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.
|
