An excerpt from
Killer Bunnies and Shark Attacks: Why Reporters Travel in Herds

Brooks Jackson, former CNN and Wall Street Journal reporter

February 3, 2003, Blackistone Room, Anne Arundel Hall
(As transcribed by Joseph Rieu, Student Researcher, Center for the Study of Democracy)

"Midway through Jimmy Carter's administration, I was covering the White House when I came across this curious story. The way it happened was that President Carter was making his way down the Mississippi River towards St. Louis aboard a battle steamer, called the Delta Kane. It was supposed to be a family vacation, a pre-campaign family vacation in April of 1979. The envoy made several stops, including one in Iowa and he gave a speech, and he was very exhausted.

On one stop, in Plains, Georgia, the President was fishing on board the Delta Kane when the rabbit showed up. One was quoted as saying that 'the President has been attacked by a rabbit while fishing.' The President himself was quoted as saying the rabbit appeared "crazed," showing its very large teeth, and he pursued to splash at it with water along the river bank A by standing photographer took a picture, and now we have this picture of the President, who had trouble getting the rabbit out of the water and trying frantically to get it out. The staff that was accompanying Carter was reported to be afraid of the rabbit, and it is reported that Carter had to take it upon himself to scare the rabbit away. Now, I had heard the story and a rival reporter also heard it and, at the time, it didn't seem like news. Or so we thought....

Practically every newspaper in the country ran this thing. It was a world sensation. It was just a monstrous story. Seemingly insignificant, nobody's lives were affected by this thing. Yet for days, it was the topic of discussion amongst news sources. But I have it figured out: this story was inevitable. It seemed to crystallize the unsure kind of way a lot of people had come to view the President of that time as a very weak President. What this story is, importantly, is that the problem is that a story can make the news without having the slightest real significance. Here you have a story whose impact has zero bearing on the lives of pretty much anybody....

A big contemporary story that has emerged in the past few years proves that this is more than just an isolated occurrence in journalistic practice, the example of the 'shark attacks' that has consumed the media for the summer of 2001. The story of the 'shark attacks' begins with a horrifying true story of an eight-year-old boy being attacked by a bull shark in the waters off of Pensacola, Florida. Now that's a story, a dramatic story. But, what followed was a feeding frenzy. Shark attack stories started popping up all over. It became 'all sharks, all the time,' and the media would have you believe that the whole world was under attack. That impression was false. Statistics from the University of Florida suggest, internationally, were actually fewer in 2001 than the year before. So why did time label the summer of 2001 "the summer of the shark"? ....

I feel that there are significant commercial forces that push news coverage in a particular direction, even at the cost of becoming trivial, of ignoring more important events, and the fact that the assumptions made by reporting patterns are essentially false.

One key commercial force is the emerging multiple twenty-four-hour cable news networks that are, to a large extent, corporately owned and operated. Here's the way that twenty four hour news changes the kind of story that is considered news. It's obvious that cable news allows the world to watch, in real time, important events unfold. Think back to September 11. The first plane hit the World Trade Center tower and, I can even say that most of you turned on the television and watch the news unfold and may have even seen the second plane hit the second tower in real time. Thus it is well understood that twenty four hour coverage and the extent of its resources allows for the viewing of developing events in real time....

The baby Jessica story has been a model for what has, ever since, been sought out as news. The search for Chandra Levy case is a recent example. Day after day, with no events, no developments in this story, it was reported, the facts of the case, over and over and over again. Talking heads would be shown on cable news networks speculating based on the already established facts of the case and may or may not have been based on actual developments. What the Chandra Levy case suggests is that facts are no longer considered essential in the news. You only need a few facts to keep conjecture and speculation going, keep stirring the pot, "she may or may not be dead but stay tuned." That's the important part....

This is the prevailing model of contemporary news: soap-opera news. It doesn't need to be important. What is essential is that it be emotional and it be dramatic so that large viewing populations will keep tuning in to see how a particular news story "turns out". We don't want any news story that is actually self-contained or where you know what has happened because people won't constantly tune in to acquire knowledge of developments.

There are studies that show that Americans, on average, spend about 15 minutes a day watching the news. Before cable news, in fact, conciseness was considered a virtue. Tell the story in as few words as possible. Amongst newspaper editors, the consensus was that a reader could read the first paragraph of a news story and walk away knowing what the story was about. Now there is a commercial imperative: cable news networks run twenty four hours and the consensus is not the same. The commercial imperative that prevails is based on hype and the soap-opera appeal. Now there is more pressure than ever to go with the soap-opera type stories. The distinction between the war in Bosnia and the Chandra Levy case, according to the commercial imperative, is whether or not the American viewer can relate. As a result, news networks are more likely to have more coverage of the soap opera story than a developing war....

Most journalists will tell you that journalism is special, but it is a business. It must be a profitable business in order to be healthy. There is a reason that the freedom of the press is guaranteed by the very first amendment of the Constitution and that's because an informed public is essential to the workings of a constitutional democracy. This amendment was not written just so that media outlets can profit. It was written so that people can feel safe in speaking out against the government. Facts and opinions are, of course, shaped by information and media outlets. This freedom was granted so that the people can serve as a watchdog...

What I see is a fundamental change in the field of journalism, from bad to worse. This change, in which killer bunnies and shark attacks are increasingly crowding out other news lessen our public understanding of what's going on."