Producers in Charge, Reporters' Opinion Doesn't Matter

[Reporter4]

I work at a station where the producers totally run the show. Reporters are often treated like the "bottom of the barrel." Producers are even seen as more important/influential than anchors who have worked at the station/in the market for decades. (The producers all have less than five years experience.)

I'm wondering how common a situation like this is. Are most newsrooms run this way?

[facts]

It is the way a newsroom SHOULD run. One person who owns the show.. whose vision makes it on air. That doesn't mean someone else is "bottom of the barrel".. you have to have input and teamwork.

But you might as well be asking "on our football team, the coach is in charge.."

Shame your producers don't have more experience, though.

[Consider This]

Originally posted by facts:
It is the way a newsroom SHOULD run.AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Yes, you absolutely want people sitting at desks in newsrooms to tell people out on stories what the stories are. After all, their "vision" of the story is much more important than what the "facts" might show.

[Clubbeat]

Originally posted by Consider This:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by facts:
It is the way a newsroom SHOULD run.AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Yes, you absolutely want people sitting at desks in newsrooms to tell people out on stories what the stories are. After all, their "vision" of the story is much more important than what the "facts" might show.</font>[/QUOTE]I think by vision, Facts means the vision fr the entire newscast, not just the story.

And I agree, the EP and show producers must be in charge of their shows. They must also seek input from everyone who contributes to the daily effort.

It's called working like a team!

[guesswhoiam]

Originally posted by Reporter4:
I work at a station where the producers totally run the show. Reporters are often treated like the "bottom of the barrel." Producers are even seen as more important/influential than anchors who have worked at the station/in the market for decades. (The producers all have less than five years experience.)

I'm wondering how common a situation like this is. Are most newsrooms run this way?when i was a producer, i got in trouble every time someone else screwed something up. I was responsible for EVERYTHING whether or not i produced that block of the show, and whether or not i approved the copy/story/video/whatever. So yeah, i'm gonna cover my own *ss to a certain extent, and that means expecting from my reporters and crew what everyone higher on the food chain expects from me. That being said, i trusted my reporters and stood up for them on many occasions. Of course, they were in the field and never saw it, so i was one of the mysterious "they" you hear about in newsroom circles.

but to get back to the original post, any producer who makes their reporters (or any other crew members) feel "bottom of the barrel" is shooting themselves in the foot. we all depended on each other to pull off a live show. My crew might not have thought of me as their best friend, but they respected me as a professional. and i hear they missed me when i left. but that coulda just been a rumor... ;)

[Bill-1]

When people feel that they're the bottom of the barrel they stop caring. When that happens the producers will look like idiots. This is a tough business and it takes many hands to get a program to air.

[ March 16, 2007, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Bill-1 ]

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Reporter4:
I work at a station where the producers totally run the show. Reporters are often treated like the "bottom of the barrel." Producers are even seen as more important/influential than anchors who have worked at the station/in the market for decades. (The producers all have less than five years experience.)

I'm wondering how common a situation like this is. Are most newsrooms run this way?Like it or not, that's a producer's function -- to run the show.

Why should an anchor who's been at a station for "decades" have any more influence on the show than a videotape editor or shooter who's been there for "decades"? They've been "covering" news just as long as the anchor has been (perhaps to a more in-depth degree, I might add).

If you want more influence on the show ... if you want to "own" the show ... take off the makeup, step off the set, and start getting your hands dirty.

[Produce man]

A newscast is a team effort, of course, but it's the producer's show. Who's the first person to catch sh!t when something goes wrong?

[The Mockingbird]

Any Producer who's worth his or her salary runs the show without any of the other team members realizing it.

The other edge of that sword is that certain management pinheads don't understand that you can actually get more done if you don't yell and scream.

[omb]

Matt,

I would be more inclined to agree if I saw producers getting their hands dirty. Never leaving their desk except for lunch and trips to the bathroom isn't what I had in mind.

When they try to tell me what a story IS when I'm the one standing there seeing what it ISN'T is when I feel like the bottom of the barrell. And when they're walking out the door at the end of our shift and I'm still in the office cutting 2-3 versions of one pkg and then shorter vo's from every vo-sot I've done that day for the late show and the morning shows -- that's when I want to go Postal.

I don't mind helping them win some news award for best show - but I have a sneaky hunch they wouldn't return the favor.

[Spike]

Producers inflate their own importance. A reporter driven newsroom with a strong news director, managing editor or EP who has a solid vision of how ALL the shows should look and sound will need very little direction from its producers. The material for the newscast is stronger, and stronger material tends to "produce" itself.

[ March 16, 2007, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Spike ]

[Produce man]

Spike must be new to the whole "TV news" thing.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

WHAT? I thought a newsroom was run by Consultants and the Sales Department. graemlins/eusa_whistle.gif

[facts]

Originally posted by Consider This:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by facts:
It is the way a newsroom SHOULD run.AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Yes, you absolutely want people sitting at desks in newsrooms to tell people out on stories what the stories are. After all, their "vision" of the story is much more important than what the "facts" might show.</font>[/QUOTE]Um, is this the way you quote your interviews? I don't recall saying that.

[facts]

Originally posted by Spike:
stronger material tends to "produce" itself.does it also tell weather to wrap?

[facts]

As a producer with a whole lot of experience (most of it as a beat reporter) and well into a six figure salary (not bragging, just giving you my credentials)..

and.. with the understanding that we're talking about a large market newsroom with professionals.. not the hundreds of newsrooms we've all been in run by clue-tards and recent college graduates..

then..

let me say if the producer is telling the reporter what the story is, there are two possiblities, and I think you have to look at which describes you:

1) the producer is a power hungry know it all.

2) you're not understanding what the story is. and possibly mis-quoting your sources too.

a good producer has a good grasp on the story. perhaps has made a few phone calls him or herself with his or her own sources. has discussed the possible angles with the other, better reporter - who was on the story yesterday. who looked at a map and determined, yes, you really can get there in that amount of time.

and then explains all that to you. the one who can't seem to understand the story. who also "forgot" to write a vo/sot for the morning show.

we know the type. oh, that and your photographer tends to rat you out at the end of the day.

funny, isn't it, how you're always assigned to the story that requires you to be in the car longer than anyone else? and live with an update at the very end of the show?

my good reporters, I never call them and explain the story to them because we trust they know it. I give them extra time because they'll be interesting. And they wrote a few teases, too, so I'll tease it. Oh, and they went to graphics themselves and sketched out what they needed. And then bought their photographer lunch.

When it's raining, I ask them to stay inside and do an on-set.

[omb]

well facts,

I guess I'm dealing with the former in your list. If you're dealing with the latter, I can see your frustration. I hope you can see mine.
Most of the time I'm the first reporter covering the story, nobody's been there before me - let alone anyone from my shop. I'm the one holding the worn out map and I'm telling them over the phone where some place is because I've been working here longer than the producers. I see them coddle some reporters when they're asked to do what they ask of me without blinking and then explain to me how hard a task they've just given that person.

As far as my "photog" ratting me out...I point back up to my name.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Produce man:
Spike must be new to the whole "TV news" thing.I've been around long enough to remember reporter driven newsrooms, where the reporters worked beats and broke stories, while the producers concentrated on stacking them into shows and finding creative ways to segue between them. I remember that we destroyed our competition when we worked that way. The stories are simply better when a specialist in generating and reporting stories is in charge of generating and reporting stories. No matter how good a producer is, second guessing reporters will decrease the quality of the material over the long run, because reporting and generating stories is not the producer's specialty.

[s'news]

Most of the producers in most of the newsrooms just aren't that good. That's putting it nicely. So a producer-driven newsroom in most of the newsrooms won't be that good.

The producer who is that good gets no complaints from me. On a local level, they started disappearing in the 80s.

We can argue about how good most of the reporters are in most of the newsrooms, but I'd take that in most cases.

[Spike]

Originally posted by s'news:
Most of the producers in most of the newsrooms just aren't that good. That's putting it nicely. So a producer-driven newsroom in most of the newsrooms won't be that good.Most people in most newsrooms are not that good. Not just producers, but photogs, reporters, anchors, editors... Most simply aren't that good.

And that's all the more reason to allow people to perform their specialties with as little interference as possible. The purpose of a newsroom is to find stories and get them to air. The function of a reporter is to find stories and get them to air. It simply makes sense, then, that the newsroom should be reporter-driven.

Producers generally seem to think that would be all well and good if it weren't for the bad reporters. They seem to think they need to think for the reporters to make sure they don't make any mistakes. The problem is that they're forgetting that within their own ranks, they're collectively no better than those reporters. Thus, on balance, they're not going to improve on what the reporters are doing, but will instead compound errors by second guessing work that is outside their own specialty.

So even if some of the reporters aren't that good, collectively they'll still do a better job if they aren't micromanaged by people who do not share their specialty. A producer's interference may act as insurance against one bad reporter, but in the process it will hamstring five good reporters who would otherwise be bringing in better material. You end up with lots of filler crap, boring or meaningless stories that nobody really wants to watch. In this way producers spoil their own shows.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

Originally posted by Spike:
A producer's interference may act as insurance against one bad reporter, but in the process it will hamstring five good reporters who would otherwise be bringing in better material.I've never seen a producer who wouldn't be thrilled to have 5 reporters, or even one, bringing back great stuff for the show every day.
"Interfering" with or "hamstringing" reporters is about the last thing a producer wants to do.

[ March 16, 2007, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: adam & doctor drew ]

[Almost Virga]

One wonders if half the issue isn't built by personal experience.

The weather side of the issue that IS biased from personal experience built by many ... many ... producers and years in the same market:

If a producer does not have a confidence in my opinion or a flexibility in what my opinion might result in ... the battle WILL begin. I've had idiots that have thrown reporters on live shots that HAVE resulted in a waste of air time and at the least ... brought misguided information and a contribution to a drop in viewer confidence; on these, I failed to save them more often than not. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I alone brought the result of changing careers, but I sleep well enough knowing that I helped.

If it is indeed true that less experienced producers find themselves in larger markets than mine, I provide this post as something to keep somewhere in their mind. My suggestion is that a producer give, at the least, some credence to those that are ... in the field.

[ March 17, 2007, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Almost Virga ]

[Another side]

I think "Facts" makes a good point in distinguishing between large markets and small markets. My only experience is in medium markets.

That said, I come down on the side of reporter-driven newsrooms with beats.

I have no problem with producers running the show, taking ownership of their newscast (In fact, my only real complaint at the mid-market level is that few producers write any better than the reporters; hence, they're not improving scripts but merely changing scripts.

But in the morning and afternoon meetings, the reporters -- not the producers -- should be selecting the stories. They know them, they've worked them. They can make their pitch as to what leads, but the producer rules. They can talk about whether to go live -- but the producer rules. They can talk about 1:10 vs. 2:30 -- but the producer rules.

But when it comes to story selection -- what's available, what makes sense,what's important -- that's why you have reporters. A producer's role is to to help the reporter look at his or her angle, to deteremine whether that angle is of onterest to the entire audience or merely the people in his or her beat, to suggest ways to flush it out if necessary, and to make sure the entire story on the topic is told.

But if all you're doing is going to two meetings a day in which people who sit at desks -- ND, producers, assignment editor -- attempt to direct coverage from within their four walls to reporters who are out on the street daily, in the mix -- then I'd venture a guess that you're not putting out a relevant, interesting newscast, and causing reporters to feel helpless and resentful in the process.

[Another side]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
I've never seen a producer who wouldn't be thrilled to have 5 reporters, or even one, bringing back great stuff for the show every day.
"Interfering" with or "hamstringing" reporters is about the last thing a producer wants to do.Perhaps. But the trick is to get the producer to surrender the power that allows the reporters to perform. That's not always easy.

[Bureau Chief]

IMO, the producers, who in my shop tend to be fresh out of college, shapes the show, but the reporter writes the story. Seldom does a producer intervene directly in the story, in my shop anyway. Once a story is assigned to a reporter, its up to him/her to fill that 1:40 with meaningful content. If they fail to do that, its a mark on them, not the producer, BUT if after the story is handed in and it stinks, the producer has the authority to pull it or try to flesh it out in a different direction in order to salvage it. Of course we are in a small market so things are different then in real news markets.

[Spike]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
I've never seen a producer who wouldn't be thrilled to have 5 reporters, or even one, bringing back great stuff for the show every day.
"Interfering" with or "hamstringing" reporters is about the last thing a producer wants to do.And yet they do it anyway. Part of it is that they don't even realize their attempts to micromanage are causing a problem. The other part is that they often don't recognize a good reporter because the system is set up to discourage good reporters from doing any more than necessary.

The one time I've seen a producer driven shop converted over to a reporter driven shop, mediocre reporters suddenly began breaking stories and turning more interesting material. It surprised and shocked a lot of people, especially producers, to see reporters they considered to be pretty useless suddenly start to make intelligent decisions and creating higher quality work.

One guy even said, "Why weren't they doing this kind of work all along?" But how could they? They didn't have the authority to do that kind of work, and there was no incentive to fight to do that kind of work when every story was a battle with their own producers and management.

Originally posted by Another side:
A producer's role is to to help the reporter look at his or her angle, to deteremine whether that angle is of onterest to the entire audience or merely the people in his or her beat, to suggest ways to flush it out if necessary, and to make sure the entire story on the topic is told.This is where I disagree with you. It is not the producer's job to do that. It is the ND, EP or managing editor's job to do that. Producers can certainly make suggestions, but they should not be charged with oversight of the reporter's story decisions. The ND should be monitoring that and interceding only when necessary. If you allow producers to share that function, the natural desire for control (as "insurance" against "bad" reporters) will start to creep in, and soon you'll be right back where you started.

Also, rarely should a story ever be killed simply because it appears to be of interest only to people in a particular beat. Viewers will surprise you in what they find interesting, and they often don't know if something's interesting until they see it.

For example, one of the big mistakes many consultants make is to tell stations not to pay any attention to their outlying areas, but to concentrate their stories in the areas of the market with the greatest population. In other words, they say not to cover the areas where fewer viewers live. But in reality, if there's an interesting story going on in those areas, people in other areas will like to hear it. If you don't cover those areas regularly, you don't find those stories.

In my home town, we had a high school principal in an outlying area get into trouble for putting some draconian rules into place. At first glance that seemed like a story that would only be of interest to people in that county and wouldn't matter much to people in the more populated areas. But the story actually got a LOT of attention elsewhere in the market. People who might have considered moving out further from town were interested, because they were better educated about that school system. People elsewhere who had friends or relatives living out there knew more about their environment. People who had no connection to the area liked the story simply because a stereotypical authoritarian school principal who had overstepped his authority was getting spanked. Thus, you couldn't say, "That story is only really of interest to Walker County," because it wasn't.

[ March 17, 2007, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: Spike ]

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Spike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Produce man:
Spike must be new to the whole "TV news" thing.I've been around long enough to remember reporter driven newsrooms, where the reporters worked beats and broke stories, while the producers concentrated on stacking them into shows and finding creative ways to segue between them. I remember that we destroyed our competition when we worked that way. The stories are simply better when a specialist in generating and reporting stories is in charge of generating and reporting stories. No matter how good a producer is, second guessing reporters will decrease the quality of the material over the long run, because reporting and generating stories is not the producer's specialty.</font>[/QUOTE]In theory, that would be good.

But most "reporters" these days aren't really journalists ... they're pretty-faced voiceover models.

[HolyToledo]

Show me a producer's shop, I'll show you a newsroom in second or third place.

At BEST.

If you're not driving your product based on what your field crews are generating or creating, all you're doing is re-packaging.

In the current environment, at most every level, producers lack the field experience and/or the "life experience" to be "shaping the vision" of ANYBODY's story, save the rookie who can't find his/her a** with both hands.

Any reporter/photographer who can't turn compelling, "on-point" work doesn't deserve to be in your shop.

Those who DO belong there, don't deserve to have
their work "improved" with the "very latest" "emotional" breaking developments, as told "exclusively" and "only" to the station that brings you "coverage you can count on."

Folks, let the farmers (field crews) plant and
grow the vegetables and do the prep work on the entrees'.

The cook's (producer's) job is deciding how to serve 'em up.

[Spike]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
In theory, that would be good.

But most "reporters" these days aren't really journalists ... they're pretty-faced voiceover models.And yet they're still in a better position to generate stories and bring them to air than producers.

Further, most of those who are like that are the way they are because they simply haven't been required to be journalists. I have personally seen voice over artists rise to the challenge of actual journalism because it was expected of them. If you tell them the job requires them to actually behave as journalists, they'll do it. Or they'll fail miserably and be replaced by people who can do it.

It's not just good in theory. It works in practice as well.

[Mr G]

this is an interesting discussion.

I've been in shops that are producer-driven, and I agree it should be up to the EP, AND, or ND to make the editorial decisions. but that can also lead to the same issue for reporters. before reporters leave the station, they're already told by management and producers what the angle will be. stories are picked by how well they can be teased through the day and show, not based on how well they can be told. sometimes it works fine and we can find a way to get at that angle, even if it's through "officials" and "experts" but it becomes harder to tell the people-driven and memoriable stories because that's not what you're told to get. as a reporter, you end picking your battles and trying to sneak in some storytelling and creativity now and then.

and Spike, can you give some examples of some reporters rising to the challenge and actually behaving more like journalists?

[2:30]

Producers should run shows, not shops...and I say that as someone who has spent virtually her entire career producing.

When a producer tries to run a shop, you get a back-seat driven product, dominated by safe features. Assuming they're good at it, when the news and the desk run the news gathering, you get an edgier, more current product, dominated by stories.

In my experience, and this is contrary to the gospel according to consultants, when it comes to news, people watch stories, they don't watch stars. Those stations that try to run counter to that discover that they have declining ratings, and declining HUTs in their market.

One late note: I do agree that reporters' opinions don't matter. I want their facts... they can tell me their opinions at the bar after the show.

[ March 17, 2007, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: 2:30 ]

[Spike]

Originally posted by Mr G:
and Spike, can you give some examples of some reporters rising to the challenge and actually behaving more like journalists?At my first reporter driven shop, virtually all of them arrived from smaller markets having almost no idea how to work a beat. They could go through all the motions of being reporters, but for most the beat system was a new experience. Most learned it very quickly and thrived under it. A few failed, one rather dismally. They were replaced. But they were in the vast minority.

For a more specific example, at the other shop that I had the pleasure of seeing changed over to a beat system, our station's story selection changed dramatically, almost overnight. I regularly worked with the worst reporter in the shop, a girl who was inexperienced and egotistical and seemed almost militant in her ignorance. Before the change she probably could have counted the number of stories she enterprised on one hand. But once she was up to speed on the methods of working a beat, she actually began finding interesting stories. As a result, she began to gain confidence and lose her attitude. She still needed a lot of work, but she became a better journalist just by virtue of having a system and structure in place that required her to perform the act of journalism.

Now, what MUST happen to help reporters get to this point is to establish a strong system and have a strong leader running it. You need a news director who can stay on top of his shop. He MUST clearly set out the expectations for the reporters and hold them to it. But he also must provide the proper conditions for them to meet those expectations. That means reining in overzealous producers and allowing the reporters a significant amount of freedom in determining what they'll cover and when.

If, for example, beat reporters repeatedly come in with stories that really need to be turned that day, and you don't let them do them but instead assign something else, they'll stop coming in with those stories. My shop expected reporters to walk in the door each morning with two stories ready to go. They couldn't rely on the desk to assign anything to them.

Guess what that does: It gets the focus off crime and spot news. It gets the focus back on community stories. It allows for developing stories over time, then turning them when they're ripe. It's actually everything Rosenblum claims his VJ system will do, except that it allows it to be done in a day-turn environment where every reporter is cranking out two stories per day instead of two per week.

I've actually thought about trying to create some sort of manual to help people understand how to construct and implement a beat system and a reporter driven television news operation. I've stopped short because the prevalence of producer driven shops would seem to indicate that the people who make the decisions wouldn't be interested. Yet every time we talk about this on here, people do seem interested.

Would there be a real interest in that? Anybody think management could be sold on it?

[The Fedora]

Spike...

I'd like to talk with you about that... I'll PM you my email address.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

Originally posted by Spike:
My shop expected reporters to walk in the door each morning with two stories ready to go. They couldn't rely on the desk to assign anything to them.
that's absolutely the way it should be done.
unfortunately, it almost never IS done that way.

I worked with a great sports reporter once and the ND asked him to switch over to news.
he said he'd do it if they let him pick his own stories.
he didn't want the desk sending him out on abandoned warehouse fires and the like.
they refused.
he stayed in sports.

[Spike]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Spike:
My shop expected reporters to walk in the door each morning with two stories ready to go. They couldn't rely on the desk to assign anything to them.
that's absolutely the way it should be done.
unfortunately, it almost never IS done that way.</font>[/QUOTE]But there's a reason for that. The problem is that most stations do not have any kind of structure in place for generating stories. They give lip service to the idea of being an "enterprise reporting" shop. But most reporters have never really learned to enterprise stories.

If you don't really know how to enterprise stories, how can you possibly find two stories a day? If you don't already know how to enterprise stories, how the hell can you ever learn to enterprise stories? Nobody really teaches that. "Go make some contacts," is about all the instruction you can expect. Who do you call? You can't call everybody in the market every day to find a story.

Enter the beat system. A beat system sets up a structure that facilitates enterprise reporting. When you narrow the community down to manageable segments, it's easier to set up a beat call list and make a schedule of calls. Then you call them even when you don't think they'll have a story for you. When you call them often enough, you'll discover that when a story happens, you will pop into their heads, and they'll call you.

This is how good enterprise reporters in shops without beats work. The problem then is that they aren't focused on any particular area or topic. If you have a shop full of general assignment enterprise reporters with no set beats, some parts of your community will get overlooked. There may be groundbreaking research happening in a hospital in your market, but if nobody has a contact there you may not find out about it. But if you have someone whose beat is medical/health, it will be that person's responsibility to make a contact there and find out about it.

Even in the absence of a beat system, a reporter can become a hell of an enterprise reporter by simply creating his own beat. Ever wonder how, in shops that don't have a designated crime reporter, one GA reporter will end up with lots of contacts at the police department and end up being the "go to" guy for crime stories? He has made crime his beat. You can do that with health, entertainment, transportation, city, county, school board, farms, business, technology and just about any other topic you can carve out for yourself. You can also "own" particular areas of your market by concentrating your contacts in that area. In this way you can set up your own mini structure for generating stories, so that you too can come in each day with two solid stories ready to go.

In the absence of any kind of system, however, reporters come in with a story here or there, and the desk and producers end up having to fill in the gaps. Once you allow producers to make those decisions, they want to take over. Once you allow or force reporters to take what they're given (dependingo on your perspective), they won't bother busting their asses to come in with stories every day. What's the point, if you're going to be second guessed anyway?

[Reporter4]

Spike, I really enjoyed reading about your ideas/theories/thoughts.

To get back to my original post -- I'm still trying to figure out what do/say to producers who are simply concerned about "filling their show." Sure, they'll claim to care about the content, but in the end, they're really more interested in story count, meaningless vo/sots, and how many live shots they can cram into a show.

I personally think people watch the news to see packages. Those are the stories people remember. Sure all those vo's, vo/sots, and readers are important...but the stories that stick with people are the packages. That's why I'm so frustrated some times. Any advice?

And remember, I work at a station where the producers are clearly in charge of everything. Prime example: when it comes time for "job reviews" -- management will interview producers about how reporters and anchors are doing. But, when it comes time for the producer's review, no one asks reporters and anchors what they think about the producers!

[Guideline Gus]

The questions should be asked of your news director. And maybe even with the producer, if the producer is the type to listen.