, yeah, you're right, we were wrong. We were basing our information on historical perspectives, historical analysis of how serial killers work and operate. And clearly, this, whether it's a serial case or a spree killing case, has broken the mold in many respects.

COLLINS: That's right. You can only go by what you have learned before.

I should say, though, just to point out, the largest daily audiences on the year were on that Wednesday for the Cable News Network. So it would seem, just by looking at the numbers and that one fact alone that people did want to watch.

LIN: Absolutely. Wanted to watch and certainly were more than willing to provide the coverage. Part of it is public service. No doubt about it that the 24-hour networks are gaining in terms of their profile and being able to showcase their talents, you know, and advertising in a sense the work that we do, who we are. No doubt about it. Big media companies are going to make money from the story, too.

COLLINS: All right. The age-old debate. I'm sure we'll hear about it again. Carol Lin, thank you very much from Montgomery County today.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired October 26, 2002 - 13:48   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Three weeks of media coverage in the D.C. area sniper case -- was it too much, or did it actually aid in bringing in the two suspects that are in custody in Maryland now? Some 20/20 hindsight on how it has been covered all across the media organizations. CNN's Carol Lin joins us now from Montgomery County, Maryland, with the very latest. Hi, Carol.
CAROL LIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Heidi. It is a different age now when we cover these major news stories, it is 24/7. You know, it's hard to get away from the sniper coverage, but you can find yourself glued to the TV set trying to hear the next clue that these investigators are going to give at the microphone, did they have any idea of who these people were, did they have any more pictures of the suspect cars, was that profiler going to come on and give me a description of someone that I could even spot on the street? You could find yourself glued to the television set.

And yet, there was that infamous night when Chief Moose came out and chastised the media for giving out information that could have jeopardized the investigation when they had found that tarot card in Bowie, Maryland, near where that 13-year-old boy was shot and critically injured.

We want to explore this detail a little bit more, because all of us in the media tend to hear from the public, whether it's our own families or people on the street, criticizing or even praising much of what we do. But we thought we'd get an independent perspective when we bring in Kelly McBride. She's with the Poynter Institute. She's on their ethics faculty and she analyzes news coverage of major events.

And also joining us today is Armstrong Williams. He is a syndicated columnist, and also the chief executive of his own public relations firm here in Washington.

Good afternoon to both of you. Thanks for joining us.

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Good afternoon.

KELLY MCBRIDE, POYNTER INSTITUTE: Good afternoon.

LIN: Armstrong, let me begin with you. Did the media help or hurt in this investigation, do you think?

WILLIAMS: Just way too much. You know, we're part of this giant media, but it was just too much. You would think that nothing else was going on in the world, especially in the United States, when you watched the coverage of the sniper. Instead of...

LIN: But Armstrong, people were getting shot on the street.

WILLIAMS: Well, yeah, but you know what, the problem is, is that much of the information that you were revealing, it was not accurate, you had to retract it. You could not be patient enough to find out whether the information was accurate enough to report it. That did not happen. Everybody wants to be first. It's a fierce competition, it was turned into a circus, and that's why, as you just said, that Chief Moose had to come out and chastise the media.

In fact, one of the reasons why Chief Moose's popularity was so high was because of how he dealt with the media during this harsh period that we were in for the last two or three weeks, because you could tell his disgust, you could tell his anguish, even when he gave his press conference as recently as a couple of nights ago when this person asked this question, "chief, have you gotten inside the person's head to find out why he was doing this?" And he said, "My God, you're talking about members of these families have lost loved ones, we're not psychoanalyzing anybody right now, this is still an ongoing investigation." It was just too much. It was just an overkill. I'm sorry, but it was.

LIN: All right, Kelly McBride, the fact of the matter is, though, was the chief was oftentimes using the media to get messages out to the sniper or snipers. And in fact, it was that key piece of evidence when he came to the microphones at midnight that night and he said, look for 1990 blue Chevy Caprice. Here's the license plate number, and within an hour CNN airing it, that truck driver called in and said, we've got him down here in Frederick, Maryland.

MCBRIDE: Yeah, I don't think the question is should the coverage have been 24 hours. I think the question is, how should it be covered? There are a couple of pitfalls with 24 hour news. One is verifying facts. There's an accuracy problem. And there are many more traps to fall into in making mistakes.

The second is how you fill the time when there is no information. And the experts, the talking heads, I'm hearing that a lot of people are annoyed with that. And I suspect that the use of the experts will be re-examined, perhaps that went a little too overboard.

But I think that the story merited 24-hour coverage and I think that the public has come to expect 24-hour coverage. I know that I wanted to turn my TV on and find out if anything new had happened.

I think there's one more thing that can happen, and that is we need to be more transparent in the media about how we do what we do. And we need to...

LIN: What do you mean by more transparent?

MCBRIDE: Well, I think we need to explain, who are these experts? Why did we choose them? Who are these sources that this information is coming from when it's leaked? And I'm not saying disclose the names of confidence sources, but I'm saying, explain the process of reporting better so the public can judge us and determine for themselves whether they are doing a good job.

LIN: Yes, go ahead.

WILLIAMS: One point I want to make, I mean, even in the instance with the white van, and I know much of this came from inside sources within the investigators' department, people say, how do you go from a white van to the Caprice that was found? Even the witness who came forth and claimed that he saw the sniper who had olive skin, I mean, if you had listened to that, some of my friends and I were watching that and we just said outright, this guy is lying. This guy has no idea what he's talking about.

And yet we put that out there. And then all of a sudden, the next day, we had to retract that. We just have to sometimes be patient.

But I disagree with my colleague. I don't think we're in the age of 24-hour-a-day coverage. I think most people will tune in for three or four hours throughout the day, but I think most people turn on to something else because you increase their fears, you create fears for children. I have people saying to me that their children were waking up in the middle of the night screaming and hollering. And the media plays it.

I just think we have to be more responsible and accountable to the public. I don't think there's anything, even war, that warrants 24-hour-a-day coverage.

MCBRIDE: Well, I don't think that the public needs to watch it 24 hours a day, but I think that the demand for it to be available when the public is ready for it was the point that I was trying to make.

People want to watch when they have time. They don't want to watch at 6:00. They want to do it whenever they have time. If you're leaving it on 24 hours and your children are watching it, then you're probably abusing the news, you're not consuming it the way that it's intended to be consumed.

WILLIAMS: But it's one story. And there are so many other stories that go on in the country that it necessitates that you report it to the American people. There is just a lot of stuff that was just lost over the last three weeks that never made the news that warranted being in the news.

(CROSSTALK)

LIN: ... there are banners at the bottom of the screen.

(CROSSTALK)

MCBRIDE: The crawlers are a whole other subject.

LIN: Yeah, the crawl is a whole other story. Listen, we could talk about this all day long, but I think we've got a fairly balanced perspective there. Most news organizes do have standards and practices. I know we here at CNN vet our guests very carefully. But the fact of the matter is, so little was known, you're right, in this rolling news coverage environment that oftentimes, you know, opinion, even expert opinion can travel into speculation.

Nevertheless, I think we can all agree that there was some good information that did get across to the public.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

LIN: And thank goodness the public acted and they called in and helped break this case. Thank you very much, Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute and Armstrong Williams.

Heidi, you know, you hear it on the street, I hear it on the street. You know, you can be the hero or the goat in a story like this. But hopefully there is balance. And a lot of these profilers are coming out, saying, yeah, you're right, we were wrong. We were basing our information on historical perspectives, historical analysis of how serial killers work and operate. And clearly, this, whether it's a serial case or a spree killing case, has broken the mold in many respects.

COLLINS: That's right. You can only go by what you have learned before.

I should say, though, just to point out, the largest daily audiences on the year were on that Wednesday for the Cable News Network. So it would seem, just by looking at the numbers and that one fact alone that people did want to watch.

LIN: Absolutely. Wanted to watch and certainly were more than willing to provide the coverage. Part of it is public service. No doubt about it that the 24-hour networks are gaining in terms of their profile and being able to showcase their talents, you know, and advertising in a sense the work that we do, who we are. No doubt about it. Big media companies are going to make money from the story, too.

COLLINS: All right. The age-old debate. I'm sure we'll hear about it again. Carol Lin, thank you very much from Montgomery County today.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com