I read with, at times, great disgust Feder's column today. It contained letters from readers either complimenting or complaining about the wall-to-wall coverage most stations did on the LaSalle Bank building fire. What bugged me the most was people who complained that they couldn't see their precious Monday Night Football or other prime time programming. As one reader put it, things like that fire are what local news is all about. In my opinion, what were we supposed to do: let the building stay on fire and let it spread and spread only to have something worse happen to the building, like a collapse...only so noone can see or hear about it? Absolutely not.

The more I watched Channel 2's live coverage on the internet, the more I was drawn in (Since I used to live and work in Chicago, part of it was admittedly the "I know where that is" part of my mind). I'm sure the professionals of this organization who covered the fire did an exemplary job. I know that what I saw was important to cover, until the very end. The little things like a football game and the glut of reality shows can wait, until we as reporters can convey to our listeners and viewers that everything is going to be okay.

Tuesday, there was a debate on WMAY's Mike Wilson show in Springfield between Mike and program director Chris Murphy whether or not Channel 7 should have cut away from the game to cover the fire since Channels 2, 5, 9, and 32 also covered it.

F.T.R. - Wilson was for coverage while Murphy opposed it saying people could have switched to another channel.

Sorry Mr. Murphy, you don't get it and your reasoning is really flawed and I write not with an opinion as a journalist but also from the perspective of managing news.

Based on your reasoning, had you been the GM, PD, or ND of WABC-TV Channel 7 on 9/11/01 and hypothetically moving the attack day and time to 9pm (EDT) Monday instead of the actual event on Tuesday morning, you would have shown the football game, played between Denver and....the NY GIANTS. Ironic how things can work out, even in the hypothetical world.

I wonder what Murphy would have done with the complaint calls from New Yorkers for 9/11 non-coverage .

And from a management perspective, Channel 7 has more news viewers for its major newscasts and I'm sure WLS-TV lets people know they lead the way in its news imaging. Had Murphy managed Channel 7 into not covering the fire, it would have severly compromised that imaging.

Pardon me while I rant a bit (I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet and I have to cover the Governor in an hour ). But I get tired of armchair PD's who sanctimoniously make news decisions thinking they are real experts when they don't have a clue .

Late KMOX GM Robert Hyland had a plaque in the lobby of the station for years. Part of it read that leadership wins when people doing the right thing can stand up and take criticism from those who oppose it.

Yeah, listeners and viewers complain. Sometimes you have to ignore them and do the right thing.

Just my .02.

Sez

I saw the coverage on tv (burn mother burn) and didnt think it was all bad, just dont let antonio mora and dianne burns banter with each other on channel 2 anymore, shes annoying.

now lets hope we all get sprinklers...i say theyre needed now

I don't like to use the word "spectacular" unless it has a positive connotation, but what I saw of the fire truly was spectacular (negative connotation, but I'm convinced it's the correct use of the word). It was unusual to see fire coming out of a window one minute, then blowing sideways the next. Unbelieveable!

As for Scott's remarks, I agree 100% (and I've had plenty of coffee today). Fortunately, I work for a company that has always given the news the latitude it needs to break into programming as needed. Case in point: the day of the Maytag plant closure announcement two years ago. We went wall-to-wall for what seemed to be 2-hours when city/county/state officials held a press conference saying they wanted to help, not to mention all the react we did that day. People complained (we pre-empted Dr. Laura -- DARN!!!!!), but it was the right thing to do.

I only wish a P.D. in a city with 70-thousand more people than Galesburg would take its local news coverage as seriously as we do here!

For the record...I went to college with Mike Wilson. Good for him in regards to the stand he took -- Columbia College Chicago taught him well!

Now if we can only convince him to join INBA...

Amen!

I covered the fire (my "smokey clothes" are at the dry cleaners). We didn't know for sure until 12:30am that no one had been killed. In fact, there had been rumors circulating that two firefighters had died in the fire.

So, no one died. Does that make the story any less newsworthy? If yes...then, how many deaths does it take to make it newsworthy? One? Six? How about one jumping out a window equals six dead victims inside the building? One dead firefighter equals two dead civilians? Is that enough to make it newsworthy?

Of course, I'm be facetious here. The fact is, the local news media in Chicago did exactly what they are supposed to do...they reported breaking news. When people complained that reporters "kept saying the same thing over and over again", they were forgetting that not all viewers/listeners were tuned in for the entire duration of the fire. Viewers/listeners come and go...you have to keep the new consumers updated.

I may be biased in my assessment...but I think we did just fine Monday night.

Steve Scott
WLS-AM