Long Beach Independent Press-Telegram, Fred Barker launches crusade against Norton N-22, which he claims has a "history of unacceptable safety incidents." Orange County Telegraph-Star, Fred Barker's campaign to make airlines safe. Orange County Telegraph-Star, Barker accuses FAA of failing to clamp down on "unsafe Norton aircraft." Orange County Telegraph-Star, Barker key witness for Bradley King lawsuit, settled out of court.
Jennifer was beginning to see the shape that the story would take. Clearly they should stay away from the ambulance chaser, Bradley King. But Barker, a former FAA official, would be useful. He would probably also be able to criticize certification practices by the FAA.
And she noticed that Jack Rogers, the reporter for the Orange County Telegraph-Star, took a particularly critical view of Norton Aircraft. She noted several recent stories under Rogers's byline:
Orange County Telegraph-Star, Edgarton under pressure to make new sales for troubled company. Dissension among directors, top management. Doubts he will succeed.
Orange County Telegraph-Star, drug and gang activity on Norton twinjet assembly line.
Orange County Telegraph-Star, rumors of union trouble. Workers oppose the China sale, which they say will ruin the company.
Jennifer smiled.
Things were definitely looking up.
She called Jack Rogers at his newspaper. "I've been reading your pieces on Norton. They're excellent. I gather you think the company's got some problems."
"A lot of problems," Rogers said.
"You mean with the airplanes?"
"Well, yes, but they're also having union problems."
"What's that about?"
"It's not clear. But the plant's in turmoil, and management's not leading. The union's angry about the China sale. Thinks it shouldn't happen."
"Will you talk about this on camera?"
"Sure. I can't give you my sources, but I'll tell you what I know."
Of course he would, Jennifer thought. It was the dream of every print reporter to somehow get on television. The print guys all understood the real money came from appearing on the box. No matter how successful you were in print, you were nothing unless you could get on TV. Once you had name recognition from TV, you could migrate to the lucrative lecture circuit, getting five, ten thousand dollars just to speak at a lunch.
"I'll probably be out later in the week… My office will contact you."
"Just tell me when," Rogers said.
She called Fred Barker in Los Angeles. He almost seemed to be expecting her call. "That's pretty dramatic videotape," she said.
"It's frightening," Barker said, "when an aircraft's slats deploy at nearly the speed of sound. That's what happened on the Transpacific flight. It's the ninth such incident since the aircraft entered service."
"The ninth?'
"Oh yes. This is nothing new, Ms. Malone. At least three other deaths are attributable to Norton's shoddy design, and yet the company has done nothing."
"You have a list?"
"Give me your fax number."
She stared at the list. It was a little too detailed for her taste, but still compelling:
Norton N-22 Slats Deployment Incidents
1. January 4,1992. Slats deployed at FL350, at.84 Mach. The flap/slat handle moved inadvertently.
2. April 2,1992. Slats deployed while the airplane was in cruise at.81 Mach. A clipboard reportedly fell on the flap/slat handle.
3. July 17,1992. Initially reported as severe turbulence; however it was later learned that the slats had extended as a result of inadvertent flap/slat handle movement. Five passenger injuries, three serious.
4. December 20,1992. Slats extended in cruise flight without movement of the flap/slat handle in cockpit. Two passenger injuries.
5. March 12,1993. Airplane entered a prestall buffet at.82 Mach. The slats were found to be extended and the handle was not in the up and locked position.
6. April 4,1993. First officer rested his arm on the flap/slat handle, moved the handle down, extending the slats. Several passenger injuries.
7. July 4,1993. Pilot reported the flap/slat handle moved and slats extended. Aircraft was in cruise flight at.81 Mach.
8. June 10,1994. The slats extended while the airplane was in cruise flight without movement of the flap/slat handle.
She picked up the phone and called Barker back. "Will you talk about these incidents on camera?"
"I've testified in court about this on numerous occasions," Barker said. "I'll be happy to speak to you on the record. The fact is, I want this airplane fixed before more people die. And nobody has been willing to do it-not the company, and not the FAA. It's a disgrace."
"But how can you be so sure this flight was a slats accident?"
"I have a source inside Norton," Barker said. "A disgruntled employee who is tired of all the lying. My source tells me it is slats, and the company is covering up."
Jennifer got off the phone with Barker, and pushed the intercom button. "Deborah!" she screamed. "Get me Travel!"
Jennifer closed the door to her office, and sat quietly. She knew she had a story.
A fabulous story.
The question now was: What's the angle? How do you frame it?
On a show like Newsline, the frame was all-important. Older producers on the show talked about "context," which to them meant putting the story in a larger setting. Indicating what the story meant, by reporting what had happened before, or reporting similar things that had occurred. The older guys thought context so important, they seemed to regard it as a kind of moral or ethical obligation.
Jennifer disagreed. Because when you cut out all the sanctimonious bullshit, context was just spin, a way of pumping the story-and not a very useful way, because context meant referring to the past
Jennifer had no interest in the past; she was one of the new generation that understood that gripping television was now, events happening now, a flow of images in a perpetual unending electronic present. Context by its very nature required something more than now, and her interest did not go beyond now. Nor, she thought, did anyone else's. The past was dead and gone. Who cared what you ate yesterday? What you did yesterday? What was immediate and compelling was now.
And television at its best was now.
So a good frame had nothing to do with the past. Fred Barker's damning list of prior incidents was actually a problem, because it drew attention to the fading, boring past. She'd have to find a way around it-give it a mention and go on.
What she was looking for was a way to shape the story so that it unfolded now, in a pattern that the viewer could follow. The best frames engaged the viewer by presenting the story as a conflict between good and bad, a morality story. Because the audience got that. If you framed a story that way, you got instant acceptance. You were speaking their language.
But because the story also had to unfold quickly, this morality tale had to hang from a series of hooks that did not need to be explained. Things the audience already knew to be true. They already knew big corporations were corrupt, their leaders greedy sexist pigs. You didn't have to prove that; you just had to mention it. They already knew that government bureaucracies were inept and lazy. You didn't have to prove that, either. And they already knew that products were cynically manufactured with no concern for consumer safety.
From such agreed-upon elements, she must construct her morality story.