Showing posts with label KABC-TV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label KABC-TV. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Sunday, August 16, 2015
Local TV News Has all but killed Itself!
Los Angeles, CA—Television
news has been a 60-year exercise in monkey see, monkey do plagiarism.
Today’s TV executives are playing
to the lowest common denominator. The
unproductive and ignorant seem to be the current TV news target audience. Does
this serve the sponsors that thrive on financially sound viewer’s buying power?
Is this more about guiding
the lame, dependent and ignorant to vote for the Liberal political ticket? I have no doubt that’s too often the reality.
It’s not the number of
viewers but rather their spending power that counts in the end. How can anyone sell new cars to brain-dead and
impoverished underachievers?
TV news would have died long
ago but for lucrative political ads during elections.
My recommendations?
I will begin with the abuse of
the Breaking News label. Last night’s
news is not breaking in the morning. Are
viewers so dumb they can be convinced yesterday’s news is breaking?
The overuse and abuse of silly live
shots sending crews to scenes just to be there when nothing is happening is so
lame. Viewers would be better served by
more comprehensive and pre-recorded video packages.
Why are they always broadcasting
those gossipy-nosy neighbor reaction interviews for crime stories? Revealing the results of verified public record
checks makes much more sense. This also
leads to finding great people to interview.
Helicopters and drones are a
must to gather images since all news is appearing on screens rather than
traditional television. Drones are much
cheaper and in many applications superior and certainly always safer.
Television news must begin to
simulcast news on the Internet and when they do their advertisers should be
joining them. Between broadcasts a menu
of stories to watch makes sense. Looking
at viewing stats tells us just what stories viewers want to see.
The overuse and abuse of
redundant TV news identification graphics.
They far too often interfere with
viewing the video. A small watermark is more
than enough.
One of my favorite news
directors ever developed a slogan her station wisely used, “Less Chit-Chat and More
News.”
I loathe today’s TV news organizations
doing crime stories the most. The
reporters are sent out for live shots with police PIO’s that will only release
self-serving and often misleading information.
Tracking down and
interviewing the witnesses, the accused and their lawyers will tell the whole
story. Only getting that sound bite from
the PIO’s makes using reporters unnecessary. Only a photographer is needed to get the “official”
filtered government version.
Covering news conferences by
law enforcement officials live on a big story is always a terrible idea. The local politicians and the police bosses use
the first 15 minutes congratulating themselves and each other while mugging for
the cameras. Too often these things
degenerate into a campaign photo-op for politicians.
The most obvious red flag is seeing politicians
in attendance at those news conferences.
Would the news audience be deprived if they didn’t hear some mayor droning
on about his great leadership being responsible for the solving of a
crime? Let the politicians purchase airtime
rather than simply give it away!
TV news unwisely jettisoned their
field producers long ago. It’s almost
impossible for a TV reporter doing live shots to flesh out a news story alone.
Does every story deserve a
live shot at the expense of content? The answer is greatly limiting the live
shots opting instead for significant content. Talking heads are no comparison to quality video
with competent voiceover and meaningful witness interviews.
TV executives must learn that
their audience has already moved on to iPhones and iPads. Only the elderly, handicapped and least affluent viewers
sit in front of TV sets at home anymore.
It’s time for TV news to
adapt and regain the viewers that fled traditional TV for the Internet.
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Ethics for Newsdronies? What New Rules Should We Establish?
Los Angeles, CA—Before I
share my thoughts I want you to see what a seemingly thoughtful journalist,
Matt Waite has to say about the use of drones for Electronic News Gathering or
ENG. It’s important that you first watch
his video presentation. My response is below the video.
Okay, Waite made a really melodramatic example of anecdote from his reporting past to make a point. It was a really unfair and simplistic overstatement
of a highly unusual situation he once encountered.
Waite’s dramatic example
is one we all can resolve by simply keeping enough distance between the drone
and the grieving woman that Waite described. Only the most soulless bastard
would dare to bring a buzzing drone into that poor woman’s face!
Additionally, Waite unleashed
his little drone inside the theater where he’s speaking and the natural
acoustics there exaggerated the multi-rotor drone’s noise substantially.
At 40 or 50 feet outdoors
that noise is barely noticeable. Animals
will hear it much better than humans.
Actually is it substantially quieter that any typical news
helicopter. We need to first consider
the current ethics of a news helicopter ENG crew for comparison.
Helicopters make much more noise and
everyone knows they are probably using very expensive high definition telephoto
cameras because they are!
The little drones are much
less intrusive or noisy than helicopters unless and until you begin to invade
someone’s personal space. Frankly doing that would interfere with obtaining
video that you’re there to capture.
I must of course, beg the
question, would invading the personal space of a rapist, murder or armed robber
with a drone causing the termination of a horrific act be somehow unethical?
It may not be the job of
journalists to interfere with crime but we must remember that we all have a much
higher duty when human life is at stake.
Or is it somehow more virtuous or ethical to give our content viewers a
voyeuristic view of a horrible crime we may have easily thwarted?
News directors and journalism
professors will be struggling these drone issues just like they did when the
first helicopters were utilized for ENG decades ago.
The job of the ENG
Newsdronies will be to get the images.
Most of the important “ethical” decisions will be made inside TV control
rooms and editing bays.
Live shots are different and
everyone involved in newsgathering and broadcasting must consider the safety of
hostages and cops. A ten-second delay
solves many problems inherent or pulling out for a wider shot may be what’s
called for. Simple common sense must be
applied.
Actually drone propeller
noise can be greatly reduced by using special, balanced carbon fiber propellers
instead of the plastic ones that come with most mini-drones.
How close to the news-making
event is too close for an ENG drone?
Obviously bringing a drone within 20 feet of people will change their
behavior. If someone were being viciously
attacked would that drone distraction slow or stop the crime? Could it also give a victim a chance to flee
and survive? Is that somehow a bad thing?
I can’t help but think about
the TV news helicopter video shot during the Rodney King Riot in L.A. That image gathering provided a solid
identification of the person trying to kill truck driver Reginald Denny in that
shockingly savage attack. As a result of
the images gathered the offender was quickly captured by police and removed
from our streets.
Those people involved in news
reporting really don’t need new drone ethics.
They simply need to apply the old ones to the current technology.
The drones belong in ENG more
than the helicopters we’ve grown accustomed to seeing at newsworthy events. Technology now has provided a gift that will
give us better news video at a fraction of the cost or danger of utilizing conventional helicopters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)