Chautauqua, Day 2: David Westin

Let me start by saying that, as far as executives inside major corporations go, my experience heretofor has been that company lawyers are about the last folks you want to invite to the big chair, to Presidencies and Chief-Executiveships. That’s not to say that savvy business people can’t be lawyers too, but those folks who specifically exist to protect the organization by managing relationships vis the law have a strange and wonderful perspective on growth and development of initiatives. They say “no” a lot.

Such is, ironically, the situation with David Westin, current president of ABC News. Now, my experience with corporate lawyers on one hand, and my experience in the newsroom on the other, and there’s just no way to make this math work.

Yet, somehow, by all current measures and standards for broadcast news, it does. A decade ago, Westin stepped into the presidency and has maintained healthy development of news programming over the years. As a newsman, he’s learned the business from some of the best; Peter Jennings, Charlie Gibson, Barbara Walters to name a few.

What struck me most about his talk today was his overall tone of contrition. On Iraq: “We blew it.” On build-up to war and WMD’s: “We blew it.” On election projections in 2000: “We blew it. Twice.” In general, when there is a perceived failure in reporting: “We blew it.”

And that’s where he wraps up all critical failures in the field. “Whith all the changes we see in the media, there’s a temptation to be distracted from reporting,” said Westin.

In many respects, this connects directly to Harwood’s discussion yesterday on the role of newspaper reporting in the media sphere. Where TV fails, newspapers pick up some of the slack. Unfortunately, distration from reporting is perceived to happen more and more often in network television.

“The real difference between doing right and doing wrong in journalism lies in how closely we are to covering the news,” he said.

And that, according to Westin, is the thrust of his leadership in the ABC newsroom.

Take the Virginia Tech shooting, for example. The news head says that Charlie Gibson was widely lauded with critical acclaim in the media for level-headed and balanced coverage, not catering to the sensational, to the maudlin, to coverage designed to pull heartstrings. Instead, he said, they stuck to facts, driving toward who the assailant was, how he was afflicted psychologically, and how the University was equipped to deal with such situations.

Westin is on the Internet bandwagon. “The Internet offers the possibility of greatly expanding our newsgathering capability,” he said.

Take the Tom Foley/Page story, for example. As it originally hit ABC, the story was not ready for prime time. They posted the brief on the Internet and within hour were flooded with tips from other pages saying that they were insulted ABC would post that Foley was simply “overly friendly.” The story built itself before their eyes thanks to those following on the net.

Westin’s position is that the Internet becomes a bellweather, an audition stage for stories to make it to the big screen. At the same time, he laments the in depth reporting that is afforded print journalists. To me, there’s a contradiction — and opportunity — in there somewhere.

Imagine an ABC that leveraged its considerable breadth of reach around the globe and used the website as less of a test-bed and more of a place of reportage. This morning’s lead stories on ABCNews.com? Killer rains, Iraq, and John Edwards and his wife in a street fight with Ann Coulter.

ABCNews.com stories demonstrate what all three major network websites offer: TV reporters writing snack stories not fit for broadcast. Let’s see what happens when these sites become true journalistic assets. Oh, and don’t forget the iPhone.

Two more points stuck out for me. The first was the more obvious ethical issue: when is the reportage coming out of Iraq no longer worth the personal sacrifice we’re asking our journalists to make there? His take: when the value of the reporting is no longer worth the risk involved, they’ll pull out of Iraq. Note, according to Westin: “We’re not there yet.”

The second point I found interesting has nothing to do with the war, the news, or reporting at all. During the Q&A, an audience member asked if being in the Disney stable posed ethical questions for Westin in leading a news organization.

The advantages, he says, are significant.

When 9/11 happened, we went on the air obviously commercial-free, but we went on the air for about four-and-a-half days straight, 24 hours a day, and we preempted everything on the network. We commissioned millions of dollars in expenses immediately without ever calling anybody, and the only thing I ever heard from Disney was, “How can we help you?”

So, there’s the issue of resources. Clearly, had they been a stand-alone news organization without the rich uncle, things would have been different. But what about editorial sanctity?

People think I get calls all the time from our corporate headquarters saying, “Cover that story;”"Don’t cover the story.” That never happens. Now that’s because they’re really good people or maybe it’s because they know that, if that ever did happen, it would be an explosion. There’d be a huge scandal. But I can tell you, that doesn’t happen.

OK, so Disney pays the bills, and they don’t question or influence your editorial process. It’s a match made in heaven, right?

The problem is a different problem. We are about a $600 million business, in terms of our costs every year. Compared to the Walt Disney Company, that’s almost miniscule. And as a reult, this is not like the Sulzbergers owning a newspaper, or the Grahams owning a newspaper, where the news organization is at the center, the core of what drives the company and what they care about. This good news is they leave us alone. The bad news is the CEO of the compnay has a lot more important things to do…”

I’ll be damned if I can find just how many people visit Disney parks each month. But here’s a loose point of comparison. Since opening in 1967, approximately 500 million people have seen the Pirates of the Carribbean exhibit. How many people does the ABC News organization reach each month? 200 million.