Written by: Steve Doerr, VP/GM ABC-6.

Introduction:

One of our goals as a news organization is transparency.
We recognize that you trust us to be fair, honest and balanced and we believe it’s important for you to understand our thinking behind certain stories that we present and to have a real sense of what happens behind the scenes at ABC 6.
To that end, as the person ultimately responsible for our content and our business, from time to time I’ll offer insights and background on the thinking and workings of ABC 6. I’d like your feedback and input regarding what you see and what you don’t. And that feedback is how we’ll begin.

Thursday-February 7th, 2008

About a week ago, ABC 6 News reporter Julie Ruditzky aired the results of an investigation into security practices at local daycare centers.
You can see the piece yourself here on abc6.com but the bottom line is this:
In general terms, the daycare centers we tested across Greater Providence are safe and secure.
There was, however, one very notable exception: Cranston Head Start.

While many viewers appreciated the “watchdog” approach, some did not.
In fact, some people believe that by exposing the security issues at head start, our report did more harm than good and may have endangered the children we were trying to protect.
Others thought it was little more than a shameless ratings grab.

One viewer wrote (and this is an unedited “cut and paste” from the email):
We the parents feel the way your reporter presented the situation was scandalous, disreputable and simply bad and negative press. I understand that now day's sensationalist news is what sells, It's all about ratings. Your report is making it a predators playground by telling everyone out there we curently have no security system in place. Further more, your Special report, your reporter, and your station should be the alarming ones for airing such vile, dispicable, yellow journalism! I have also been a long time viewer of your station, and I never knew until now the dirty tactics and McCarthyism used to get viewers to watch.(end of email)

While we’re sorry to lose a viewer, I have to take issue with the writer’s conclusion. I spoke with Julie at length today about her story as I prepared this blog. I wanted to make sure I understood the process she went through to ensure the story represents our fair and accurate approach to story telling. As a member of our special projects and investigative unit, Julie’s investigations are closely vetted through our rigorous editorial process. Some key points:

Each day care center was selected at random – we looked at centers all over the area.
We visited Cranston Head Start on three different occasions (to make sure we didn’t catch a random lapse). Each time, we were able to gain easy access into the building through the back door.
At no time were we ever approached by a staff member.
Each time, Julie was able to walk through the hallways and rooms and had direct access to the children at the center.

Since our report aired, Cranston Head Start has acknowledged its security issue, and is in the process of installing a high-tech security system.
Furthermore, we have been asked by other daycare centers for copies of our story for use as a teaching tool for staff members.
At the end of the day, we believe we were fair and accurate in our approach and presentation.
The children who attend Cranston Head Start are safer today than they were before the story aired.
Awareness of security issues at daycare centers has been heightened.

I don’t know about “yellow journalism” and “McCarthyism”, but I believe we did our job with this story and families in Southern New England are safer today because of it.
We will continue to probe and dig in our investigative journalism.
We believe one of the fundamental responsibilities any media organization has is to expose dangers, hold people in power accountable and to deal fairly if firmly with issues.
What do you think?