Stepping up—and falling short

It’s instructive to see how some “younger” female broadcast journalists are currently making decisive moves to step up to a more “significant” hierarchy of “stellar” clout and importance.

In particular, a younger subanchor used to handle lesser and lighter topics for years, but has now become one of a newscasts’ regular anchors.

In the light of her promotion, there has been a conscious effort on her part to “prove” that she can credibly tackle “weightier” topics and interviews.

One time, for instance, she was assigned to do a long, one-on-one interview with a VIP and top newsmaker.

Look, the special assignment seemed to subliminally say, she has what it takes to do full justice to a complex task all by her lonesome, so she “deserves” to be taken more seriously from here on in.

On a different network, another female broadcast journalist has also “moved up” by way of her own news and public affairs interview show, with similarly important guests lined up for her to confidently interact with.

Unfortunately, in both instances, the “stepping up” move is falling short of its career-boosting objective, because the changes being showcased are more superficial than truly significant.

The main gambit is to have the “promoted” interviewer ask the VIP guest a series of “heavy” questions about controversial issues that the guest has been involved with.

The issues are significant and controversial—but, most of them have already been addressed and settled in the past, so the guest has little that’s new to offer in his responses.

Instead of probing more deeply, the interviewer generally moves on to the next controversy, generating pretty much the same obvious and twice-told responses.

It’s like the interviewer is ticking off one “must-ask” item after another, to prove that she’s done her research.

But, the informed viewer does not agree with that facile and self-complimentary conclusion, so the gambit is exposed for the superficial and cosmetic ploy.

Veteran broadcast journalists who have “earned” the viewing public’s trust are genuinely more astute, analytical and insightful than that.

They refuse to take safe, “motherhood” and cover-up responses at face value, and unflinchingly dig deeper until the guest is “forced” to reveal the truth that he’s skillfully been fudging up to placate or fool lesser interviewers.

They don’t arrive at this truth-telling level by asking secondhand lists of shallow questions—which is why perceptive viewers reward them with uncommon praise and trust.

Other broadcast journalists who want to fast-track the necessary maturation process have to go back to the salt mines and eat humble pie—no shortcuts allowed!