B Roll Online/Rolling Discussion

STATE OF THE BUSINESS
b roll online
The TV News Photography Website

last update Saturday, March 03, 2001

State of the Business

Television Photojournalism. What is the state of our business today? Do we produce a better product than we did 10 years ago? (I use "we" generously, because I wasn't doing this then.) What have we changed? How has the world changed to affect us?

I was sitting in a bar the other night, and found myself watching the "Classic Sports Channel". I'm not into sports nostagia, but I was really interested in the look of television in some of these "Classic" productions. A baseball show from the 50's had the host wearing a six inch long "lavelier" microphone, and interviewing people with a HUGE stick mic (the only thing comparable today is a radio news mic flag!). Think of what those producers would think of our tiny wireless microphones. Not to mention the huge video cameras they were probably shooting on. And the incredible power draining lights needed to get a faint image on the screen.

Technology has made things smaller, lighter, faster, and better. Some new broadcast formats are having to add balast weight to their news cameras just to make them steady like the ol' trusty Betacam. We can hear miles away, we can see in the dark, and we can mount a camera unnoticeably on a belt buckle.

Have we gotten better as a result of this technolgy? In some ways yes. You could never tell a nat sound story, in the classic NPPA style, with wired microphones. You could never see the images of that dark alley without a small power station running your lights, and then obviously it doesn't look like a "dark" alley anymore. We can put better images and sound on the air, faster, and easier. But the fact that it is easier probably makes our work suffer.

The easier a trade is, the more apt "joe blow" is to being able to do it. You get individuals who don't really care about quality. We lose the apprenticeship system, which teaches not only skills, but pride in the product.

Can we maintain the quality standards? Or will they be the topic of a museum exhibit, next to cabinet makers and blacksmiths?

kev

ALWAYS CHANGING...
[From: Oscar DeLeon]

I feel that the camera and most of the support gear have gotten much better and is still constantly changing as I write this message. The problem I've seen is most stations are hiring young cheap labor. Many people entering the news business have little or no experince. Stations hire producers,desk people who have no clue what news is and most stations are now bean counters who only look at the bottom line.

State of the business
[From: Terry Toller]

Having been in the business for over 27 years, I have seen many changes. Some are good. Such as the size of the equipment not to mention the advent of live trucks...

The one thing which bothers me most about the changes is that local news and even networks don't dedicate the time necessary to tell the complete story. Many times it is painfully obvious that the reporter/station has a political agenda...

For instance: "Gun control". Did you know that there is plenty of evidence out there to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that communities which allow citizens to carry firearms for self protection have a much lower crime rate? It's true. If you don't believe it, that's because you have been brainwashed by the left.

I would be shocked to see a network or local story which tells the truth about "gun control".

Too often, the media repeats the utterances of government. It is our job to challenge the government! Remember? Tanks were sent into a church in Texas because, "We had information that they were abusing the children." Reno sure stopped the abuse, didn't she?

SURVEY FINDS VIEWERS INCREASINGLY TUNING OUT LOCAL TV NEWS
From: REP00@aol.com

With Complaints About Repetition, Sensationalism and Misleading Promotions Reaching Record Highs, Nearly One Out of Four Adults No Longer Watch Any Local Evening Newscasts

TV viewers are increasingly dissatisfied with local television newscasts, according to a new survey by Insite Media Research. Findings reveal that viewer dissatisfaction with local TV news is so strong that it is making a serious impact on audience behavior, causing 22 percent of the adult population, almost one out of four, to completely avoid the local evening news. Viewers cite story repetition, sensationalism, and misleading news promotions to be at the core of their discontent.

The survey, developed by veteran news consultant Scott Tallal and available at www.tvsurveys.com, was designed to give viewers a chance to explain why they're so dissatisfied with local TV news and help TV stations listen directly to their audience and respond to viewer complaints. Insite surveyed viewers nationwide for their opinions on local news coverage via its exclusive "voice capture" PC-based telephone interviewing system, which uses digital audio to record actual soundbites from interviews.

"The public's attitude toward local television news has reached a crisis point," says Scott Tallal, president of Insite Media Research. "The trends are alarming - avoidance of local news has doubled during the past ten years, and complaints among those still watching are at an all-time high, suggesting that even more audience erosion is possible. The number of viewers who have tuned out their local evening newscasts has jumped up to 22 percent, and avoidance among younger viewers has climbed even higher, topping 40 percent."

Among the survey's key findings are:

10 percent of those surveyed no longer watch any local newscasts in any time period; in some markets, the figure is as high as 33 percent for the primary 5:00, 6:00, and 10:00/11:00 p.m. shows.
Of those who do watch local news, more than half of those surveyed no longer care which station they watch. In fact, the percentage of local news "discriminators" has declined steadily for the past three years because viewers increasingly feel that all stations are becoming more and more alike.
Station satisfaction and loyalty scores continue to drop right along with viewer discrimination, yet many viewers no longer bother searching for alternatives. In many markets, up to half of those surveyed are now resigned to watching just one station for local news, not so much because they like that station but rather because they're unable to find one they like better.
52 percent of those surveyed feel that most stations spend too much time covering the same stories over and over again, presenting the same information they've already seen and heard countless times before.
45 percent feel stations are too sensational in the way they cover or present the news. 38 percent think stations should provide a better balance of "good" and "bad" news, and 31 percent also want coverage of crime which focuses more on bringing suspects into custody (and less on sensationalizing their exploits).
28 percent find most local news promotion to be irritating and/or intentionally misleading. An identical number of viewers want more coverage of the "real" issues facing their community, while 27 percent also think most stations should show viewers more respect and stop underestimating their intelligence. Another 25 percent also want a broader scope of coverage (in every respect).

"Too often the audience feels its intelligence is being insulted," says Bill Brown of Coaching Company, a broadcast industry consultant working with Insite. "People are telling us loud and clear that there's not enough about the issues that actually have an impact on their lives. With all the increased competition, some stations are trying to manipulate the audience with sensational coverage or misleading promotion, alienating many of the viewers they're trying to attract. Competition also leads many stations into copycat tactics which not only perpetuate many of these problems, they also result in newscasts which look so much alike that the audience can no longer tell the difference."

In an effort to help the TV news industry combat viewer dissatisfaction, Brown and Tallal have drafted a "Local TV News Viewers Bill of Rights" and circulated it, along with the results of the Insite survey, to over 60 TV client stations in the hope that they will present coverage that is more substantive than sensational, particularly in the reporting of crime stories. Its points include:

The right to more updating and less repetition.
Freedom from sensational news coverage.
The right to a balance of positive and negative news.
The right to meaningful crime coverage.
Freedom from misleading newscasts promotion.
The right to coverage of "real" local issues.
The right to more respect.
The right to coverage of all the day's news.
The right to coverage of the entire viewing area.
The right to down-to-earth involved personalities

"The good news is that we've found 10 specific ways that TV stations can stem the losses and bring more viewers back to local news," Scott Tallal added. "In fact, 63 percent of all news viewers we surveyed say they'd definitely watch a station more often if it committed to these ideals, with most saying they would do so even if that station wasn't their current favorite. And 54 percent of those who've left the audience say they would in fact come back to local TV news just to watch that kind of station. Client stations that have adopted this 'Bill of Rights' have already seen some very promising results in their ratings."

The survey is based on the results of 402 interviews with a representative sampling of adults (18+) living in the continental United States, contacted using random-digit dialing (RDD) techniques to ensure a proportionate reach of both listed and unlisted residential households. Sex, age, race, and geographic sampling controls were imposed to within +5% of Census-based population projections. To ensure their adequate representation in the overall sample, non-English-speaking Hispanics were asked for basic demographics, but were otherwise not asked to participate in the rest of the survey.

Founded in 1988, Insite is a broadcast industry research and consulting firm based in Malibu, California and Dallas, Texas. The company uses state-of-the-art research techniques to give its clients key information about their markets and works closely with its clients to build customized questionnaires designed from the ground up to fit individual client's needs. Insite is headed by Scott V. Tallal, who has provided audience research and strategic development services to television stations and programming organizations both domestically and abroad for the past twenty years. Prior to becoming a broadcast and marketing consultant, Mr. Tallal spent almost ten years in news, programming, production, promotion, and management at several top-rated radio and television stations. For complete information regarding Insite Media Research survey and the "Local TV News Viewer's Bill of Rights," visit www.tvsurveys.com.

This chasm of which everyone seems to be getting off on amuses me. I'm a pro video stringer in a major (#5) market. Been covering breaking news since Scoopic Days in 84. Did Stills prior to that. As I read the opinions preceding mine I get to thinking about what the reporter does to minimize whatever the videographer might create.

It seems that what I'm reading here is that when on a combo-shoot ('grapher and 'porter) there is this dissonance felt immediately that permeates the shoot/interview when it happens. The grain I seem to be afixed to in the sandbox here is that both participants in the package seem to be at odds as soon as the mic is handed to the reporter by the video person as the doors on the Van are shut.

You have two people walking towards a fire and each of them is on a different track. But similar. Just enough to derail the mood. Seems that the 'grapher holds the 'porter responsible for incomplete coverage due to some quirk within the expectations of what the reporter sees as news to be captured. Seems the 'grapher is on HOLD to what the reporter thinks is important for "HIS or "HER" piece. And then to really piss the video person off they say "ok, i'm done, let's go to lunch". This attitude seems to set the video person off negatively due to "hey, it's my turn" not being met.

The grain here is the expectation of. The video person wants coverage based on his/her training and experience as how to do this incident . And then the reporter wasts minimal contact time in order to get away as fast as possible so as to get the story written up by time they find a place to uplink it or get back to station. Where there is another person waiting for the reporter to go out with on another shoot.

Seems there is a lot of TUGGING between reporter and video person that just will not be resolved to either of the team's satisfaction.

A reporter with attitude that does not match the attitude of the shooter on many levels. One wanting to complete the coverage based on "getting the best shots" and then the other wanting "time" to put the piece together that they cannot afford to allow the video person to have. Like the Reporter's Time is more significant. That is what I've gested from reading this summation of "grunts and groans" from the video people.

Good I'm an independent. I take my time. I do it right. No one to jump off to.
Bill Conduit Pro Stringer with Betacam SP/DV

I would have to say the profession of photojournalism is in trouble. Yes, there are tons of journalism school grads, but everyone wants to be on air. I recently graduated from the University of Missouri, where, at the University-owned station (KOMU-TV), we had about 150 students and two of us were photogs. Most of the reporters shot their own stuff, and it was crap about 75% of the time. Even worse, no one cared. Plus, with the new digital cameras, lighting skills are becoming obsolete. I see a lot of TV where it is obvious the photog put the camera on sticks, flipped on the frezzi, and said lets go. No backlight, no creativity. I'm glad the production manager at KOMU, Brad Noblitt, took me under his wing; otherwise I would be lost.

I also feel it is getting hard to find good people to fill jobs. Here in Little Rock, we have a photog opening. The tapes I've seen range from average to poor--and some have been from top 40 markets. I see a lot of folks just trying to get a body in their shop then hoping for the best. I'll be the first to admit I have a lot to learn, but I can't believe some of the stuff I see in big markets, and on local TV. More photogs need to learn the NPPA style--one that emphasizes storyteling, natural sound, and creativity. If we don't do something soon, local TV news could soon be very painful to watch.
[From: Kevin Cochran Little Rock, AR]

I don't feel that we are doing better today then yesterday. When we shot film, the photographer had considerable more control in what was happening with a story. First of all you had the long wait for the film to soup. THERE FORE it was necessary for the photog and reporter to discuss the story fully while driviing back to base. But now, the reporter takes the tape from you in the partking lot and jams it into a machine like audio tape and starts to pull his "bites" like audio tape. They are now fully incharge of how the story will go.

Because we had a small Movie Scope with critical screen angles to view thru, you didn't have the reporter sittling on your shoulder injecting their (inflated figure) 2 cents worth of picture knowledge.

Now, as a photographer is trying to see how shots will play have someone standing over your shoulder telling that looks terrible. The story and the public got a better looking story in film then they do in tape. What we have gained in the preciseness of video editing we have paid a high price for. Sometimes I feel like an extension of some reporters fingers. Could I fight back? Yes but you get tired of arguing all the time and just wish someone would trust you to do your job. Many of us were doing this job when there was a distinction between "B roll" and silent video. B Roll used to be shots of people listening with their mouth shut so it could be used as "B Roll" over someone talking. Now we are told to "get me some b roll shots of an accident"!

As video tape has made it possible to increase the product, 1 1/2 hrs of product vs 5 hrs of product, there is little time for crews to talk about the story on the way back because the reporter is writing in the vehicle.

I suspect one day the public will get tired of our pace in TV. We may slow down a little and maybe the crews will start to talk about the story a little more before they start editing. Wouldn't it be neat if they did that before they started shooting, we would all be on the same page...
[From: Ray Swan, WIVB-TV, Buffalo, NY]

Hey photogs, I have read some of your concerns and ideas regarding the industry. Though interesting, times are changing. I am a young shooter, 2 years new to the industry, and I love the oppurtunities that the 90's has brought to television. I am one off those "monkey hand held operators", and to tell you the truth, I hate tripods!! Some of you may be cringing right now, but I will tell you why. When I first started out, I lugged a tripod to every shoot. Thninking that I got enough b-roll for the reporter and always confident that my shots were smooth. But, now that I am at a free style station, the stories are 100% better. When in a interview and the person is referring to something on the street I can pan towards it in mid interview. I don't have to worry about remembering to get it for b-roll later, or unlocking my tripod and try to do a smooth pan in the same motion as the interviewee is referring to it. With the hand held style I can get to shots right down on the ground and fluidly pan towards something else. I mean, any "momkey" can white balance, set up a tripod and pan left or right--- whoppee, is that creativity? The hand held style is an art, fluid smooth motion... and it takes a while believe me. As a woman carrying a camera around for an entire shift I have to watch my back, but hey I work out 2 hours a day before every shift, and this builds up my stamina. Jehn, Winnipeg,MB Canada

The Good Ol' Days

Having spanned the business from film to video, I can answer that with a resounding "maybe" as to whether these are the good ol'd days or not. Yes cameras are so much better than just a few years ago. And yes we are all so modern with our MTV monkey-cam herky-jerky styles. But we've also reduced the "art" to a point where anyone can do it. I can pull out old NPPA winners that were shot with a TK-76, a camera that needed 100 foot-candles to make a picture (today's cameras need about 1 fc), that look as beautiful as anything done today and more beautiful than most. The shot in a dark alley that was referenced by someone did need a generator for all the lights in the old days. But light was the key to making the picture say something and be just a vacation snapshot. We did use 1000's of watts of light to do the alley shot but we put them in places that made the alley look dark and moody. We worked like film guys. We crafted the light, we flagged it, diffused it, snooted it, colored it, and aimed it from places so that the alley looked to the camera just like it looked -- and felt -- to our eye before we started. That was why they called it art.

Today you don't need art. Just point and shoot. Hey, my mom could do this. For every shooter I hear complain about low pay or no respect or the lost art I ask, "Have you made yourself indispensable? Can anyone else do your job?" I travel around the country looking at local news and I see very few places where the camera isn't doing all the work. The operator is just holding it. Once you think the camera can do anything, you might as well just hand it over to the next guy, 'cause you're just an employee on the assembly line and those are a dime a dozen.

When cameras got so good you didn't need lights anymore, the bottom dropped out of this business. Everyone stopped caring, everyone got lazy. Oh, it's the time thing, the deadline thing, the crabby reporter thing or whatever. But what it really is the "I don't have to" thing. We are now at the point that newspaper photogs were 30 years ago. Anybody could afford a good 35mm camera with a good lens. So anybody could match technical quality with a photojournalist. And if they had let the art fade away, anybody today could be shooting for the papers: but they're not.

And if more folks don't start learning the art and craft of TV photography and not just the motions, the Smithsonian will be getting a TV cameraman display set up next to the blacksmith.

Tom Tanquary,Freelance TV Photographer, Los Angeles.

Make it Count

I started shooting for the NBC in West Palm Beach the day I turned 17. Back then we used the slowest editing machines I've ever seen and had to record every sports highlight from the tv set as the sat. feed system was way too slow.

Back then I used a camera which is now used as a boat anchor which was strapped to 50 pound recording deck. Combine this with 50 feet of audio cable and you had yourself a fine setup.

1983 was the year. Few photogs I have met over the years were as lucky as I was to land a TV job without a college education (as my spelling may prove) I worked my ass off to learn the trade as best I could. What I learned, I learned from great professionals willing to teach me the ropes. Back then news networks were unheard of. If you needed to travel to another state to cover a story, you went. This allowed for more photogs and reporters per station. Now a days, you get a sat feed from some reporter at some station you've never met. These kinds of set ups costs you a few great out of town trips every year. When I started in the business I considered these trips as perks. Because of the Sat Feeds the average station doesn't need as many crews in the field, cutting the number of photogs in any given shop in half.

Now a days you have 10,000 kids a year from each University with a broadcast Journalism school trying to get jobs that have been reduced in number because of these same news networks. In any market 50 and higher news directors are willing to give these fresh fish out of college jobs because they will work for minimum pay. The trade off is poor video quality and as Ron Messina puts so nicely in his article, "a lack of journalistic integrity." This lack of integrity isn't because these kids want to compromise their moral standards, it's because no one has the time to teach them any.

One of the last stories I ever shot was a house fire. We heard on the scanner about a fully involved structure fire. On the way there, the reporter I had with me was probably the best I ever worked with. His comment en route was, "Just give me a dead body or homeless family so we can be done for the day."

It's not bad enough we had 5 newscast to cover that day but when you wish for a story like this so you don't have to chase any other spot news for the day it is time to re evaluate you job.

Messina's article is a must read for any photog in the business longer than 5 years.

I thought I was the only one who thought like this.

I would trade anything to be able to shoot again. However, I would like to shoot stories like I did when I first started in the business.

Stories you cared about and put effort into.

Today is too cut throat. Reporters want an awesome resume tape to move on to bigger and better places. Photogs with that hard nose I want a kick ass, in your face, spot news exclusive are hard to come by anymore.

The smaller equipment does make life easier. Had I not carried the betacam around for so many years on one shoulder I might not now be in pain everyday of my life. I am now disabled for life after two major back surgeries and countless nerve killing expiditions by my nureosugeon. (Isn't it ironic I met him through a HEALTH BEAT story)

However, to bring the truth to life through my video, to help someone who needs help, or to give someone credit where credit is due, I'd risk permanent injury all over again.

For those of you who read this, I give you this advise:

Take care of your back, tell the truth, look out for yourself. No one else will. You are a disposable commodity. When you can no longer look through that viewfinder no one will care what you have accomplished but you. All of those AP awards and Emmys don't mean squat. You will always remember what you did during your career. As long as you can look youself in the mirror and live with the decisions you made in the field, you have done a good job. I hope this makes sense. Don't take any crap from reporters who think their sh-t doesn't stink. Don't let them intimidate you into putting your life in danger unnecessarily. No news story is worth dying for. The equipment may get better. If the person using the gear doesn't use it properly, what's difference will good equipment make??????

The profession you have chosen is a very important one. You don't ever get the credit you deserve. Nor the money you deserve. Just make sure ever minute of video you shoot makes a difference in someones life. Otherwise your just wastin time.....

Jim Donnelly Margate, FL.

Let the Good Times Roll

Y'know, back in the mid-eighties, when I used to say to my Chief Photographer-boss, "I wish it were like it was in the good old days," he'd reply--"Hey, these ARE the good old days. Enjoy them."

He was right. Things are fun now, but there's no longer the sense that money's available in an endless supply. And management's gotten a little meaner.

Still, I'll bet today's young shooters will look back at the 90's as "the good old days," because changes are coming, and things may not be as much fun 10 years from now.

Scott Orr CableNews 2

What Do YOU Think?

Send your opinions to B Roll Online and I'll post them here. To check out some past "Rolling Discussions", click here.