The Status Degradation Ceremony of Michael Gartner
 
        Samuel P. Winch
 
        Department of Journalism
        Bowling Green State University
        Bowling Green, Ohio 43403
        (419) 372-6024
        [log in to unmask]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted to the Qualitative Studies Division, for presentation at the
 
            annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass
 
            Communication, Atlanta, Georgia, August 1994.
Winch, Samuel P. "The Status Degradation Ceremony of Michael Gartner,"
 
            paper submitted to the Qualitative Studies Division, for
presentation at
 
            the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism
and
 
           Mass Communication, in Atlanta, Georgia, August 1994.
 
 
ABSTRACT: The social institution of journalism relies on cultural
 
       authority to legitimately define and describe reality to the public.
 
           Threats to cultural authority can come from within the institution or
 
           from outside.  Internal threats are identified as deviance, then
 
      ritually punished through critical rhetoric.  This study examines the
 
           rhetoric surrounding the 1992 Dateline NBC story on General Motors
 
        pickup trucks, identifying it as a case of journalism responding to an
 
            internal threat to cultural authority.
 
The Status Degradation Ceremony of Michael Gartner[1]
 
Introduction
This is a study about the cultural authority of journalism and
 
         journalists.  Cultural authority is the authority to define and
describe
 
            reality.  This cultural authority of journalism depends on several
 
        legitimacy factorsDthings like objectivity and believability, which
 
         affect journalism's credibility with the publicDand therefore,
 
    authority.  Journalists respond to threats to these legitimacy factors
 
            through rhetorical discourse.  For instance, when a journalist
engaged
 
            in fraud, other journalists declare the person a deviant, and then
 
        denounce the acts of deviance.  This is an example of an internal threat
 
            to the cultural authority of journalism.  There are also external
 
       threats, such as when an entertainment program disguises itself as
 
        journalistic.  Journalists respond to these kinds of threats with
 
       boundary-work rhetoricDdiscourse which attempts to show that there is a
 
            boundary between the two types of mass communication.
This study examines an internal threat to the cultural authority of
 
              journalism.  It was a case of journalistic fraud, which was
discussed in
 
            great detail within the institution of journalism: Dateline NBC, a
 
        network news division-produced weekly newsmagazine, broadcast a story
 
           about General Motors pickup trucks which contained a simulated crash
 
          scene which was set-up by the program's producers.  Michael Gartner,
the
 
            president of NBC News, was held responsible for the segment, which
was
 
            labeled an act of journalistic fraud.  The rhetoric which surrounded
 
          this example of journalistic deviance resembles what Harold Garfinkel
 
           calls a "status degradation ceremony," whereby deviant members are
 
        expelled from an institution (in this case, the institution of
 
    journalism) in order to minimize the harm to the institution as a whole.[2]
These are the questions that are examined in this study: Was the
 
           sanctioning of Michael Gartner and Dateline's producers accomplished
in
 
            such a way as to deflect attention from the structural flaws in the
 
         institution of journalism itself, and instead focus on the
            idiosyncrasies of these individuals and the sources of their fakery?
 
           Does the institution of journalism survive the scandal, while Gartner
 
           and the producers are ritually sacrificed; described as unusualDor
 
        rareDdeviants?  Did the response strategy resemble what Garfinkel calls
 
            a successful status degradation ceremony?
This rhetorical analysis focuses on locating the elements and arguments
 
                 described by Garfinkel, within the discourse among journalists
which
 
          followed the event of the broadcast and the subsequent charges of
 
       wrongdoing.  This is an examination of the rhetorical strategies of
 
         journalists reacting to accusations that a prominent news production
 
          institution, the NBC News division, engaged in fakery and fraud, and
 
          that Michael Gartner failed his profession by allowing it to happen.
 
The Dateline NBC / GM "event"
Dateline NBC is a weekly newsmagazine program which began in April 1992.
 On November 17, 1992, Dateline NBC broadcast a report entitled,
 
           "Waiting to Explode?" which criticized the design of General Motors
 
         full-size pickup trucks built between 1973-1987, alleging that they
were
 
            more susceptible to dangerous explosions when involved in
side-impact
 
           vehicle accidents.  The report included a powerful visual
demonstration
 
            of the problemDan "unscientific crash demonstration," followed by a
 
         fiery explosion.  General Motors Corp. filed a defamation lawsuit
 
       against NBC, and announced its complaints via a two-hour globally-
 
       televised press conference on February 8, 1993.  During the press
 
       conference, GM lawyers alleged, among other things, that Dateline's
 
         producers allowed "incendiary," or "sparking devices" (model rocket
 
         engines) to be attached to the underside of the trucks to insure that
 
           any gasoline spilled during the simulated accident would igniteDand
that
 
            Dateline then failed to publicly disclose this fact in the program.
NBC
 
            responded with an on-the-air apology the next night, read by
Dateline
 
           anchors Jane Pauley and Stone Phillips.  GM dropped its lawsuit after
 
           the apology.  Michael Gartner resigned on March 2, 1993.  Three
 
     producers responsible for the GM pickup story segment were forced to
 
          resign on March 19, 1993.  NBC President and CEO Robert Wright
publicly
 
            apologized to viewers and to General Motors Corp. on March 22, 1993.
The news media covered the story in detail, and many journalism critics
 
                 discussed the event in various newspapers, magazines,
professional
 
        journals, and on television programs.  The Poynter Institute for Media
 
            Studies, a non-profit organization in St. Petersburg, Florida, even
 
         sponsored a conference and two-hour discussion of the event by
 
    professional journalists and journalism professors, which was nationally
 
            televised on C-SPAN on April 15, 1993.  The title of the conference
was
 
            "When Good Journalists Do Bad Things: Truthtelling and the Public
 
       Trust," which is now being distributed by the Poynter Institute on
 
        videocassette.
 
Responding to deviance
The very public outcry by professional journalists and journalism
 
            critics is a signal that a boundary line was crossed by Dateline
NBCDthe
 
            line could be described as one between truth and fiction, between
news
 
            and entertainment, between disinterestedness and agency, between
 
      professional and unprofessional journalism, or between mainstream and
 
           tabloid journalism.  This public discourse served several purposes:
1)
 
            to distance the techniques used by Dateline from commonly accepted
 
        professional journalism practices and signal that this kind of behavior
 
            is deviant; 2) to reassure the public that professional journalists
are
 
            able to police their ranks; and 3) to maintain the social boundaries
 
          between journalism and entertainment or tabloid television by showing
 
           that deviant behavior which may resemble these other genres of
 
    communication will not go unpunished.  As sociologists Gieryn, Bevins
 
           and Zehr note:
 
Erection of social boundaries around a niche in the division of labor
 
                   aids professionalization in two ways: (1) Boundaries create
demand for a
 
                    distinctive commodity by demarcating the professional's
services from
 
                   similarDbut in crucial ways dissimilarDservices provided by
outsiders.
 
                    (2) Boundaries serve to exclude providers of "similar"
services who
 
                 falsely claim (according to insiders) to be within the
profession.  Both
 
                    are essential steps toward the monopolization of a
profession's market,
 
                    for the boundaries can be used to deny expertise, authority
and thus
 
                  employment and material resources to potentially competitive
outsiders.[3]
There are both costs and benefits to revealing deviant behavior: "the
 
                basic dilemma of social control: to publicize or not to
publicize
 
       deviant behavior."[4]  Such publicity is negative and can serve to
 
     undermine public confidence in the institutionDespecially in the short
 
            term.  A pattern of unpunished violations of norms, however, could
be
 
           more damaging to the perceived integrity of the profession in the
long
 
            run.
Emile Durkheim says the public sanction of deviance is a healthy
 
           exercise for a group or institution because it helps to show group
 
        members how to recognize the area between acceptable and unacceptable
 
           behavior.[5]  In his study on the sociology of deviance among the
Puritan
 
            settlers of America, Kai Erickson notes, "the interactions which do
the
 
            most effective job of locating and publicizing the group's outer
edges
 
            would seem to be those which take place between deviant persons on
the
 
            one side and official agents of the community on the other."[6]
 
Journalism credibility and authority
Journalists often talk about journalistic credibility and how to
 
           preserve it.  The essential elements of journalistic credibility are
 
          believability and trust.[7]  Journalists and journalism researchers
seem to
 
            agree that the concept of journalistic credibility rests on the
ability
 
            of journalists to provide true, accurate, factual information.[8]
The
 
         information must be fair, unbiased, and independent from outside
 
      influences.[9]  Without credibility, a journalist cannot function as an
 
          information provider, so credibility is the basis of authority for
 
        journalists.  Journalists use this authority to inform the public, and
 
            to engage in debate.
James Carey, building on the insights of James Dewey and Walter
 
          Lippmann,  has argued that the true role of the news media is not to
 
          inform the public in the traditional sense, but is to "activate
 
     inquiry," or to get people interested and engaged in debate and
 
     discussion.[10]  Carey says the news media should be "an agency for
carrying
 
            on the conversation of our culture."  An agency of cultural
conversation
 
            must enjoy a certain measure of authority and legitimacy if it is to
be
 
            taken seriously, and therefore, if it is to function.  It has the
power
 
            to describe the conversations of our culture and send these
descriptions
 
            to all the citizens who care to see or listen.  Sociologists of
science
 
            have described the legitimated power to describe and define reality
as
 
            cognitive authority.[11]  I believe journalists have this same type
of
 
        authority or power.  Paul Starr, in his studies of the medical
 
    profession, calls this power cultural authority.[12]  He says "cultural
 
         authority entails the construction of reality through definitions of
 
          fact and value."  Starr distinguishes cultural authority from social
 
          authority, which he says "involves the control of action through the
 
          giving of commands."
Cultural authority, on the other hand, is derived from performing a
 
              service, and from the ability to determine the needs of clients.
 
       Journalists perform the service of informing public debates, and they
 
           determine which cultural conversations people need to be aware of,
and
 
            engaged in.  The cultural authority of journalists therefore, is
based
 
            on the dependence of the public on the ability of journalists to
present
 
            important information in a coherent and reliable fashion.  Starr
says
 
           the cultural authority of medical doctors rests on three aspects of
 
         legitimacy: collegial, cognitive, and moral.  For journalistic cultural
 
            authority, these same aspects of legitimacy are appropriate: 1. the
 
         collegial legitimacy of the journalistDthe acceptance by others in
their
 
            profession; 2. the cognitive legitimacy of the journalistic
 
 productDbased on rational, objective methods; and 3. the moral
 
    legitimacy of the journalistDthe journalist's judgments are oriented
 
          toward altruism and public service.[13]
 
The need for research
Mass communication researchers need to investigate the cultural
 
          authority of journalism.  As an area of inquiry, it has been largely
 
          ignored.  As Peter Dahlgren argues, "Journalism's centrality in
politics
 
            and culture, as well as its vested economic and occupational
interests,
 
            make questions regarding its boundaries, uses and contingencies of
more
 
            than idle concern."[14]  Some of the questions along this vein which
demand
 
            our attention include: How have journalists been able to demarcate
their
 
            area of mass communication from other types of mass communication?
How
 
            are journalists able to maintain control over the production and
 
      evaluation of news?  How are they able to maintain the public perception
 
            that they are authoritative or credible?  How do journalists convert
 
          cultural authority into other opportunities, such as jobs, political
 
          influence, and prestige?  How does the profession of journalism
respond
 
            to threats or challenges to its cultural authority?[15]  This study
is a
 
          start in this line of research.
Other culture-producing social institutions such as the advertising,
 
               public relations, and entertainment industries communicate to the
 
       masses.  When these institutions and industries produce messages which
 
            appear similar to journalism, journalists interpret these events as
 
         external threats to the boundaries of journalism.[16]  The cultural
 
     authority of the institution of journalism depends on the ability of
 
          people to distinguish between it and other kinds of mass
communication.
 
            It may be useful for journalism researchers to examine what
sociologists
 
            of science call "boundary-work rhetoric," which is the rhetorical
 
       strategy of scientists wishing to distinguish between science and
 
       non-science.[17]  For example, physicists tend to draw a boundary (in
their
 
            discourse) between what they do and what psychics do.  Likewise,
 
      mainstream journalists tend to draw a boundary between what they do and
 
            what tabloid journalists do.  When the public doesn't notice the
 
      difference between a psychic and a physicist, the physicist will engage
 
            in boundary work rhetoric; socially-constructing a boundary in order
to
 
            protect their cultural authority.  Likewise, mainstream journalists
 
         engage in boundary-work rhetoric because they would like the public to
 
            be aware of the differences between their journalism and tabloid
 
      journalism.
Threats to cultural authority of an institution or profession can also
 
                 come from within the institution or profession itself.  A
            well-publicized case of fraud or fakery is perhaps the prime example
of
 
            an internal threat to cultural authority.  For example, when it was
 
         revealed that reporter Janet Cooke fabricated a journalistic story
about
 
            a heroin addict who was 8-years-old, the Washington Post and the
rest of
 
            the American journalism institution reeled from the impact to
 
   journalistic credibility and cultural authority.[18]  A more recent example,
 
            which is the subject of this paper, is the case of the NBC weekly
 
       newsmagazine program Dateline NBC and the revelation that it "rigged" a
 
            fiery crash in a story about the safety of General Motors pickup
trucks.
 As Dahlgren notes, one of the distinctive aspects of turmoil within the
 
            institution of journalism is that those within the institution
"strive
 
            to maintain discursive control over such turmoil.  Among other
things,
 
            this helps to consolidate and legitimate professional practices and
 
         identity (by) ... retain(ing) definitional control of the field, its
 
          problems and potential solutions."[19]
The site of this study is in the symbolic interaction of
 
   journalistsDtheir communicative actsD as they respond to threats to the
 
            cultural authority of the journalism institution.  These rhetorical
 
         interactions are interpreted and evaluated according to how they fit
the
 
            model proposed by Harold Garfinkel for a successful status
degradation
 
            ceremony.  Such a ceremony consists of "communicative work directed
to
 
            transforming an individual's total identity into an identity lower
in
 
           the group's scheme of social types."[20]  The individuals in this
case are
 
            Michael Gartner and the three Dateline producers who were also
fired:
 
           executive producer Jeff Diamond, senior producer David Rummel, and
field
 
            segment producer Robert Read.  Most of the attention will be given
to
 
           Gartner simply because he was the lightning rod for much of the
rhetoric
 
            surrounding this case.  He symbolized everything that was wrong with
NBC
 
            News.
 
 Some contextual notes
Michael Gartner was the president of NBC News when the Dateline NBC
 
              report on General Motors pickup trucks was broadcast in 1992.
Gartner
 
            was (among journalists) one of the most well-known and outspoken
 
      personalities in the profession.  For journalists in the 1980s, he and
 
            his trademark bow-tie became an icon for First Amendment absolutism.
He
 
            was a third generation journalist; his father and grandfather both
 
        worked at newspapers in Iowa.[21]  Some of his previous accomplishments
 
         include: page one editor, Wall Street Journal; editor and co-owner,
 
         Ames, Iowa, Daily Tribune; general news executive, Gannett Co.;
 
     president, Des Moines Register and Tribune Co.; editor, Louisville
 
        Courier-Journal and Louisville Times; member, Pulitzer Prize board; and
 
            president, American Society of Newspaper Editors.  A New York
University
 
            Law School graduate, he is known as a strict interpreter of First
 
       Amendment press rights.  For instance, Gartner argued that "there is no
 
            right to privacyDexcept from the government."[22]  He was also
famous among
 
            journalists for having argued that it is wrong for reporters to use
 
         anonymous sources "in all but the most delicate of stories," because it
 
            damages the credibility of all journalism.[23]  Gartner was also
known for
 
            his business and financial expertise.  In 1984, he managed to get
the
 
           Gannett Co. into a bidding war for control of The Des Moines
Register,
 
            and reportedly pocketed more than $3 million from the deal.[24]
 
 Notes on method
This study is an examination of how deviance in American journalism is
 
                 confronted by the official agents of the institution of
            journalismDnamely, other journalists.  This examination strives to
 
        explain how members of a public institution, namely journalism, produce
 
            cultural meaning and reproduce social structures by engaging in
 
     rhetorical discourse.  By the way, in this study the term "rhetoric" is
 
            not used in its traditional pejorative sense: as baseless, flowery
 
        argument; but in the tradition of contemporary rhetorical theorists such
 
            as Kenneth Burke, J rgen Habermas, and Steven ToulminDwho, in
general,
 
            study and theorize about persuasive communicative actions and the
 
       motivations for these actions.[25]
I embrace the hermeneutic approach in this examination.  It is an
 
            individual attempt to make sense of a cultural event and the
surrounding
 
            rhetoric through interpretation.[26]  My primary interest is
improving the
 
            self-understanding of journalists by examining their participation
in
 
           this event.  The meanings generated by this examination can never be
 
          "completed," as they will be re-negotiated and mediated by future
 
       interpreters.[27]  Although the evidence gathered for this study seems
 
        persuasive to me, other interpreters are encouraged to discover
 
     alternate explanations.
The "universe" sample for this study included all the articles appearing
 
                 in NEXIS containing the words "Dateline NBC" and "General
Motors"
 
       appearing between November 1, 1992 and June 30, 1993 (some 521
 
    newspaper, magazine, wire service, and journal articles).  Also
 
     examined: the videotape of the conference at the Poynter Institute on
 
           April 15, 1993, and the lawyer's report commissioned by NBC and
released
 
            March 21, 1993.
 
The Status Degradation Ceremony
Garfinkel says there are eight sequential stages of a successful status
 
                 degradation ceremony, consisting of specific "effects that the
 
    communicative tactics of the denouncer must be designed to accomplish."[28]
 
            These eight types of arguments must be put forward by people within
a
 
           community or institution that wants to banish deviants and at the
same
 
            time, minimize harm to the institution itself.  The eight types of
 
        rhetoric are:
I. Both the event and the perpetrators must be made to look unusual.
 
                This is accomplished by charging the people with the deviant
behavior.
II. The perpetrators must be stereotyped as badDimplying that they are
 
                 not just accidentally bad.
III. The denouncers must show that they belong to the community and that
 
                 they are speaking for the community or institution, not just as
private
 
            individuals with other than communitarian motives.
IV. The denouncers must show that the values of the community are
 
            salient, and that they are good and right.
V. The denouncers must show that they speak for these values.
VI. The denouncers must show that they have support from the community.
VII. The deviants are banished.
VIII. The deviants must be ritually separated from the community so that
 
                 the community may go on as before.
Below, I go through each of these kinds of rhetorical discourse, giving
 
                 examples of how each of the steps were followed.
 
I. Both the event and the perpetrators must be made to look unusual.
 
           This is accomplished by charging the people with the deviant
behavior.
The Dateline NBC / GM event and the perpetrators, Gartner, et al, are
 
                made to seem "out of the ordinary," and the charges against them
are
 
          filed in several distinct ways, as listed below:
A. Dateline NBC and Michael Gartner were charged with the following
 
              offenses:
        1. Fraudulent practices
General Motors initiated the charges of wrongdoing against Dateline NBC.
 Harry Pearce, executive vice president and general counsel of General
 
                 Motors Corp. said in the February 8, 1993 press conference: "We
now face
 
            a poisoned environment spawned by the cheap, dishonest,
sensationalism
 
            of NBC's program 'Waiting to Explode?' and its aftermath."  The
charges
 
            revolved around a 55-second part of the 15-minute story on GM
pickups.
 
            During those 55 seconds, reporter Michelle Gillen narrates the
action on
 
            the screen:
 
To see for ourselves what might happen in a side-impact crash, Dateline
 
                    NBC hired The Institute for Safety Analysis to conduct two
unscientific
 
                    crash demonstrations.  In our demonstrations, unlike GM
tests, the fuel
 
                    tanks were filled with real gasoline.  In one crash, at
about 40 miles
 
                    per hour, there was no leakage and no fire.  But in the
other, at around
 
                    30 miles per hour, look what happened. {scene of car
crashing into
 
                truck, then flames, repeated several times in slow motion}
At impact, a small hole was punctured in the tank.  According to our
 
                  experts, the pressure of the collision, and the crushing of
the gas
 
                 tank, forced gasoline to spew from the gas cap.  The fuel then
erupted
 
                    into flames, when ignited by the impacting car's headlight.
The
 
              pickup's tank did not split wide open.  If it had, the fire would
have
 
                    been much larger.
Nowhere were incendiary devices mentioned.  After the initial attack by
 
                 General MotorsDpublicly revealing that incendiary devices were
attached
 
            to the pickup truckDthe discourse against Dateline was quickly taken
up
 
            by those within the journalism community who charged Dateline with
 
        "rigging" the test, "staging" the news, "fabricating" the story, and not
 
            disclosing important, relevant facts.
 
        2. Relying on biased sources
GM also charged that The Institute for Safety Analysis (TISA), the
 
             agency which conducted the crash demonstration,  was not an
unbiased
 
          independent source.  TISA is not a watchdog consumer agency, but
instead
 
            is commonly called uponDand paidDto provide evidence for plaintiffs
in
 
            personal injury lawsuits.  GM argued that the Institute had an
agenda to
 
            promote, and Dateline did not disclose this fact, or attempt to
balance
 
            it with other sources.  Dateline also hired automobile safety design
 
          consultant Byron Bloch, who also has been hired before by plaintiffs
in
 
            personal injury lawsuits.  Bloch has also been hired by other
television
 
            newsmagazine shows before, such as ABC's 20/20, to make programs
about
 
            unsafe vehicles.[29]  It appears that for this crash demonstration,
Dateline
 
            only hired people who had a stake in the results of the
demonstration;
 
            they based a major element of the story on paid testimony and on
paid
 
           help from people who were biased.  Again, the discourse containing
these
 
            charges was controlled by fellow journalists.
 
        3. Stonewalling
Stonewalling is the one thing journalists despise (and love) most.  When
 
                 they see a government official holding back information or
denying
 
        wrongdoing when all the evidence points otherwise, they charge them with
 
            stonewalling and cover-up, and instinctively go into an attack mode.
 
           The most famous cover-up scandal in the U.S.Dwhich glorified the role
of
 
            the media as watchdogDwas, of course, Watergate.  Ironically,
Michael
 
           Gartner admitted that the scandal precipitated by the Dateline NBC
story
 
            on GM pickup trucks and the subsequent investigation and media
attention
 
            were "his Watergate."  Media critic Edwin Diamond picked-up on the
 
        similarities: "Like Nixon, Gartner took the fall as much for his own
 
          stubborn hubris as for the stupid tricks of his subordinates."[30]
Among
 
           journalists, this is perhaps the greatest indictment: to be compared
to
 
            Nixon.
Other journalists also described Gartner and his behavior in terms that
 
                 are generally reserved for corrupt officials.  For instance, a
few days
 
            after GM wrote a letter to NBC complaining about the Dateline NBC
 
       program, Gartner wrote back to them saying: "NBC does not believe that
 
            any statements made...were either false or misleading.  The
'Dateline'
 
            report was and remains completely factual and accurate."  Jonathan
Alter
 
            of Newsweek commented that if GM hadn't held its news conference a
few
 
            days later, "Gartner may well have kept stonewalling."[31]
Former NBC News president Lawrence Grossman charged that "Even after the
 
                 use of sparking devices was exposed, they were stonewalling and
trying
 
            to get away with calling the staging an 'unscientific demonstration'
 
          when it actually was a distortion."[32]
As public relations practitioner Robert Dilenschneider notes, "the media
 
                 like nothing better than stonewalling. 'They go after
hardballers...the
 
            best thing you can do is cooperate.'"[33]  Critics of Gartner seemed
to be
 
            signaling that they would not tolerate someone within their ranks
who
 
           acted as an adversaryDwho fought back when challenged to confess to
 
         wrongdoing.
Steven Brill, Editor in Chief of The American Lawyer and chairman of
 
               American Lawyer Media said, "The Gartner letter was a classic in
 
      obfuscation, the kind the media would have a field day with if written
 
            by, say, a politician or a defense contractor."[34]  But Brill says
Gartner
 
            eventually realized how he was stonewalling and decided to come
clean.
 
            Gartner told Brill, "I realized that we were just plain wrong....
We
 
           were stonewalling them, using all kinds of excuses and
rationalizations.
 What we had done was just plain dumb, and wrong. And I was raised to
 
           admit you're wrong when you're wrong..."[35]
Howard Kurtz, a reporter for The Washington Post, argues in an article
 
                 published several months after the event that Gartner's
slowness to
 
         admitting guilt that Gartner is not all that unusual among journalists:
 
Although news organizations make their living pointing fingers and
 
                hurling accusations, they are notoriously slow to fess up to
their own
 
                    mistakes.  With varying degrees of stubbornness, stupidity,
and
 
             arrogance, media executives often circle the wagons when their own
 
                actions come under scrutiny.  They refuse to admit error unless
forced
 
                    to do so, and then only grudgingly.  In short, journalists
are quite
 
                  adept at the sort of stonewalling for which they love to
denounce
 
               political hacks and corporate executives. ...
When it comes to self-righteous stonewalling, NBC set the standard in
 
                   the General Motors case.  For weeks, the network insisted
there was
 
                 nothing wrong with Dateline NBC attaching toy rocket engines to
a GM
 
                  truck to stage a fiery crash for the cameras.  Nothing wrong
with using
 
                    an ill-fitting gas cap that virtually guaranteed a leak.
Nothing wrong
 
                    with failing to disclose that the puny fire went out after
fifteen
 
                seconds.  The piece was completely factual and accurate, NBC
News
 
               president Michael Gartner insisted in a defiant letter to GM.[36]
Kurtz argues that "stonewalling" is something that a lot of journalists
 
                 do when the tables are turned and they are facing the glare of
scrutiny.
 Kurtz's persuasive interpretation makes it clear that Gartner and NBC
 
            News may not have been not so unusual after all.
 
B. The way the charges were filed, Dateline NBC, NBC News, and Michael
 
                 Gartner were made to seem out of the ordinary:
        1. Staging events is not ordinary in journalism
One of the strategies of the critics of Dateline was to make the
 
           principles which were violated seem elementary or commonsensical.  As
 
           Howard Rosenberg of the Los Angeles Times argued: "A high school
 
      journalism student knows that staging or faking or fabricating or
 
       falsifying news is, under any circumstances, absolutely forbidden.  The
 
            big lie, the ultimate corruption.  Sweep that ethic under the rug,
and a
 
            news organization becomes morally barren."[37]  How could Dateline
NBC
 
        forget such fundamental principlesDprinciples learned in high school
 
          journalism courses?  Perhaps Rosenberg is implying that Dateline's
 
        producers were not journalists at all, since they did not receive (and
 
            reproduce) the training common to all journalists.
 
        2. NBC News is not like other network news divisions
Long before the Dateline / GM event, critics charged that NBC was not
 
                able to launch a successful newsmagazine or other types of news
 
     programming, perhaps signaling that NBC had an inferior network news
 
          division.  Several years before Dateline debuted, a critic said NBC
 
         "lags behind CBS and ABC in developing fresh news programming."[38]  An
 
         early review of Dateline NBC noted that the program was NBC News's
"18th
 
            attempt at launching a newsmagazine," while the other networks had
 
        successful programs, such as CBS's 60 Minutes, and ABC's 20/20.[39]  The
 
          implication of this kind of rhetoric is that the programmers and
 
      producers at NBC News were not as competent at developing and nourishing
 
            news programs as their counterparts at the other networks.
Another way NBC News was criticized in the journalistic community was
 
                for a lack of competent journalists.  Shortly after the Dateline
/ GM
 
           event, Jonathan Alter, media critic at Newsweek, for example, argued
 
          that the NBC News division was staffed with lower quality personnel.
 
           Alter said "NBC, with its weaker bench of reporters and producers, is
 
           still regarded within the industry as last overall in news
qualityDlast
 
            and now falling further."[40]
Other journalists argued that NBC News personnel were not as "in-touch"
 
                 with journalistic standards as the journalists at other network
news
 
          divisions.  For example, Ed Turner, executive vice president of CNN
said
 
            after the Dateline / GM event: "'If you have to send a memo around'
 
         concerning such obvious don'ts as what occurred at NBC, he said,
'you've
 
            got problems.'"[41]
Peter Herford, a 26-year veteran broadcast journalist from CBS, said the
 
                 Dateline NBC / GM event would have never happened at ABC, where
someone
 
            is in charge of standards.  Herford, who now heads the broadcasting
 
         program at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, said,
 
At ABC, they had a full-time person, a vice president for news
 
            standards, who had a staff, who did nothing but review every
 
          investigative piece that went on the air, every major magazine piece
 
                  that went on the air.  He read all the scripts, etc., etc.,
etc....At
 
                   ABC, that ['Dateline'] piece never would have gotten past
him.[42]
Thus, the NBC News division was portrayed as an inferior institution,
 
                staffed with inferior journalists, who were unaware of, or
unconcerned
 
            with, journalistic standards.
 
        3. Gartner was an outsider to broadcast journalism
In some of the rhetoric following the event, Gartner was portrayed as an
 
                 outsider to broadcast journalism.  For instance, Jonathan Alter
notes
 
           that a few years before he went to work in broadcast journalism
Gartner
 
            once told some ABC News producers that he thought:
 
TV News is nothing more than a "shallow comic book"...a superficial
 
                 medium incapable of complex ideas.  Today Gartner is in danger
of being
 
                    fired as president of NBC News, in essence for living down
to his low
 
                   expectations for the medium in which he works.... Ultimately
he looked
 
                    down his nose a bit at what he did for a livingDand it
showed.  That
 
                  both loosened his own standards and left him without allies
below him.[43]
Thus, according to Alter's arguments, Gartner's outsider attitude toward
 
                 television journalism carried on during his tenure at NBC News,
and is
 
            one of the causes for his misbehavior.  Alter also criticized
Gartner
 
           for being more of a money manager than a journalist.  He said
"Gartner
 
            is all for serious television newsDas long as General Electric's
money
 
            goals are met first."[44]  This is a familiar charge among
journalists who
 
            bristle at the thought of money managersD"bean counters"Dinvading
their
 
            boundaries and controlling journalistic output.[45]
 
II. The perpetrators must be stereotyped as badDimplying that they are
 
            not just accidentally bad.
In this step the event and perpetrators are stereotyped as against
 
             journalistic valuesDcut from the same cloth as other aberrant
events and
 
            perpetrators.  This was accomplished through the following
rhetorical
 
           moves:
A. The Dateline NBC / GM event is stereotyped as just like Janet Cooke's
 
                 fabrication and ABC's Felix Bloch simulation
One of the ways journalists made sense of the Dateline NBC / GM event
 
                was to stereotype it as similar to other well-publicized
instances of
 
           deviance.  "This was TV's Janet Cooke affair," said Robert Lichter of
 
           the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a Washington, D.C.-based
 
       watchdog group.[46]
The 1980 Janet Cooke/Washington Post scandal, and the 1989 scandal
 
             following ABC News's re-enactment of the Felix Bloch suspected spy
case
 
            were mentioned by several journalists as examples of similar lapses
in
 
            journalistic standards.  In the Felix Bloch case, ABC's World News
 
        Tonight showed a tape which it identified as suspected spy Felix Bloch,
 
            passing a briefcase of secrets to a Soviet spy.  The people in the
video
 
            were actually actors hired by ABC, and the video was doctored to
make it
 
            look like a surveillance tape.[47]
By stereotyping the practices of Dateline NBC as similar to those of
 
               other well-known journalistic scandals, journalists were able to
quickly
 
            make sense of the event, understand its significance, and formulate
 
         responses to it.  I found four authors who mentioned the Cooke scandal
 
            and one who mentioned the Bloch scandal as stereotypical
examples.[48]
 
B. The Dateline NBC / GM event is just like fakery in other countries
One author implies that the Dateline NBC / GM event is stereotypical of
 
                 news values used in other countries where simulations, staging,
and
 
         non-disclosure are not taboo:
 
If NBC is looking for some consolation, it can find plenty of company in
 
                    Japan.  Staging the news is so commonplace that the Japanese
have a word
 
                    for it: yarase.
"In America, it's the exception rather than the rule," says Newsweek's
 
                    Tokyo Bureau Chief Bill Powell.  "Here, it's just standard
operating
 
                  procedure.  There is much greater latitude given to producers
to set
 
                  things up if it doesn't work out."  Adds Dorian Benkoil, an
Associated
 
                    Press editor who researched Japanese media on a Fulbright
journalism
 
                  fellowship: "In the U.S. the lines between entertainment and
news are
 
                   blurring recently.  In Japan they never developed."[49]
The implication of this rhetorical claim is that the way Dateline NBC
 
                operates is completely foreign (literally and figuratively) to
American
 
            journalists.
 
C. Dateline NBC is just like tabloid TV shows (entertainment not
 
           information)
One of the rhetorical claims made by journalists following the Dateline
 
                 NBC / GM event  was that the "unscientific crash demonstration"
was
 
         similar to things done on tabloid television programs, and that there
 
           were other similarities as well.  For instance, several journalists
 
         noted that some of the people who worked on the Dateline NBC program
had
 
            experience working on tabloid shows. Long before the event, an early
 
          review of Dateline NBC reveals that the program attempted to
"spice-up"
 
            its drama by hiring tabloid TV personnel: "...there has been little
heat
 
            to the show, a failing Dateline tried to rectify by hiring
enterprising
 
            correspondent Jon Scott away from the tabloid show Inside Edition
this
 
            month."[50]
After the event, Edwin Diamond noted that "Robert Read, the segment
 
              producer for the GM story, did, in fact, work at the tab show
Inside
 
          Edition..."[51]  Diamond goes on to say that,  Dateline NBC "(takes)
its
 
          cues from downmarket shows like Hard Copy and  A Current Affair."
Los Angeles Times media critic Howard Rosenberg says the similarities to
 
                 tabloid shows is part of a pattern: "Far from being an isolated
example
 
            of shoddiness at NBC News, the GM incident is part of a tabloidesque
 
          pattern that's been developing for at least a couple of years under
the
 
            division's president, Michael G. Gartner."[52]  Rosenberg recites a
list of
 
            examples of NBC's journalistic lapses: NBC was the only network to
 
        identify the alleged rape victim in the William Kennedy Smith case
 
        (Rosenberg lists her name too, but NBC did it before she decided to go
 
            public); NBC Nightly news was the only network newscast to show the
 
         videotaped murder of a woman in Miami, Florida; NBC Nightly News was
the
 
            only network newscast to show a car chase from central California
into
 
            Los Angeles; NBC's Today program canceled the visit of Helen
Caldicott,
 
            reportedly because her book was critical of GE's nuclear power
division;
 
            and NBC aired a story about Betty Friedan "using 5-year-old 'Today'
 
         sound bites of people commenting on the pioneer feminist, presenting
the
 
            comments as if they were current."[53]
Former NBC News president Lawrence Grossman said "What happened on
 
             'Dateline' is characteristic of the attitude toward news of GE. ...
This
 
            is a news division that has put on 'I Witness Video' and a daytime
show
 
            ('A Closer Look') that, in my opinion, is as tabloid and sleazy as
any
 
            of the syndicated talk shows."[54]
Ironically, tabloid TV producers used the Dateline NBC event as an
 
             opportunity to argue that their standards were higherDif
anythingDthan
 
            NBC's network news standards.  New York Times media critic Elizabeth
 
          Kolbert wrote:
 
Producers at the tabloid shows...seemed to see NBC's embarrassment as a
 
                    chance to make some comments about the standards of their
network
 
               competitors.  "We would not have re-enacted a car crash using
little
 
                  rockets to blow up the car," said John Terenzio, executive
producer of
 
                    "A Current Affair" and a former producer at ABC News.  "We
would have
 
                   felt that was not correct, and our legal department would not
have
 
                allowed it."[55]
Kolbert thus delivers the fatal rhetorical blow to Dateline NBC: its
 
               standards are even lower than those of the tabloid programs.
Rosenberg
 
            makes a similar point about NBC News's standards when he notes that
none
 
            of the tabloid shows identified Patricia Bowman, William Kennedy
Smith's
 
            accuser, though NBC's Nightly News did.[56]  Thus, Dateline NBC is
 
    rhetorically "moved" to the margins of journalism where tabloid
 
     television, "reality-based programming," and entertainment television
 
           programs reside.
 
III. The denouncers must show that they belong to the community and that
 
            they are speaking for the community or institution, not just as
private
 
              individuals with other than communitarian motives.
In this step, it must be shown that judgment is passed only by fellow
 
                journalistsDwho understand the nuances of journalismDand who
alone have
 
            the jurisdiction to police their ranks.  This condition of
Garfinkel's
 
            might be difficult not to find, simply because the content of
 
   newsmagazines, newspapers, and television news programs is produced by
 
            journalists.  Obviously, journalism critics and broadcasting critics
did
 
            the denouncing in print and on the airwaves.  It does appear,
however,
 
            that there was a lack of public discourse by outsiders and invited
 
        columnists, such as politicians.  Some comedians did comment on the
 
         event.  For instance, David Letterman reportedly made a joke on his
 
         program that the reason Michael Jackson's hair caught on fire during
the
 
            filming of a Pepsi commercial was because NBC had hidden igniters in
his
 
            hair.
The lawyers and executives who ran the General Motors press conference
 
                 were quoted and televised, but their comments were interpreted,
 
     condensed, and paraphrased by journalists covering the event.  As would
 
            be expected, most, if not all, of the communicative acts denouncing
 
         Dateline NBC and Michael Gartner after the GM press conference were
 
         accomplished by journalists.  The Poynter Institute conference was
 
        filled with members of the journalism communityDreporters, editors,
 
         producers, and journalism professors.  Lawyers were notably absent from
 
            the field of invited participants.
NBC hired two "outside" lawyers, Robert Warren of Gibson, Dunn &
 
           Crutcher in Los Angeles, and Lewis Kaden of Davis, Polk & Wardwell in
 
           New York, on February 12, 1993, to conduct an investigation of how
the
 
            event came to be.  This concerned some journalists who felt
threatened
 
            by the fact that people from outside the institution of journalism
were
 
            going to judge the performance of journalists:
 
Some NBC News staffers have questioned why the network hired lawyers to
 
                    investigate the case rather than...asking a respected
journalist to
 
                 conduct an internal inquiry.  NBC's [spokeswoman Peggy] Hubble
said that
 
                    management felt outsiders would provide the most impartial
 
        investigation. ...one source speculated that hiring attorneys may be in
 
                    part to protect lawyer-client confidentiality and to protect
the network
 
                    [from] lawsuits.[57]
In the final analysis, journalists quickly assumed the role of jury in
 
                 this case, undercutting any attempts by General Motors to have
the trial
 
            go to a real court.  Instead, journalists brought the issue to the
court
 
            of public opinion.  Later, Michael Gartner said that he wanted to
settle
 
            the case quickly and get it behind them, and this is why the on-air
 
         apology was broadcast the day after GM filed its lawsuit.  At the
 
       Poynter conference, Gartner said that he had complete authority on the
 
            wording of the apology, and whether to accept the conditions of it
or
 
           not.[58]  This statement by Gartner could be seen as an assurance to
the
 
          journalists present at the conference that journalists were deciding
the
 
            outcome of this case.  It is unclear whether GM wanted the case to
go to
 
            trial, but the swiftness of their acceptance of the apology and
their
 
           dropping the suit tend to indicate that the lawsuit was intended to
 
         provoke media criticism and the  embarrassing public apology from
 
       Dateline NBC.
 
IV. The denouncers must show that the values of the community are
 
       salient, and that they are good and right.
In this step, journalistic values (and the dignity of these values) must
 
                 be explained, and the denunciation must be carried out in the
name of
 
           these values.  For instance, the following virtues were extolled:
A. Public service altruism (lose money) vs. business/self-service (make
 
                 money)
Some journalists make the argument that television news was originally
 
                 designed to lose money for the networks, yet provide them with
 
    invaluable public goodwill and a positive public image.  In the 1970s
 
           and early 1980s, network news divisions spent lavish amounts of money
on
 
            foreign news bureaus, huge staffs, and were run at a loss, balanced
by
 
            the highly profitable prime time entertainment programming.
Television newsmagazine programs such as CBS's 60 Minutes were
 
         originally designed to run against unbeatable entertainment shows, and
 
            to be a showcase of journalistic work.  In the late 1980s,
television
 
           newsmagazines started to actually make money for the networks.  When
 
          this happened, all the networks launched new newsmagazine programs
which
 
            were designed with a different purpose: to make money and to win
ratings
 
            periods.[59]
Several broadcast news critics sounded alarms when they heard that John
 
                 F. Welch, Jr., the president of General Electric (which bought
RCA and
 
            its subsidiary NBC in 1985), wanted to make the NBC News division
 
       profitable.  After all, they argued, the entertainment division was way
 
            ahead of the other networks in prime time ratings points, so NBC had
a
 
            comfortable profit margin; and besides, they argued, News was
 
   traditionally an unprofitable division.[60]  In August 1988, former news
 
          division president Lawrence Grossman was fired for not cooperating in
 
           GE's quest to make the division profitable; and Michael Gartner was
 
         hired in his place, partly because of his devotion to the idea that
news
 
            businesses should make money.[61]  In a 1992 interview, Gartner said
that
 
           "You can't be journalistically vigorous unless you're financially
 
       strong.  You just don't want to lose moneyDyou don't want to be walking
 
            around with a tin cup.  It is a news business and you want to be
 
      successful in both worlds, news and business."[62]
In 1989, television journalism critic Jonathan Alter attacked the bottom
 
                 line ethic of NBC:
 
Instead of feeling liberated by their entertainment success to spend
 
                  more of their riches on serious journalism, G.E.'s managers
have
 
              downgraded the news division. ... Lacking the ratings benchmarks
of
 
                 (NBC's) hits like "L.A. Law" and "Cosby," the other networks
don't
 
                expect as much ratings success from news, and have more air time
to
 
                 devote to it.  At CBS, news is still the jewel in the crown.
At ABC,
 
                   now loaded with talent, news is practically the crown itself.
At NBC,
 
                    it's a fancy belt buckle. ... What really matters is proving
(NBC is) a
 
                    company with a commitment to something beyond the bottom
line.[63]
Alter was echoing a familiar theme in newsrooms: journalism is a public
 
                 service which should not be concerned with profits.  What this
attitude
 
            neglects, of course, is the fact that other types of news media,
namely
 
            newspapers, are (or were, in the 1980s) some of the most profitable
 
         enterprises in the United States.  Broadcasting is a little different.
 
            The public service role of broadcast journalism was not just
motivated
 
            by altruism and public service ideals.  It was mandated by early
 
      legislation regulating the granting of licenses to broadcasters.  The
 
           Radio Act of 1927 provided that licenses for broadcasting stations
would
 
            be granted by the guiding standard of "the public interest,
convenience
 
            or necessity."  At renewal time, stations could argue that the
newscasts
 
            they carried were a public service.  In 1961, Federal Communications
 
          Commission chairman Newton Minnow told a convention of the National
 
         Association of Broadcasters, "You earn your bread by using public
 
       property (the airwaves).  When you work in broadcasting, you volunteer
 
            for public service..."[64]
The fact is, television journalism was long considered an altruistic
 
               enterprise simply because it was unable to make much, if any,
money.
 
           The rhetoric following the Dateline NBC / GM event contains many
 
      allusions to the fact that this tradition of running news as a
 
    money-losing enterprise was lost at NBC News.  Arthur A. Lord, a senior
 
            producer for NBC News, and 25-year employee of NBC, offered the
 
     following sour commentary on economic pressures at NBC News in an
 
       editorial column published a week after the firings of the three
 
      Dateline producers: "Since the General Electric Co. bought NBC, the news
 
            division has been under relentless pressure to cut costs and make
 
       profits, just as GE's light bulb factories do.  Experienced
 
 correspondents, producers and technicians were replaced by freelancers,
 
            daily hires and the inexperienced."[65]  Clearly, the profit motives
of NBC
 
            and its parent GE were foreign to the veteran journalists of NBC
News.
 
B. Facts vs. drama
Other critics of the Dateline NBC / GM event warned that facts and drama
 
                 were not meant to be mixed, no matter how appealing to
producers.
 
        Arnold J. Kleiner, vice president and general manager of WMAR-TV, an NBC
 
            affiliate in Baltimore, says "The desire to be compelling in a prime
 
          time way does not excuse not being accurate."[66]
A network entertainment division executive even shows evidence of
 
            feeling threatened by the drama that has started to appear in
television
 
            newsmagazine programming:
 
It (television news magazine shows) is an environment lacking in
 
              traditional journalistic values.  "I think they are giving...the
 
              audience their drama fix," says ABC Entertainment President Ted
Harbert,
 
                    referring to ABC's "20/20" and "PrimeTime Live."  ...
There's no more
 
                   dramatic programming I've seen in a long time," he says.[67]
And journalists agree:
 
Howard Rosenberg, Pulitzer Prize-winning television critic at the Los
 
                   Angeles Times, says that kind of drama is ultimately harmful
to serious
 
                    broadcast journalism.  "Everybody is destined to be flushed
into the
 
                  same toilet," says Rosenberg.[68]
Clearly, people throughout the television industry are concerned with
 
                the blurring of distinctions between the news business and show
 
     business.  Television newsmagazine shows are an evolving journalistic
 
           form which have borrowed dramatic conventions from the entertainment
 
          division.  Is it any wonder that the Fox network now lumps all
tabloid,
 
            news, and fact-based dramatic shows into one category called
 
  "reality-based programming?"
 
C. Separation between news and entertainment divisions
The "outside" lawyers which NBC hired to investigate the Dateline NBC /
 
                 GM event noted in their report that the entertainment division
of NBC
 
           enjoyed a certain amount of control over the News division in that it
 
           alone determined which programs and segments would be mentioned
during
 
            self-promotion advertisements:
 
Dateline is part of the news division at NBC, but it must also work with
 
                    the entertainment division headquartered in Burbank,
California.  The
 
                   entertainment division's promotion staff decides how to
promote each
 
                  Dateline segment, proposes promotional material, and decides
how much
 
                   promotion each segment gets during prime time.  In addition
to
 
            supervising the production of all segments, [Executive Producer
Jeff]
 
                   Diamond discusses these promotion decisions with executives
in the
 
                entertainment division.[69]
This connection between entertainment and news is not a healthy one,
 
               according to Reuven Frank, former president of NBC News.  Frank
notes
 
           that as news has become profitable, and as news
            employeesDjournalistsDbecome concerned with profit, they naturally
want
 
            these kinds of self-promotions to help increase the ratings for
their
 
           programs: "Since TV magazines have achieved the status conferred by
 
         profit, they... get promos now.  But the nabobs of entertainment
 
      continue to determine what will be hyped.  This gives them veto power
 
           over the choice of topics in news division programs.  A smart
executive
 
            producer will pick up topics likely to appeal to West Coast show
 
      business executives..."[70]
 
V. The denouncers must show that they speak for the values of the
 
       institution of journalism.
At the beginning of the Poynter Institute conference which discussed the
 
                 Dateline NBC / GM event, Valerie Hyman, director of programs
for
 
      broadcast journalists at Poynter says in the opening sequence of the
 
          program:
 
Great journalism is our goal. ... Nobody else does what journalists do
 
                    in this society; people depend on us for the information
they need to
 
                   make good decisions; so we must do our jobs well; but there
are
 
             influences and pressures that make that hard, day in and day out,
and
 
                   we're going to talk about them in this program.
We need to find out what we can do to improve the practice of journalism
 
                    and help bridge the gap between journalists and the people
they serve.
 
                    We want journalists to succeed, because ethical, responsible
journalism
 
                    is not just a good idea, it's part of the bedrock of our
democracy.[71]
The other critics of the Dateline NBC / GM event also argued, usually a
 
                 bit more subtly, that this discussion would enable journalists
to make
 
            journalism a better institution by examining (and denouncing) this
 
        event.  Truthtelling, full disclosure, independence and skepticismDas
 
           well as other journalistic principlesDwere invoked as justifications
for
 
            the discussion.  The implication in all these discussions is that
 
       journalism can become better by examining how journalistic standards are
 
            breached.  As Rosenberg says, perhaps a bit melodramatically,
 
NBC's extraordinary, General Motors Corp.-coerced confession that
 
               'Dateline' rigged test crashes...created more than just a juicy
scandal
 
                    that NBC's competitors, ABC and CBS could crow about.
It was an electronic Titanic, an unprecedented disaster in the annals of
 
                    network news....with epic implications because of what it
says about
 
                  standards of journalism, at least in some circles.[72]
The implication of this rhetoric is that Rosenberg stands for the
 
            principles and standards of journalism: in his circle, people are
 
       interested in these enduring values, even if those in some other
 
      circlesDsuch as those in NBC News, are not.
 
VI. The denouncers must show that they have support from the community.
One of the ways they did this was by building an "us versus them"
 
            paradigm between the institution of journalism and the NBC News
 
     organization, which was accomplished primarily through professional
 
         solidarity.  Also, once the guilt of Dateline NBC became a foregone
 
         conclusion, journalists came up with explanations of personal and
 
       structural problems and other factors that pressured Dateline and
 
       Gartner into the climate that would allow such behavior.  One of these
 
            explanations was that business pressures were affecting the
journalistic
 
            product.  Edwin Diamond argues that:
 
NBC News has been in disarray...because (1) GE has been trying to sell
 
                    the network, thus contributing to a "Who cares?" atmosphere,
and (2) the
 
                    severe staff layoffs of the past few years, ordered by GE
and executed
 
                    by Gartner, have cut into the quality of the newsgathering.
Further,
 
                   it's said, Dateline NBC has pushed the boundaries of accepted
journalism
 
                    because of the unrelenting need to create a successful
magazine show
 
                  like CBS's 60 Minutes and ABC's 20/20.[73]
One NBC News producer (who remained unidentified) said profit motives
 
                and competitive pressures were the keys to why the event
occurred: "The
 
            tenor of the creation of 'Dateline' was that the profit of the news
 
         division rested on this show.  In an atmosphere where there is such
 
         intense pressure for ratings, something like the 'Dateline' incident
was
 
            bound to happen."[74]
Gartner had overseen massive cost-cutting measures at the news division,
 
                 including layoffs of seasoned journalists.  "There is a feeling
among
 
           many here that the thrust of the present management is on ratings and
 
           that many of the people who have been pushed out had higher standards
 
           than some of those who are now in charge of these prime-time
shows."[75]
Gartner was also criticized for being a cold-hearted manager who did not
 
                 instill journalistic values in his workersDan implication that
he was an
 
            aberrant journalist and manager.  For instance, Jonathan Alter
charged
 
            that "Gartner often neglected to set a tone that would have made
such
 
           conduct unthinkable in the first place," and "...he has developed a
 
         reputation as prickly and distant."[76]
Other critics noted that Gartner was lacking in the human relations
 
              aspects of his job: "Gartner...was never terribly adept at
stroking the
 
            affiliates, which was perceived by some as a major flaw."[77]
In a 1989 interview, a year after he had taken the reins of NBC News, an
 
                 interviewer told Gartner: "[T]he impression that Michael
Gartner is a
 
           newsman/accountant and a cold-hearted guy is a widespread
impression."
 
            Gartner was disappointed: "I'm sorry you don't think I'm warm.  It's
 
          impossible to defend yourself not being warm."[78]  Thus, Gartner was
 
       portrayed by Variety's writer Gay Verne as someone who was easy to
 
        dislike, perhaps signaling that his vulnerability as an "unlikable
 
        fellow" was something that could come back to haunt him.  Certainly this
 
            trait was something that made him easier to banish from television
news.
 Not all television critics thought his personality was relevant.  Some
 
            seem to indicate that it was an unfair attribute upon which to base
his
 
            expulsion from the television journalism institution:
 
Pressure for Gartner's ouster had been fueled by criticism from
 
             editorialists and columnists. "Gartner has become a bit of a
sacrificial
 
                    lamb for the media, the fall guy for all of television's
problems," said
 
                    Jon Katz, a media critic and former CBS producer. ...
"Michael has an uncanny ability to [anger] any audience of two people he
 
                    encounters; he projects arrogance," said Eric Bremner,
former head of
 
                   King Broadcasting in Seattle and former chairman of the NBC
affiliates.
 
                    But, he said, "You have to respect some of his
accomplishments."[79]
The banishment of Gartner and the three Dateline producers was supported
 
                 by all those who engaged in published discussions of the event.
Their
 
            unanimity proves that, perhaps unwittingly, they discovered that the
way
 
            to fix the problem was through professional solidarity.  Ironically,
 
          Gartner received a letter from Richard SalantDa day after Salant had
 
          died from a heart attackD commending Gartner for his "candor and
grace"
 
            in handling the apology to GM.  Reportedly a friend told Gartner,
"The
 
            only guy on your side is dead."[80]
 
VII. The deviants are banished.
The accused perpetrators were shown to be different from the community
 
                 of journalism.  Gartner and individual journalists responsible
for the
 
            Dateline story on GM were ritually banished from journalism through
the
 
            attacks on their practice, and motives.
They were also banished by the company, NBC, which made a clean
 
          sweepDsignaling that it was going to recover from this setback by
 
       upgrading the quality of its personnel.  Michael Gartner resigned from
 
            NBCDunder pressureDon March 2, 1993.  Three other producers,
executive
 
            producer Jeff Diamond, senior producer David Rummel, and field
segment
 
            producer Robert Read were forced to resign March 18, 1993.  Reporter
 
          Michelle GillenDwho voiced objections to the way the GM story was put
 
           togetherDwas reassigned to affiliate station WTVJ-TV in Miami,
Florida,
 
            also on March 18.
 
VIII. The deviants must be ritually separated from the community so that
 
            the community may go on as before.
The accused were "made strange" compared to the rest of the institution
 
                 of journalismDso that the institution would survive.  And
survive it
 
          did.
A few months after the event, the new president of NBC News declared
 
               that all was better:
 
Andy Lack, president of NBC news said it took just three weeks for the
 
                    news magazine Dateline NBC to bounce back in the ratings
after the
 
                fiasco of a doctored test on General Motors pickup trucks.
Lack said those who produced the questionable report "risked their
 
                credibility."
But he said he believed the show bounced back so quickly and was again
 
                    accepted by viewers because NBC "handled the issue
professionally,
 
                straightforwardly, as openly and honestly as you would
expect...and the
 
                    audience said 'OK, we get it, let's move forward.'"[81]
Others within the company also made arguments that the setbacks from the
 
                 event were temporary.  NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw
described the
 
            temporary nature of the damage:
 
The incident on 'Dateline' was a mistake... I don't think it's fair to
 
                    say we've been permanently scarred, any more than CBS was
permanently
 
                   scarred by the [lawsuit filed by Gen. William Westmoreland
over a 1982
 
                    "CBS Reports" documentary] or the Washington Post was
permanently
 
               scarred by Janet Cooke.[82]
By emphasizing the temporary nature of the setback, NBC signaled that
 
                the institution was going to survive the mistakes of a few
deviant
 
        individuals.
Statements from NBC after the incident reflected the idea that the way
 
                 to fix the news division was to sweep out the old and find a
good
 
       replacement for ousted president Michael Gartner.  An NBC News executive
 
            said the ideal candidate would be a "top TV journalist who is a
terrific
 
            communicator and has a squeaky-clean reputation for integrity."[83]
Diamond
 
            notes that one of the conditions for Gartner's replacement was to be
 
          that the person had to come from within the television industry:
 
      "Newspaper people need not apply," he said.[84]  The implication of this
 
          rhetoric is that one of Gartner's problems was that he lacked
 
   broadcasting experience and that this lack of experience may have been a
 
            contributing cause of the event.
Interviews after the firings, reassignments and resignations tend to
 
               reinforce the view that the NBC News organization would
surviveDthat
 
          this purge fixed the problems and everybody at NBC will live "happily
 
           ever after."  According to Los Angeles Times media critic Jane Hall,
 
          Dateline NBC reporter Brian Ross said "the show can rebound if it
sticks
 
            to good journalism. 'I do not feel personally targeted by the
incident,
 
            although all of us here have been saddened by what happened to some
of
 
            our colleagues in this,' he said.  ... 'If we have good journalists
 
         running the show and we do sound stories, we'll do OK.'"[85]
The idea that the event should be put behind themDthat it should be
 
              forgottenDis evident in a column by St. Louis Post-Dispatch
television
 
            critic Eric Mink, who describes a telephone conversation between Tom
 
          Brokaw, the NBC Nightly News anchor and television critics.  Note that
 
            Mink accepts Brokaw's opinion at face value, then gives an example
of
 
           how the event did have positive results: for example, it precipitated
 
           the transfer of the program I Witness Video from the news division to
 
           the entertainment division:
 
In a conference call with television critics last week, Brokaw said he
 
                    thought viewers had had about as much of the "Dateline"
story as they
 
                   wanted.  "The public, it's my very strong impression, is
ready to move
 
                    on," Brokaw said. He said the mistakes made in the GM-truck
piece were
 
                    both "inexplicable and unforgivable," but said NBC's inquiry
into the
 
                   matter produced a "very thorough and commendable report.
People lost
 
                  their jobs."
Brokaw insisted that the "Dateline" scandal was "the exception, not the
 
                    rule, here at NBC" and praised the work of his colleagues in
the months
 
                    since that story broke.
"I'm extraordinarily proud of the work done here under very difficult
 
                   conditions," he said. "I was concerned that there'd be a
falling off of
 
                    effort, and it just didn't happen."
Beyond the report and the firings, though, there have been some good
 
                  things to come out of this mess. The despicable "I Witness
Video" show,
 
                    for example, is being transferred to NBC's entertainment
division, where
 
                    it belongs, if anywhere.[86]
I Witness Video is a program which shows amateur videos shot during
 
              disasters and scandalous events, and gives the firsthand stories
of the
 
            amateur TV videographers.  The program probably came about as a
 
     commercial response to the impact of the amateur video shot by George
 
           Holliday of Rodney King being beaten by Los Angeles police.  One
 
      anonymous source at NBC told Los Angeles Times reporter Steve Weinstein
 
            that Gartner had been the principal supporter of the program I
Witness
 
            Video staying within the news division.[87]  This was something that
 
      journalists found strange about Gartner: he was apparently so concerned
 
            about making his division profitable that he would allow a
            non-journalistic show to be produced in the news division.  To the
true
 
            journalists, this was unforgivable.
Others within the NBC News division expressed a positive attitude about
 
                 the effects of the event.  Knight-Ridder entertainment
columnist Gail
 
           Shister wrote that Stone Phillips, a co-anchor of Dateline NBC,
believed
 
            the consequences of the event would be good for the profession and
the
 
            NBC News institution:
 
NBC's strength will come from the news division's newly instituted
 
                system of internal checks and balances, Phillips says.  That
system is
 
                    the silver lining in the Dateline cloud.
"Industrywide, there has been a re-examination of how newsmagazines go
 
                    about doing their work.  That's always healthy.  Nobody
wants to be the
 
                    broadcast that hurts the over-all credibility of the whole
medium.  When
 
                    there's a mistake of this magnitude, it hurts us all.
Hopefully, some
 
                    good will come out of it."[88]
Again, expressions of optimistic rhetoric within NBC News in the
 
           aftermath of the ceremony reflect the attitude that the institution
will
 
            fix itself and become stronger because of the negative experience.
More
 
            than just a public relations ploy for outsiders, this kind of
rhetoric
 
            also helps boost employee moraleDperhaps making it a self-fulfilling
 
          prophecy.
 
Conclusions:
Definitions of journalism matter to those working in the profession and
 
                 institution of journalism.  These definitions are a way for
journalists
 
            to make sense of what they do and who belongs in their group.  As
 
       Stephen Reese has said, journalists "repair the paradigm" of journalism
 
            when individual journalists within the institution of journalism are
 
          identified as deviant or anomalous.[89]
The status degradation ceremony serves as a warning to journalists to
 
                follow the rules and stay within the boundaries of journalism,
or be
 
          sacrificed as deviants.  In this case, journalists defined their
 
      profession/institution as one which does not allow fabrications, then,
 
            in an act of social control, they kicked Gartner and other deviants
out
 
            of the institution.
Sociological "strain" and "interest" theories help explain how and why
 
                 the journalism institution produces boundary-work rhetoric.
Clifford
 
           Geertz says in strain theories, people "flee anxiety," and in
interest
 
            theories, they "pursue power," and they probably will do both at the
 
          same time, or do one as a result of the other.[90]   One could argue
that in
 
            the rhetoric surrounding this event, journalists attempted to flee
the
 
            anxiety of the public disgrace of the well-publicized example of
 
      fraudulent practices, and at the same time, attempted to pursue the
 
         power of the authority of journalism, accomplishing both by sanctioning
 
            the perpetrators.
The ceremonial rhetoric demonstrates how the boundaries of a social
 
              institution are drawn differently by those inside and outside the
 
       institution, and how the institution precisely enforces the boundaries.
The rhetoric also shows how the ceremony is done in a way to cleanse the
 
                 profession and make it healthy again, and to deflect attention
away from
 
            the structural defects of the journalism institution.  The concept
that
 
            truth (and, implicitly, a social institution which practices full
 
       disclosure) will prevail in times of controversy can be linked to the
 
           self-righting principle expressed by John Milton: "Let [Truth] and
 
        falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the wors[e], in a free and
 
            open encounter?"[91]
 
 
 [1]    The concept for this study of the sociology of journalism par
allels a study by
 
              sociologists of science: Gieryn, Tho
mas F., and Anne Figert. "Scientists Protect their
 
 
 Cognitive Authority: The Status Degradation Ceremony of Sir Cyril Burt,"
 In B"hme,
 
                 Gernot and Nico Stehr (eds.), The Knowl
edge Society. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel,
 
                  1986.
 
[2]     Garfinkel, Harold. "Conditions of successful status degradation ce
remonies,"
 
            American Journal of Sociology 61: 420-424 (
1956).
[3]     Gieryn, Thomas F., George M. Bevins and Stephen C. Zehr. "Pr
ofessionalization of
 
               American scientists: Public scien
ce in the creation/evolution trials." American
 
              Soc
iological Review 50: 393 (June 1985).
[4]     Merton, Robert K., with Thoma
s F. Gieryn, "Institutionalized Altruism: The Case of
 the Professions,"
 Pp. 109-134 in Merton, Robert K. Social research and the practicing
 
 
               professions. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Books, 1982., p. 124.
 
[5]     Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Fre
e Press, 1984.
[6]     Erickson, Kai. Wayward Puritans. New York: Wiley, 19
66.
[7]     Gaziano, Cecilie, and Kristin McGrath. "Measuring the Concept o
f Credibility,"
 
              Journalism Quarterly 63: 451-462 (Autu
mn 1986).
[8]     Newspaper Credibility: Building Reader Trust. Washington,
 D.C.: American Society
 
               of Newspaper Editors, 1985.
[
9]      May, William F. "Professional Ethics, The University, and The Journal
ist," Journal
 of Mass Media Ethics 1(2): 20-31 (Spring/Summer 1986).
[
10]     Carey, James. Communication as Culture. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989, p
. 82.
[11]    Gieryn & Figert, p. 67.
[12]    Starr, Paul. The Social Trans
formation of American Medicine. New York: Basic
 
             Books,
 1982., p. 13.
[13]    Starr, p. 15.  For a discussion of the altruistic n
ature of the professions, see:
 Merton, & Gieryn, 1982.
[14]    Dahlgren,
 Peter. "Introduction," in Peter Dahlgren and Colin Sparks (eds.),
 
 
 
            Journalism and Popular Culture. London: Sage, 1992., p. 4.
 
[15]    These issues closely parallel the issues raised in Gieryn and Figer
t, pp. 67-68.
[16]    Hallin, Daniel C. "The Passing of the 'High Modernis
m' of American Journalism."
 
               Journal of Communication 4
2 (Summer 1992): 14-24.
[17]    Gieryn, Thomas F. "Boundary-work and the d
emarcation of science from non-science:
 strains and interests in profes
sional ideologies of scientists." American Sociological
 Review 48 (Dece
mber 1983): 781-795.
[18]    The original article: Cooke, Janet. "Jimmy's
World," Washington Post September
 
               28, 1980, p. 1.  For
 a detailed report on the aftermath of the scandal, see: After
 
 
             "Jimmy's World:" Tightening Up in Editing. New York: Nationa
l News Council, 1981.
[19]    Dahlgren, p. 2.
[20]    Garfinkel, p. 420.
[
21]     "Michael Gartner: NBC's multimedia newsman," Broadcasting, April 3,
1989, p. 95.
[22]    Roper, James E. "Gartner: 'There's no right to privac
y,'" Editor & Publisher.
 
              March 21, 1987, pp. 52, 62.
 
[23]    Stein, M. L. "Anonymous Sources," Editor & Publisher October 24, 19
87, p. 17.
[24]    "Breaking into Broadcast News At the Top," Newsweek Aug
ust 8, 1988, p. 59.
[25]    Foss, Sonja K., Karen A Foss, and Robert Trapp
.  Contemporary Perspectives on
 
              Rhetoric. Prospect Hei
ghts, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1985, pp. 11-12.
[26]    These interpretat
ions are based on my presuppositions and the presuppositions of
 
 
          my professional and cultural upbringing as American, liberal Pr
otestant minister's son,
 midwesterner, former union member, journalist,
 now journalism educator, and, ironicall
 
                   y, a repea
t owner of GM full size pickup trucks.
[27]    Giddins, Anthony. New Rules
 of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of
 
           Interp
retive Sociologies. New York: Basic Books, 1976., pp. 52-129.
[28]    Garf
inkel, p. 422ff.
[29]    Warren, Robert S. and Lewis B. Kaden, "Report of
Inquiry into Crash
 
    Demonstrations Broadcast on Datelin
e NBC November 17, 1992," unpublished report
 
              prepa
red for NBC News, March 23, 1993., p. 23.
[30]    Diamond, Edwin. "Auto-De
struct: NBC's Gartner Goes Boom," New York March 15,
 
             1
993., p. 18.
[31]    Alter, Jonathan, "On the Ropes at NBC News," Newsweek
, March 8, 1993, p. 49.
[32]    Hall, Jane, "NBC News: A Question of Stand
ards," Los Angeles Times, February 15,
 
               1993, Sec. F, p
. 13.
[33]    Ettorre, Barbara, "Was General Motors Smart to Mobilize the
Troops?" Management
 
               Review, December 1993, p. 9.
[34]
        Brill, Steven, "Ending the Double Standard," The American Lawyer, April
 1993, p.
 
               5.
[35]    Brill, April 1993.
[36]    Kurtz, H
oward, "Why the press is always right: Being a Journalist Means Never
 
 
              Having to Say You're Sorry," Columbia Journalism Review,
May/June 1993, p. 33.
[37]    Rosenberg, Howard. "A tabloid pattern of beh
avior at NBC," Los Angeles Times,
 
              February 15, 1993, S
ec. F, p. 10.
[38]    "Breaking Into Broadcast News At the Top," Newsweek,
 August 8, 1988, p. 59.
[39]    Hiltbrand, David, "Dateline NBC: Romancing
 Their Stone," People Weekly, June 22,
 
               1992, p. 14.
[
40]     Alter, March 8, 1993, p. 49.
[41]    Turner was quoted in: McClellan,
 Steve, "Gartner resigns, NBC News credibility
 
               drops i
n wake of 'Dateline'-GM truck scandal," Broadcasting & Cable, March 8, 19
93, pp.
 10, 12.
[42]    Herford was quoted in: Zurawik, David, and Chris
tina Stoehr, "Money Changes
 
            Everything," American Jour
nalism Review April 1993, p. 28.
[43]    Alter, March 8, 1993, p. 49.
[44
]       Alter, March 8, 1993, p. 49.
[45]    For example, see: Underwood, Doug.
 "When MBAs Rule the Newsroom." Columbia
 
           Journalism Re
view. March/April 1988, pp. 23-40.
[46]    Johnson, Peter, "NBC report det
ails flaws in 'Dateline' procedure," USA TODAY,
 
               March
23, 1993, sec. D, p. 3.
[47]    Huff, Richard, "Simulation Used in TV Piec
e on Bloch; Device Questioned," Variety
 
               , July 26, 1989
, p. 3
[48]    Diamond, Johnson, McCarthy, and Hall 3-12-93 mention Cooke.
  Zurawik & Stoehr
 
              mention Bloch.
[49]    Frey, Jennife
r, "Faked in Japan," American Journalism Review April 1993, pp.
 
 
          30-31.
[50]    Hiltbrand, p. 14.
[51]    Diamond, 18.
[52]    Rose
nberg, February 15, 1993, Sec. F, p. 10.
[53]    Rosenberg, February 15, 1
993, Sec. F, p. 10.
[54]    Hall, Jane, "NBC News: A Question of Standards
," Los Angeles Times, February 15,
 
               1993, Sec. F, p. 13
.
[55]    Kolbert, Elizabeth, "A Tabloid Touch In the Nightly News," New Y
ork Times,
 
           February 14, 1993, sec. 4, p. 1.
[56]    Ros
enberg, February 15, 1993, Sec. F, p. 10.
[57]    Hall, Jane, "Who Knew Wh
at in Question After 'Dateline' Apology," Los Angeles
 
 
Times, February 19, 1993, sec. F, p. 2.
[58]    Poynter Institute for Medi
a Studies, "When Good Journalists Do Bad Things:
 
           Truth
telling and the Public Trust," April 15, 1993, videotaped conference.
[5
9]      Zurawik and Stoehr, pp. 26-30.
[60]    Lieberman, David, "As NBC Cuts
Costs Will it Clobber Quality?" Business Week,
 
              Decembe
r 5, 1988, pp. 137-138.
[61]    Auletta, Ken. Three Blind Mice: How the TV
 networks lost their way. New York:
 
              Random House, 1991
., 22-23, 482-484.
[62]    "NBC's Gartner: A Full Plate, But No Tin Cup,"
Broadcasting, September 21, 1992,
 
               pp. 56, 58.
[63]    A
lter, Jonathan, "Behind the NBC News Blues," Newsweek, October 16, 1989,
pp.
 
              86-87.
[64]    Barnouw, Erik. Tube of Plenty, Revis
ed Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
 
               1982. p.
299.
[65]    Lord, Arthur A. "Is it real or is it TV news?" St Louis Post-
Dispatch, March 31,
 
               1993, p. 3C.
[66]    Zurawik and St
oehr, p. 28.
[67]    Zurawik and Stoehr, p. 29.
[68]    Zurawik and Stoehr,
 p. 29.
[69]    Warren, Robert S. and Lewis B. Kaden, "Report of Inquiry i
nto Crash
 
    Demonstrations Broadcast on Dateline NBC Nov
ember 17, 1992," unpublished report
 
              prepared for N
BC News, March 23, 1993., p. 14.
[70]    Frank, Reuven, "Yesterday's sure
thing," The New Leader, May 3, 1993, p. 20
[71]    Poynter conference tape
.
[72]    Rosenberg, Howard. "A tabloid pattern of behavior at NBC," Los A
ngeles Times
 
             February 15, 1993, Sec. F, p. 1.
[73]    D
iamond, Edwin. "Auto-Destruct: NBC's Gartner Goes Boom," New York March 1
5,
 
             1993., p. 18.
[74]    Hall, Jane. "NBC News: A Quest
ion of Standards." Los Angeles Times February 15,
 
               1993
, Sec F, pp. 1, 13.
[75]    Hall, 2-15-93, p. 13
[76]    Alter, March 8, 19
93, p. 49.
[77]    McClellan, March 8, 1993, pp. 10, 12.
[78]    Gay, Verne
, "Gartner reflects on hectic 1st year," Variety, August 9, 1989, pp.
 
 
 
               51-53.
[79]    Kurtz, Howard, and John Carmody, "NBC Exec
Ousted Over Staged Crash; Unpopular at
 Network, Michael Gartner Becomes
 'Fall Guy,'" Washington Post March 3, 1993, p. A1.
[80]    Alter, March 8
, 1993, p. 49.
[81]    Engstrom, John. "'Dateline NBC' bounces back, execu
tive says." The Blade. August
 
               5, 1993, sec. P, p. 4.
 
[82]    Hall, Jane. "Mixed mood at NBC News amid 'Dateline' probe." Los Ang
eles Times
 
              March 12, 1993, Sec F, p. 2.
[83]    Hall, 3
-12-93, p. 2.
[84]    Diamond, p. 20.
[85]    Hall, Jane, "'Dateline' Staff
 Hopeful About Show's Future," Los Angeles Times,
 
               Marc
h 24, 1993, sec. F, p. 8.
[86]    Mink, Eric, "NBC News takes action to pu
t 'Dateline' debacle away," St. Louis
 
              Post-Dispatch, M
arch 28, 1993, p. 8C.
[87]    Weinstein, Steve, "NBC News wants to transfe
r 'I Witness Video,'" Los Angeles
 
              Times, March 13, 199
3, p. F2.
[88]    Shister, Gail, "Dateline NBC anxious to win back credibi
lity," The Toronto Star,
 
               March 30, 1993, p. C2.
[89]
        Reese, Stephen, "The news paradigm and the limits of objectivity: A soci
alist at
 
               the Wall Street Journal," paper presented to
the Qualitative Studies Division,
 
             Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, 1989 convention,
 
 
               Washington, D.C.
[90]    Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretati
on of Cultures; Selected Essays. New York:
 
             Basic Books
, 1973., p. 201.
[91]    Milton, John. Areopagitica: For the Liberty of Un
licenc'd Printing. London:
 
            Author, 1644., p. 34.