With Cell-Phone Video Cameras, Now Everyone's a Potential TV News Reporter

[Signature on File]

With Cell-Phone Video Cameras, Now Everyone's a Potential TV News Reporter
Created: 1/7/2007 3:16:12 PM
Last updated: 1/7/2007 3:17:07 PM

By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- Michael Richards in a West Hollywood comedy club and the authorities in Iraq who executed Saddam Hussein painfully learned that the prying eyes of television news can belong to anyone who carries a cell phone.Advertisement


Saddam's execution and Richards' flameout illustrate the growing power of cell-phone video as a news tool, not only to supplement stories but to change them.

"It brought to a fore the sense that wow, this is a ubiquitous technology," said Mark Lukasiewicz, NBC News vice president for digital media. "Cameras are now in places where cameras never used to be. That's transformational."

Iraqi authorities angrily searched for the people who recorded and distributed a video of Saddam's execution after the grainy footage emerged and spread quickly over the Internet and, in abridged form, on television.

It told a much different story than the government-authorized video issued about six hours after Saddam's hanging. That depicted the former leader fitted first with a black scarf, then a thick noose. Separate pictures showed his body in a white shroud, with visible blood stains. The pictures had no audio.

"For the first time, I felt as a certainty that there was going to be bootlegged distribution of the official tape or a bootlegged version of the execution," said Jonathan Klein, CNN U.S. president. "I had never had that level of certainty before. Somehow, you just knew."

Within 12 hours, Klein was proven right.

TV networks had little use for pictures of Saddam falling through the trap door; they weren't shown for taste reasons. But this video had audio, revealing angry exchanges and people loudly taunting Saddam in his final moments.

Without the cell-phone video, viewers were left to assume that the execution was carried out professionally. Instead, the video revealed a chaotic scene that to many commentators symbolized everything that had gone wrong with the Iraq war and somehow made a brutal dictator a sympathetic figure.

An audience member's cell phone caught the angry, racially offensive tirade unleashed by Richards at a Los Angeles comedy club in November. Repeated over and over on news networks, it became a major story that may effectively end Richards' career.

Would it have even been a story without the video? If witnesses had described it later and Richards denied his actions, it could have been a he-said, she-said story with many people not believing the beloved Kramer would do such a thing. There's a good chance the story would have gotten out in some form, however, because a friend of a CNN producer was in the audience and phoned in a tip.

"It probably would have been a story but it wouldn't have been as big a story," Klein said. "That was the smoking gun. It was so appalling to watch. It was like watching a train wreck."

Cell-phone video, despite having not nearly the picture quality of those produced by professional broadcasters, "does what pictures often do -- it reveals the truth of the story," Lukasiewicz said.

"Witnesses tend to argue," he said. "What one person saw might be different from what another person saw. The picture doesn't lie, but the picture isn't the whole story."

Television networks have taken viewer-contributed video ever since the advent of hand-held video cameras. Still, people aren't likely to be carrying a video camera when news suddenly happens. They probably have their cell phones, however.

Video capability has been around since the camera phones were introduced in 2000, but didn't gain significant acceptance in the United States until Sprint introduced a popular service in 2003.

An estimated 70 percent of Americans carry cell phones. Nearly one quarter of cell phone users -- an estimated 55.5 million people -- have phones with video capability. One-third of them claim to use their video feature at least once a week, according to analyses by InfoTrends and The Yankee Group.

News organizations became aware of the potential of cell-phone video during the 2005 London subway bombing, when riders' phones captured images conventional cameras didn't, said David Rhodes, Fox News Channel vice president of news.

Networks even use their own cell-phone video in cases where reporters aren't accompanied by cameramen. NBC's first pictures of roof damage from inside the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina were taken by Brian Williams. Fox News aired cell-phone video in the initial stages of covering New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle's fatal plane crash.

Digital technology has the power to make everyone a news reporter, said David Westin, ABC News president.

"That has enormous potential for good and also has enormous potential for mischief," he said. "The challenge for us is to get the good and weed out the mischief."

Someone with a camera, an agenda and modest acting abilities can try to fool a news organization. Some people simply enjoy the sport of it. During coverage of a hurricane, one viewer sent NBC News a picture of supposed damage, when in fact it was a professionally taken photo from another storm, Lukasiewicz said.

It requires a careful vetting process unnecessary when the networks gather their own material, Westin said.

But it's the future. Or, more accurately, the present. CNN in 2006 introduced technology to enable viewers to upload video taken on any device and easily send it to the network, where a staff is assigned to look over the material for newsworthiness.

Things like the Richards video, which stunned Klein when he first saw it.

"There was an intensity to it," he said. "It became an `Oh, my God, we have to put that on the air' kind of story. There will be many, many more of those to come in the future."

[Sir Dropham Pants]

We'll go from "backpack journalists" to "pocket journalists" before we realize it.

[Roy Hobbs]

One more month of fruitless job searching and I'm gonna become a parachute pack journalist!

http://www.ejectionsite.com/ejctpic/para-1.jpg

[ January 07, 2007, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Roy Hobbs ]

[The Fedora]

just because you can record events on your phone does not make you a journalist. We didn't automaticly call people with at handycam or high8 journalists, why do we do this all the time now?

[Sir Dropham Pants]

Mr. Rosenblum, white courtesy phone.
Paging Mr. Rosenblum.

[The Mockingbird]

I have a new business model that uses 100 illegal immigrants with Motorola camera phones as the primary newsgathering tools.

The new Periodista Video's, or PV's as I call them, can be trained with some very specific industry techniques.

If you wish to know them, feel free to hire me as a consultant. Free snake oil included with purchase!

[The Thrill]

Originally posted by Sir Dropham Pants:
Mr. Rosenblum, white courtesy phone.
Paging Mr. Rosenblum."No, the white phone." http://www.doloresparkmovie.org/images/air04.jpg

[Rosenblum]

watch this space.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
I have a new business model that uses 100 illegal immigrants with Motorola camera phones as the primary newsgathering tools.

The new Periodista Video's, or PV's as I call them, can be trained with some very specific industry techniques.

If you wish to know them, feel free to hire me as a consultant. Free snake oil included with purchase!Aww, you beat Rosenblum to it!

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by The Fedora:
just because you can record events on your phone does not make you a journalist. We didn't automaticly call people with at handycam or high8 journalists, why do we do this all the time now?Similarly ... just because you install Final Cut Pro on your Mac doesn't make you a "filmmaker".

Nor does Final Draft make you a screenwriter.

Or having a blog make you a writer.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Fedora:
just because you can record events on your phone does not make you a journalist. We didn't automaticly call people with at handycam or high8 journalists, why do we do this all the time now?Similarly ... just because you install Final Cut Pro on your Mac doesn't make you a "filmmaker".

Nor does Final Draft make you a screenwriter.

Or having a blog make you a writer.</font>[/QUOTE]No, no, no--you don't understand the Gospel According to Rosenblum. In his vision, having a camcorder DOES make you a VJ. And a laptop with editing software makes you an editor. That same laptop, with Word (or equivalent) makes you a writer.

Honestly, I don't know why you don't believe, too.

[Rosenblum]

Does having a printing press make you a publisher? Well, kind of....

[rootboyslim]

Give me a stethescope and call me Dr. Terps!!!

[JoinUsForCake]

did I miss something? Do all video-capable cell phones now come with a Bachelor's degree in Journalism and/or Broadcasting?

[Rosenblum]

You might be surprised at how many great journalists never got a degree in journalism. Some would even say that such a degree is a complete waste of time and money.

[Rhuby Tuesday]

I remember hearing a few months ago that a news organization (not sure network, cable, or local) was offering a "bounty" for cell-phone video. Essentially making everyone in the world a freelance vj.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
You might be surprised at how many great journalists never got a degree in journalism. Some would even say that such a degree is a complete waste of time and money."Some" might, but I'd bet that even the network-level people without degrees you're prepared to list would not agree that the degree is a "complete waste of time and money."

[Marty McFly]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Fedora:
just because you can record events on your phone does not make you a journalist. We didn't automaticly call people with at handycam or high8 journalists, why do we do this all the time now?Similarly ... just because you install Final Cut Pro on your Mac doesn't make you a "filmmaker".

Nor does Final Draft make you a screenwriter.

Or having a blog make you a writer.</font>[/QUOTE]And living and working in NYC doesn't make you the authority on how the rest of the world or the television business should operate.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Marty McFly:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Fedora:
just because you can record events on your phone does not make you a journalist. We didn't automaticly call people with at handycam or high8 journalists, why do we do this all the time now?Similarly ... just because you install Final Cut Pro on your Mac doesn't make you a "filmmaker".

Nor does Final Draft make you a screenwriter.

Or having a blog make you a writer.</font>[/QUOTE]And living and working in NYC doesn't make you the authority on how the rest of the world or the television business should operate.</font>[/QUOTE]Nope.

But he's entitled to his opinion, just as you are.

BTW, are you saying he's wrong? Does having the tool necessary to do a job make you competent at doing that job?

[Rosenblum]

In the world of creativity, no one knows and no one can predict what will result in 'greatness'.

But having the tools readily avaialable to 'play with' certainly helps.

The great thing about writing or painting is that anyone can try, at almost no cost. There is no barrier to access. Will they be any good at it? Who knows? No one, not even they.

JK Rowling was an unemployed single 38-year old mother when she started writing her first book, Harry Potter. Paul McCartney was a 14 year old kid with a guitar. Fred Friendly never went to college. Picasso never went to art school.

Free markets and free presses are really messy. Lots of people get to try. Most fail, but a few create greatness. In fact, those few often set the standards for the rest. So does having a pencil make one a writer? no. but not having one sure makes it a lot harder.

[Marty McFly]

Froggy, you have a lot of nerve even being on this board after the way you screwed that guy over.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Marty McFly:
Froggy, you have a lot of nerve even being on this board after the way you screwed that guy over.Pardon? To whom are you referring?

[ January 09, 2007, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: Michigan J. Frog ]

[Marty McFly]

Yeah, like you forgot!

Remember him?
http://www.minorlooneytunes.com/pictures/mjfrog003.jpg

[The Mockingbird]

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/images/bttfi1.jpg

Whoa, this is heavy.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
"Some" might, but I'd bet that even the network-level people without degrees you're prepared to list would not agree that the degree is a "complete waste of time and money."I have worked with and among quite a few "network-level" people. Almost all of them were college educated. But you know what I discovered? A VERY large chunk of them were educated in other fields, not in journalism. They had studied economics, public policy, political science, sociology... A whole range of majors that didn't seem to have anything to do with journalism. In fact, I had more than one tell me that their background in fields that were more relevant to the actual news they were covering got them to the network level.

Check out the resumes of some of these network level producers. Often there's no mention of a journalism class at all.

[Spike]

Ah, but on the other hand:

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
You might be surprised at how many great journalists never got a degree in journalism. Some would even say that such a degree is a complete waste of time and money.That's typical of you. During one discussion you'll brag about having taught at NYU or Columbia in one of these journalism programs, when you think it adds credibility to your sales pitch. Then, in another, you characterize these same programs as "a complete waste of time and money."

So how does it lend you credibility if its such a complete waste of time and money?

[rootboyslim]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marty McFly:
Froggy, you have a lot of nerve even being on this board after the way you screwed that guy over.Pardon? To whom are you referring?</font>[/QUOTE]To you, jacka$$!!!!!

Why do you even get involved with what Matt and Marty are fighting about? The same reason I am? You can't stand the author of the remark? Do you think the author is an arrogant SOB? Do you think he is just a clueless d!ck????

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Marty McFly:
Yeah, like you forgot!

Remember him?
http://www.minorlooneytunes.com/pictures/mjfrog003.jpgOh, I remember.

He had no real ability of his own, so he tried to make money by exploiting someone else's ability.

His name?

Guess.

[ January 09, 2007, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Michigan J. Frog ]

[Rosenblum]

Originally posted by Spike:
Ah, but on the other hand:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rosenblum:
You might be surprised at how many great journalists never got a degree in journalism. Some would even say that such a degree is a complete waste of time and money.That's typical of you. During one discussion you'll brag about having taught at NYU or Columbia in one of these journalism programs, when you think it adds credibility to your sales pitch. Then, in another, you characterize these same programs as "a complete waste of time and money."

So how does it lend you credibility if its such a complete waste of time and money?</font>[/QUOTE]I am both a graduate of Columbia University J School ('83) and taught there for many years, so I think I can say with a fair degree of certainty that for the most part the J school program is pretty much a waste of time. Its nice if you have the time and the money to blow. (It costs like $40,000 last time I looked). What it does do is introduce you to a lot of people who are going to be in the business. In my class alone there were 3 Pulitzer Prize winners I am still friendly with, along with several well known network anchors today and a bunch of other folks. What it does not do is teach you anything about journalism you wouldn't learn working at a good newspaper for the same amount of time.

The best thing I got out of the J school was that I met Fred Friendly, who I started working for immediately after graduation. Fred had been the president of CBS News and Murrow's producer, and the time I spent working for him taught me much more than the J school ever did. Fred, of course, never even graduated from college, but that didn't seem to hurt his career too much.

Of course, Columbia is a graduate school. That also makes a difference, and they tend not to accept people who were journalism majors as under grads. They prefer history or english or even sciences. At NYU, where I taught for 8 years, the students were undergrads, and there I can tell you unequivocally (and I said the same thing to my students then), that a journalism undergraduate major was a complete waste of time and money. They were better off majoring in history or economics. That's the kind of stuff they would be reporting on later.

Does that answer your question?

[Spike]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:

Does that answer your question?Not really, but that's not the point. The point is that if journalism schools are a waste of time and money, teaching in one doesn't bolster your position in the slightest and probably hurts your position. I hope you remember that next time you're losing an argument and try that appeal to meaningless authority.

[Rosenblum]

Not to belabor the point with you, which I have already come to understand is a waste of time... While I might say that getting a PhD in English Lit is also a waste of time. This does not denegrate the intellectual value of being on the faculty of the graduate english department at Yale University.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
Not to belabor the point with you, which I have already come to understand is a waste of time... While I might say that getting a PhD in English Lit is also a waste of time. This does not denegrate the intellectual value of being on the faculty of the graduate english department at Yale University.The idea that the degree is a "waste of time" but being on the faculty that teaches the curriculum necessary to obtain the degree is NOT a waste--well, that's priceless.

[Spike]

See, we caught him, and now he's squirming.

[JoinUsForCake]

Holy crap! I didn't mean to stir up such a $h|+storm!

If Journalism degrees are so worthless, why are they taught and awarded?

Have we or have we not seen the effects of poor journalism on TV, radio, NEWSPAPERS, etc? So learning about media ethics and journalistic standards is akin to pissing into the wind?

Come on.

I'm not saying those who actually studied broadcasting and journalism never make mistakes - but to say it's a waste of time is a crock.

[Rosenblum]

Originally posted by Spike:
See, we caught him, and now he's squirming.I am hardly 'squirming'. I am attempting to have an intelligent conversation with you. That seems to be almost impossible. (No, forget the almost).

Did you go to college? No.. come on... seriously..

As for why such courses are offered it is because people are willing to pay for them. And just because a course is offered it does not mean that it has any intrinsic employment value. One can study Sanscrit for years which has an esoteric value. Does it have a bankable value for work? Depends on what it costs to take the classes and what you get out of it. J School degrees are very expensive and in my opinion, not good value for money. That doesn't mean that what is taught is not interesting or of some value. Do you get this now Spike? Or do you need a yet simpler explanation. Perhaps with pictures?

[ January 09, 2007, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Rosenblum ]

[Spike]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
And just because a course is offered it does not mean that it has any intrinsic employment value. Like your VJ courses.

[The Mockingbird]

The "Degrees are Worthless" argument is merely the setup to rebut any professional's opinion that Rosenblum's techniques are not, in fact, good videography. They are videography techniques, though, in the same way that a child using fingerpaints is painting.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
The "Degrees are Worthless" argument is merely the setup to rebut any professional's opinion that Rosenblum's techniques are not, in fact, good videography. They are videography techniques, though, in the same way that a child using fingerpaints is painting.Exactly.

[Spike]

But! But! Picasso! Access! Democratization of the painting process!

Eh, ***** it...

[writer2]

I have a hammer.

[The Mockingbird]

Did you hammer this morning?

[writer2]

Not yet. ;)

[UpNorth]

Or having a blog make you a writer.[/qb]I disagree with that. One who writes IS, by definition, a writer.

[Fake Post]

And anyone who gets paid to write is a professional writer.

Just like William Hung is a "professional" singer.

[UpNorth]

exactly. doesn't mean they have to be good at it.

[Backup QB]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Spike:
Ah, but on the other hand:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rosenblum:
You might be surprised at how many great journalists never got a degree in journalism. Some would even say that such a degree is a complete waste of time and money.That's typical of you. During one discussion you'll brag about having taught at NYU or Columbia in one of these journalism programs, when you think it adds credibility to your sales pitch. Then, in another, you characterize these same programs as "a complete waste of time and money."

So how does it lend you credibility if its such a complete waste of time and money?</font>[/QUOTE]I am both a graduate of Columbia University J School ('83) and taught there for many years, so I think I can say with a fair degree of certainty that for the most part the J school program is pretty much a waste of time. Its nice if you have the time and the money to blow. (It costs like $40,000 last time I looked). What it does do is introduce you to a lot of people who are going to be in the business. In my class alone there were 3 Pulitzer Prize winners I am still friendly with, along with several well known network anchors today and a bunch of other folks. What it does not do is teach you anything about journalism you wouldn't learn working at a good newspaper for the same amount of time.

The best thing I got out of the J school was that I met Fred Friendly, who I started working for immediately after graduation. Fred had been the president of CBS News and Murrow's producer, and the time I spent working for him taught me much more than the J school ever did. Fred, of course, never even graduated from college, but that didn't seem to hurt his career too much.

Of course, Columbia is a graduate school. That also makes a difference, and they tend not to accept people who were journalism majors as under grads. They prefer history or english or even sciences. At NYU, where I taught for 8 years, the students were undergrads, and there I can tell you unequivocally (and I said the same thing to my students then), that a journalism undergraduate major was a complete waste of time and money. They were better off majoring in history or economics. That's the kind of stuff they would be reporting on later.

Does that answer your question?</font>[/QUOTE]I teach journalism part-time, so I'm not going to say that a journalism degree is worthless. But, I do recommend that journalism undergrads do a double major (in something like history, English, psychology, or one of the natural sciences) so they are more well-rounded. It's amazing how many people in a TV newsroom have little knowledge of history, science, or politics and they're more than eager to display that ignorance in the vapid news copy they churn out.

Columbia's graduate school of journalism is overrated. It's a high-priced social networking club in which you learn about journalism. If you have skills, drive, ambition, and the ability to create your own luck in the working world, you can succeed having graduated from just about any accredited institution.

[Chicago Dog]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
I am both a graduate of Columbia University J School ('83) and taught there for many years, so I think I can say with a fair degree of certainty that for the most part the J school program is pretty much a waste of time.

...

The best thing I got out of the J school was that I met Fred Friendly ... the time I spent working for him taught me much more than the J school ever did.Okay, better experience working in the field than sitting in a classroom is a better idea in few professions, but it works in journalism. While I think it's important to have a little taste of what's to come with some classes in college, having a well-rounded education before hitting the journalism world is an excellent idea. No disagreement there. I know folks with multiple masters' degrees in their various fields-of-interest -- none of which are journalism.

I will add that -- as far as college classes go -- the potential of what you can learn obviously depends on the professor's degree of excellence. I lucked out in that respect. I still have professors with whom I keep in touch; firing off e-mails to each other every once in a while.

However, given what I was able to pry out of you regarding your past: you had your first bona-fide job in local news as an associate producer in 1979, then you went to J school in 1983, and then worked in news again?

...

graemlins/eusa_shifty.gif

[ January 28, 2007, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Chicago Dog ]

[AVandalay]

Originally posted by Do vegetarians eat animal crackers?:
I remember hearing a few months ago that a news organization (not sure network, cable, or local) was offering a "bounty" for cell-phone video. Essentially making everyone in the world a freelance vj.It was CNN and they called it "iReport" except there was no bounty involved. Jon Stewart did a hilarious bit on it on The Daily Show basically saying that CNN was asking the public to do all the work for them. The clip is on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBrK8fB6uYk

[AVandalay]

Agreed that having a video phone does not make one a journalist, but I still think they can be a great journalistic tool. I remember during the Cory Lidle plane crash, a Fox News reporter arrived the scene with a specialized Palm Treo and was able to get breaking video until the real camera crew arrived. Was highly impressed with FNC.