For an anchor or reporter in the field, there may be no greater test or responsibility than reporting emotionally-charged stories like the shootings at Virginia Tech.

A recent article in The New York Times gives kudos to Charles Gibson: Network anchors often behave as if they are the nation’s grief counselors. One reason that Mr. Gibson has been gaining in the ratings could be that he acts like the nation’s newsman.

The article goes on to describe how his questioning was “kindly but neutral” and designed to solicit “information, not emotion.” You might call it great bedside manner. Gibson managed to communicate empathy and sensitivity while getting at the story itself.

In the process he demonstrated a masterful understanding of both the circumstance and his audience. We had all the emotion we needed. What we needed — and lacked — was information and understanding.

We often see anchors who accomplish one thing or the other. They’re businesslike and fact-oriented, but in a way that’s somehow also cold and detached. They get us information, but somehow they don’t seem to be really in the conversation with us. Or they’re all about acknowledging the drama and the emotion, which we need, but they fail to add much, if anything to our understanding of what happened and why.

Charles Gibson managed to communicate empathy and advance the story. He somehow acknowledged the emotion and understood that the emotion was only part of the story. And, in this case at least, a part that didn’t need any additional help from him.

Gibson’s performance reinforces a couple of important performance guidelines for managing emotional stories:

• Ask about what happened, not how people feel about what happened. The emotion is self-evident. It does not need conversational reinforcement. In fact, there are times the conversation about feeling will fail to do justice to what we observe if we just watch and listen.
  
  
• Remember that what you say matters. And how you say it matters as much or more. How do the reviewers know that Gibson was kind? It was primarily his tone of voice, the pace at which he spoke and moved, and the way he listened and made eye contact. It was gentle, and unrushed.
  
  
• When you do reference emotion, speak for yourself. More often than not, if you’ve been paying attention, you’ll be speaking for most of your viewers as well. Gibson did it in this case when he closed the broadcast with something other than his standard good night.

One viewer we know reacted to the Times article this way:

Having watched his broadcast Monday night, I'd say the article was dead on. I was particularly struck by the way he ended the broadcast saying, " I wish I could say it has been a good day." It was simple, poignant, heartfelt, and to the point without being sentimental or gushy.

As is usually the case when viewers weigh in, we really couldn’t say it better ourselves.