The consumer beat

The other night, Channel 4 celebrated another decennial if its "4 on your side" series, a copy of a a rival station's original "contact 6" consumer help segment. I like most people have always felt these segments were a service, but looking at them disinterestedly, I see two sides. The consumers that are helped are not always necessarily in the right. The companies that are on the other side of these segments, who usually do something to make the customer whole, deserved or not, probably aren't due a great deal of sympathy overall, but given the unfairness of a lot of what the local news does, it's worth looking at the process here. I have never seen a report where the customer was acknowledged to be wrong, and the local station advertised the fact that it took their case, discovered the client was undeserving, and abandoned them in order to avoid effecting undeserved relief. The station is advertising its services as an advocate, which is a problematic position for it since it also is the only entity available to serve as neutral judge. Assuming the client passes whatever initial screening the station does, it employs the same shame ethic that it so vulgarly applies to the deadbeat dads, revoked drivers, and miscellaneous petty offenders who are targets of its "investigative" segments. The alleged corporate offender, innocent or guilty, has an interest in avoiding or mitigating negative exposure, and so has motivation to give the consumer something, and be seen as contrite and helpful in setting right whatever is wrong.

I also want to relate this to the "Dirty Dining" segments that the station airs. It would be a service to note, as the newspaper has, that the frequency of public inspections has not met federal standards, and that a concerned individual can simply look up all the information online that the station is using as the basis of its reports. I have no idea that any of the reporters on these segments, primarily Courtney Garrish, have any training or expertise in this area, although I must admit that after holding this beat and reading all the reports she has, she must be pretty familiar at least with some of the standard violations. But this does nothing to quantify the risk or place into perspective the position of one restaurant with respect to its peers. There is always a risk that by the process of reporting, the news will foster a misimpression that the ordinary or insignificant is extraordinary or severe. It would be interesting to know whether these reports actually contribute any deterrent effect to restaurants. Maybe it encourages them to relocate to where the inspection reports are not so public.

Tonight, I was shocked because the station actually aired the side of an accused. It relayed the denials of a man who confessed (in terms he says were misunderstood) to the beating of a bus driver in footage repeatedly aired on the station. I must note this to be fair.