Last issue I wrote about Channel 5's cavalier use of the term "blow job" on the air in an "exclusive" story they ran to lead off their 10pm newscast on Thursday night. Television viewers are used to hearing words bleeped on the air by now, they are used to hearing words that border good taste (anyone remember the huge deal it was when the word "sucks" was first used on network TV? Which TV show did it? The answer below), they are used to seeing disgusting body parts that should be covered up like Dennis Franz' naked ass or Jay Mariotti's face. But you know, when people talk about pushing the envelope like that, they're talking about entertainment shows. News has generally had a certain dignity about it. A certain respect. At least GOOD news operations have. Channel 5 seems to be forever teetering between its desire to have a quality news operation and pulling an occasional ratings stunt that backfires horribly.

A few people told me that much of the talk radio chatter on Friday regarding the "BJ incident" centered on the appropriateness of the term. Ideally, I think the responsibility fell to the reporter in this piece. Apparently Marion Brooks has no problem using the term "blow job" on the air. Does Marion Brooks have any children? A quick check on Channel 5's web site reveals no mention, so probably not. If she had children, would she mind watching a news report that used a "taboo term" twice? Who knows? Maybe it's a term that she uses regularly anyway and she is so comfortable with it that she figures everyone should be comfortable with it. No--that's an absurd thought, plus I'm tired of TV programming to children. Still, the question remains--why didn't a red light go off in anyone's mind at Channel 5?

Let's go back to the story. It's a big lawsuit charging this Buffalo Grove company with a ton of sexual harassment. Channel 5 had the story first, and in typical TV tabloid fashion, decided to hit it and hit it hard! Maybe someone thought it wasn't a shocking enough story, so it needed some punch. I can't imagine why--it was about a company no one ever heard of, no one cares about in a suburb few people know exists--all the earmarkings for a major story that affects the lives of all news viewers.

That's gotta be it. Someone decided to use the term as a way to punch the story up.
In the news business, these people are known as "Shitty Journalists."

I'm going to be harsh about this because there's no way in hell that the term should have ever hit the air and there's no way in hell it just "slipped by". It's one thing if you hear profanity during a live shot, it's another when it's uttered twice and sheen on a graphic once during a package. I doubt very much it was done as a way to bring attention to Channel 5's newscast. I DO believe it was done as a way to make the story a lot more shocking than it is. Think of it. It's manipulation. Fox News Channel-style manipulation. We're talking about a class-action lawsuit--not a conviction, not proof, not a settlement, not a guilty finding-we're talking about allegations.

George Carlin has some experience with words you can't say on TV. His philosophy centers on the idea that words do not hurt people, but the intentions behind them do. In this case, what is the intention behind leaving the term "blow job" in? The only rational explanation is that the intention was to shock. Although Carlin started with seven words you can't say on television, he eventually expanded the list to hundreds of words and euphemisms. Far from being a prude, I am a regular consumer of the seven words-especially dropping the F-bomb and the S-bomb liberally throughout the day. The beauty of taboo words is that they convey over-the-top emphasis. You can describe someone as a bitch or a--hole and people know what you mean-but when you use describe them using the C-U-Next-Tuesday word or the term C**k Sucker, then the emphasis is clear. But wait-a-minute! Isn't "Blowjob" just a milder form of C**k Sucker? Yes, it is (though not milder by much). You may hear "bitch" and "a-hole" used on the show South Park, but I don't recall Warner & Allison tossing it around the anchor desk.

Does this kind of thing negatively impact Channel 5's reputation? It's hard to argue against that notion considering Channel 5 had a "huge volume of e-mail" sent to management and a similar huge volume of phone calls. In Eric Zorn's web notebook Monday, the Managing Editor for Channel 5's Web Site said that there was a large amount of email sent to management, but none complaining about the web article. The web article apparently had the term initially but the Managing Editor changed it "...because the whole 'controversy' over the term...was detracting from the actual story by Marion Brooks. It was pulling the rug out from under the journalism, which was excellent."

Sure, whatever. Jayson Blair's stuff was excellent journalism too, but for a few problems.

The story was posted to the Channel 5 website just after 1am, which was about two hours before I finished writing last week's issue. Later that morning I checked their website to see if they had the package in the feedroom, and noticed the web article didn't use the term. This was at about 9 or 10am. I guess the controversy was in full swing when Larry Wert got in the office Friday morning.

So what happens next?
Oddly, the top story on Thursday night wasn't even mentioned at all during Friday's 11am news, 4:30 news or 5pm news (I didn't catch the 6pm). Then at 10pm they didn't apologize for the unnecessary use of the term. Seems like Channel 5 is hoping that it quietly goes away rather than acknowledging that they were idiots.

I would say that's a problem--Channel 5 looks bad.
And they don't seem to care.

(Answer to quiz: In the fall of 1990, "Uncle Buck" on CBS starring Kevin Meaney as UB was the first Primetime TV series to use the word "sucks". There was a ton of outrage about it.)