Showing posts with label KABC-TV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label KABC-TV. Show all posts

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.