CNN

Media Coverage of the Port Arthur Massacre ‑

A View from the Media's Side

John Raedler, Reporter, Cable News Network (CNN)

Summary: This paper deals with CNN's coverage of the Port Arthur Massacre, detailing the extent of CNN's coverage, then evaluating the working relationship which developed between CNN and the Tasmanian Police. Because CNN had so much direct contact with the police ‑ and so little direct contact with other emergency services ‑ the evaluation focuses on the CNN~Police relationship. But the point of the paper ‑ that co‑operation (and the appearance of co‑operation) between police and media can be mutually beneficial ‑ has some application to all emergency services in their dealings with the Press.

Perspectives: This paper is written from two perspectives:

a.             As an Australian-based reporter for the global TV news network, CNN.

b.             As co-presenter of the Media Skills Training component of all of the Police Management Development Programs and Senior Police Executive Officers' Courses at the Australian Institute of Police Management at Manly, Sydney.

__________

1.             BACKGROUND

By every measure ‑ the amount of material produced, the amount of airtime provided and the amount of money spent ‑ CNN's coverage of the Port Arthur Massacre was the biggest coverage of an Australian news event that it has ever mounted.  CNN's previous biggest coverage of an Australian news event was of the bushfires which swept into parts of Sydney in early 1994.

By way of explaining CNN and its scope, it started in 1980 ‑ originally providing a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week news channel to US cable TV viewers.  It went global in 1986 and now covers, and transmits to, more than 220 countries and territories around the world.  Its [sic] audience is impossible to measure accurately but it is estimated to range between 250 million and 600 million viewers at any one time.

Following is a chronology of CNN's coverage of the Port Arthur Massacre, to demonstrate the extent of the coverage.  And like most people who had any association with the incident, one is inclined to start with "where you were at the time you first heard about it."

I was in the gym at North Sydney Leagues Club on the afternoon of Sunday 28 April 1996.  While exercising, my attention was attracted when the announcer on a music radio station that was coming over the gym's PA uttered words to the effect: "And coming up soon we'll have a news flash!"  He played another record and then gave the news flash.

The flash gave sketchy details of a shooting spree at Port Arthur ‑ saying it was believed up to a dozen people may have been hit.

I left the gym and immediately alerted CNN's International News-Gathering Desk at CNN HQ in Atlanta via my car phone.  While doing so I heard on ABC radio a reasonably comprehensive run-down of what was known ‑ reported by an ABC journalist in Hobart and attributing the details to Tasmanian police.  At this stage 12 were confirmed dead ‑ with the possibility of another 8 - to -12 fatalities.

CNN interrupted it's newscast and put me to air live ‑ the anchorperson interviewing me over the phone about what was being reported in Australia about the incident.  From that point, and for four straight days, the Port Arthur Massacre dominated CNN's round-the-clock news.

Immediately after that first interview, I called Directory Assistance and a most co-operative woman provided me with a multitude of possibly useful phone numbers.  In addition to a general number for the Police in Hobart she gave me a number for Police 'Public Affairs' (as I recall the title ‑ a number which proved very useful) and she also gave me a number for the Port Arthur Historic Site.  I passed these numbers onto Atlanta as I drove home.  Meanwhile, my wife, who was at home, started the considerable task of getting me on flights to Hobart.

By the time I arrived home, ran through the shower, packed and headed for the airport, CNN had spoken live on air by phone to a police spokesperson (I believe Inspector Gary Leonard) and had several long conversations live on air with the PR person at Port Arthur Historic Site, Sue Hobbs.  From what my colleagues in Atlanta have told me, the, first time they talked to Sue on air she and the people with her were still fearful and anxious as they were unaware of Bryant's whereabouts and were frightened he might return.  My colleagues have told me that Sue provided some riveting descriptions of what had occurred.  Parts of her interviews were replayed on ABC radio around Australia.  (ABC subscribes to CNN).

Thanks to a taxi driver whose father had been a TV news cameraman in Ireland ‑ and so the driver understood my urgency ‑ I made it to the airport just in time to get on a flight to Melbourne.  At Melbourne airport an extremely co-operative Ansett executive somehow got me on the last flight to Hobart, even though it was supposedly fully booked.  And he allowed me to use his fax machine to receive detailed wire service reports on the story from CNN in Atlanta as well as various contact names and phone numbers and logistical details that CNN staff had compiled for me.

Also, while I was getting to Melbourne, CNN had made arrangements with WIN TV in Hobart to provide me with all of their footage, a cameraman (to do a reporter's stand up) and a video editor to put together a video report of the story.  Shortly after midnight that night ‑and with great co-operation from WIN staff ‑ the first video report by any international TV news organisation's [sic] own reporter in Hobart went by satellite from WIN to CNN and promptly went around the world on CNN ‑ being replayed again and again.

I was still doing live audio reports by phone with CNN until 0500 on the Monday ‑ had 20 minutes sleep ‑ and resumed doing live audio reports by phone at 0600.  These reports by phone intensified with the dramatic arrest of Bryant that morning.  I got word of the Seascape fire from local radio and soon thereafter someone answering the Police 'Public Affairs' phone number (I forget the person's name) was extremely helpful with what turned out to be detailed, accurate information about the arrest.  CNN cut into its newscast-in-progress to put my phone report of the arrest to air.  So quick were we with this news that ABC radio in Australia replayed my CNN report then had a Tasmanian police spokesperson come on the line and confirm the CNN report.

After participating in the media tour of the site on Monday I did several lengthy audio reports live-to-air by phone, as soon as we got back into mobile phone range.  Then we did an extensive video report of the day's events and fed that to CNN by satellite on Monday night.  We also did a live-to-air interview with the Premier of Tasmania via the Nine Network's satellite uplink outside the Royal Hobart Hospital.  Late on Monday afternoon the CNN presence in Hobart increased by 100 per cent.  Hugh Williams, an expatriate Australian who is one of CNN's best cameramen and video editors (based in Berlin), happened to be in Sydney on holidays and joined me to take on the roles of field producer and video editor.

Tuesday was a case of more of the same: numerous audio reports live-to-air by phone (especially re the bedside court hearing in which Bryant was charged with one count of murder ‑ I have been told that again ABC radio in Australia used CNN's report as its first news of this development); an extensive video report fed by satellite that night; and a live cross in which the CNN anchor questioned me about the day's events, this via the Nine Network's satellite uplink outside the hospital.

On the Wednesday, CNN aired a live satellite feed of the memorial service, for which I provided commentary via phone.  CNN intended to take the first half-hour of the service live before switching to its regularly scheduled interview program Larry King Live.  But as the service unfolded CNN decided to continue airing the whole memorial service and to delay Larry King Live.  Again, we did an extensive video report of the day's events and fed it by satellite that night.  And we did another live cross from outside the hospital.

We cut back on our coverage on the Thursday and returned to Sydney on the Friday morning.

I am told by my colleagues in Atlanta that between Sunday afternoon and Thursday

The Media View

morning (Australian time) the Port Arthur Massacre topped virtually every one of CNN's news bulletins (on the hour every hour and sometimes on the half-hour).  Never before had any event in Australia saturated CNN's programming to this extent.

2.             EVALUATION

In the above background you will notice a recurring theme of co-operation: the directory assistance operator, the taxi driver, the Ansett executive, the PR person at Port Arthur, various police spokespersons (including some from interstate who helped handle media inquiries), WIN TV, the Premier of Tasmania, the Nine Network (re use of its satellite uplink) ‑ to which I would like to add: various spokespersons for the Royal Hobart Hospital, and organisers of the memorial service.

Neither Hugh Williams nor I could recall a story either of us had worked on where we had received such widespread co-operation.  And colleagues at CNN HQ in Atlanta who had direct dealings with people in Tasmania were similarly struck by the co-operation given to them.

Some weeks after the massacre, Geoff Easton, the Media Liaison for the Tasmanian Police, asked me to evaluate ‑ from my perspective ‑ the Police-Media co-operation during the event, and I wrote that Hugh Williams, myself and our colleagues in Atlanta had "found:

·         access to police spokespersons;

·         availability of police spokespersons; and

·         courteousness, co-operativeness and

·         forthrightness of police spokespersons;

to be excellent ‑ as good as we have encountered anywhere in the world, and Significantly better than in most places."  That assessment still stands.

In the Media Skills Training that I do for private ‑ and public-sector clients around Australia — including commissioned officers from all state police services and the Australian Federal Police — I stress that willing co-operation with the news media, where and when possible (as opposed to reluctant co-operation or no co-operation at all), is more likely to contribute to a desirable outcome for you in the news media's treatment of you and/or your organisation.

This was certainly the case in CNN's coverage of the Port Arthur Massacre, vis a vis the Tasmanian Police. They came across as in-control, competent, professional, effective and thorough ‑ they got the culprit, got him reasonably quickly, got him alive, and kept him alive.  They built an ultimately overwhelming case against him.  And they did all of this in the midst of what were, for all of them, uniquely challenging circumstances.

Following are some different examples of police co-operation that CNN encountered ‑ and how they contributed to a desirable outcome for police in CNN's coverage:

·         The recording that was put on the Police 'Public Affairs' phone number, giving additional numbers to call, including mobile numbers.

This sent a very clear signal of police wanting to co-operate with the news media, rather than obstruct them or be indifferent to them, in their role of getting accurate, up-to-date information to a shocked and curious public around the nation and around the world.

This could only have helped Police get the Press 'on-side' at the outset.

·         The media tour of Port Arthur within a few hours of Bryant's arrest on the Monday.

This was excellent in its timing and its conduct.  Most media people understood why they could not get into the scene any earlier ‑ a heavily armed suspected mass murderer was still holed-up at Seascape, and even after his arrest bodies were still being searched for at Seascape, some bodies were still in place in Port Arthur, forensic investigations were still going at various sites in and around Port Arthur, etc.

But by not keeping the media waiting days before they were allowed access to the scene, organisers of this tour denied journalists the time in which to become suspicious and to start wondering (perhaps on air or in print) what was really going on in there and what might police have been covering up?  Always remember, journalists are journalists and they are paid to be curious, sceptical and suspicious.

• TV reporters being allowed to do 'stand ups' near the Broad Arrow Cafe .

This was highly considerate of the tour organisers.  Of all the stops on the tour, this was the one where TV reporters would most want to do stand ups ‑ not because TV reporters are all ghouls, but because the Cafe was the centrepiece of the massacre and visually summed up the story more than any other site ‑ witness the words of my own stand up (and I assume most other stand ups were similarly worded):

"The first and the worst of the carnage happened here ‑ 20 people killed in this Cafe just behind me ‑ another four people killed outside."

But something especially co-operative happened at this stop by the Cafe .  We were originally taken to a spot about 100 meters from the Cafe and told to stay behind some invisible line.  Reporters and their camera crews started doing their stand ups.  But I noticed that where we were meant that the reporters' faces were in shade ‑ and the Cafe was in bright sunshine.  This posed a difficult light balancing act for both the camera and the camera operator, as both the shaded face and the brightly lit Cafe needed to be seen clearly.  After discussing this with my camera operator, and him confirming that the light difference was a real problem, I approached Roger Henning, a crisis management expert who had been hired by the Tasmanian Government and who was accompanying the media tour.  I knew he had a background in TV and that he would understand our problem.  He quickly consulted with the police officers there and they agreed to the TV crews moving 15 or 20 meters closer to the Cafe so the reporters' faces were in the same bright sunshine as the Cafe.  The move did not impinge on the police work still going on inside the Cafe and it helped the TV crews considerably.  Had this situation been handled differently by police it could have caused totally unnecessary upset and antagonism between the media and police.

(Roger Henning was also responsible for getting the Premier to come down to the Nine Network satellite uplink outside the hospital late on the Monday night to be interviewed live on CNN.)

Superintendent Jack Johnston's co‑operation with the media on the tour of Port Arthur.

Special mention has to be made of Johnston's commendable efforts as something of a 'host' on this tour.  He was patient and good humoured in answering the never-ending stream of questions from the media ‑ many of the questions repetitive (eg, the 456 times he was asked to spell his last name!).

He was equally commendable in his willingness to give (and sometimes repeat) sound bite explanations of what had happened at the various stops on the tour.  By 'sound bite' I mean the concise, articulate, descriptive summaries that TV reporters always want from people they are, interviewing.  (They are also known as 'grabs'.)

Johnston's explanation of the fate of the Mikacs was the classic 'win-win' sound bite.  It was a 'win' for the media because it gave them a concise description of the demise of the 'most tragic' of all the tragic deaths.  And it was a 'win' for the Tasmanian Police in that it showed them to be articulate, in-control, giving information to the public in a timely and full fashion with the perfect balance between forthrightness, matter-of-factness and understandable, restrained emotion.  I now use this sound bite in many of my Media Skills Training courses as a near-perfect example of the genre:

"It's our understanding that the mother was carrying the three-year-old baby when they were both shot, and the six-year-old ran away trying to escape but was shot in the process."

A closing word on Johnston's handling of this tour: when it was all over and the Press buses were, about to leave, he came aboard the bus I was on, thanked all the media people and complimented them on their conduct and co-operation ‑ and many of those present returned the compliment to him in words and in applause!  In more than 25 years in journalism in many different parts of the world, I have never witnessed anything comparable.

The Media View

Of course, there were some negatives ‑ but one has to push the memory to recall them.  Two that caused some confusion for CNN were the following:

•      Late Sunday night/early Monday morning, we were given different death tolls from different police spokespersons.  From memory, one senior officer, on camera, said 33.  Then another senior officer ‑ also on camera ‑ said 32, and added something like: 9 don't know where the 33 came from."  And the person on the Police 'Public Affairs' phone number was saying one of these figures or the other.  From memory, this confusion seemed to linger for a couple of hours and we were in the position of having to report, in several phone updates during this period, a death toll of "32 or 33 ‑ with different police spokespersons giving the different figures."

•      Similarly, and around the same time period, we were getting conflicting information on the countries of origin of the dead and injured ‑ obviously, very important information for CNN.  The confusion was between information coming from either a senior police spokesperson on camera or the person answering the Police 'Public Affairs' phone number, and a fax sent to WIN TV by the police.  There were one or two countries mentioned in one set of information and not in the other.  And there were one or two countries listed only under 'dead' in one set of information and only under 'injured' in the other.

Such confusions are totally understandable in the circumstances.  In fact it impressed me that we were getting such precise information so early in the piece anyway.  I am sure that most members of the media, and most of the public, would have accepted such relatively minor confusion when it appeared that police were trying to get the fullest possible information to the public as quickly as possible.  However, these confusions might be of interest to the police in revealing loopholes in their informational chain of command in the turmoil of that late Sunday night/early Monday morning.

3.             CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CNN was very pleased with its coverage of the Port Arthur Massacre.  It considers that, overall, it relayed information quickly an accurately to a global audience which was extremely interested in what was ‑ by any an every measure ‑ a major international new event.  The extent, timeliness and accuracy of CNN's reporting would not have been possible without the co-operation of all officials involve in the drama ‑ especially the Tasmanian Police.  And by virtue of their considerable co operation with CNN, all such officials were able to make what I am sure was a very positive impact for themselves and their organisation on CNN's hundreds of millions of viewers.  Moreover, the event was an object lesson in proving that the media and emergency service can co-operate, to their mutual benefit ‑ the media get what they need, and through the media emergency services portray themselves in a positive light.

As I wrote to Geoff Easton in response to his requested evaluation a few weeks after the event (and this was written from my dual perspectives as a CNN reporter and a Media Skills Trainer):

"… Overall I would rate the Tasmania Police's performance, vis-a-vis the Press in the Port Arthur shootings, a 99 out of 100."