Stand-ups anyone?

[Pinkie]

Just curious, do any of your shops have hard and fast rules about reporter stand-ups in packages?

[photog78]

At my previous station, all standups were required to have some type of movement, no matter what!

[Consider This]

That's too bad. I once did a standup that consisted entirely of me standing perfectly still. It was only for a second or so and it was hilarious in the context of the story (a feature).

And I had to confess to anyone who told me how great it was that I couldn't take the credit because it was the photographer's idea.

[overthehill]

Speaking as a former ND, who worked with several consultants and GMs who were vehement about use of mike flags, movement in standups, promotion, etc. I sincerely understand why some NDs MANDATE standups. They DO show the reporter at the scene of the news event adding credibility to the reporter and they DO showcase the logo, station, "face."

However, standups can be very intrusive in some stories, especially extremely visual stories. I mean, c'mon, why insert a standup in a package in which you have extremely strong visuals? It stands out and negatively affects the story telling.

I tell my college journ students, good standups usually have one of three elements, all of which involve "movement:"
1. The camera moves. Usually just a slow push or zoom in
2. You, the reporter, move. Usually best done by being demonstrative, show and tell type standup
3. Something behind the reporter moves--traffic, people, etc.

[The Thrill]

Originally posted by overthehill:
Speaking as a former ND, who worked with several consultants and GMs who were vehement about use of mike flags, movement in standups, promotion, etc. I sincerely understand why some NDs MANDATE standups. They DO show the reporter at the scene of the news event adding credibility to the reporter and they DO showcase the logo, station, "face."

However, standups can be very intrusive in some stories, especially extremely visual stories. I mean, c'mon, why insert a standup in a package in which you have extremely strong visuals? It stands out and negatively affects the story telling.

I tell my college journ students, good standups usually have one of three elements, all of which involve "movement:"
1. The camera moves. Usually just a slow push or zoom in
2. You, the reporter, move. Usually best done by being demonstrative, show and tell type standup
3. Something behind the reporter moves--traffic, people, etc.Unless there's a REASON for the movement, I disagree with #1. A slow push or zoom in is as lame as a reporter walking for no apparent reason.

If you're showing me something specific that the reporter is referencing, then it's great. Otherwise, there's no reason for it. Put the damn thing on sticks and lock 'er down. Nothing wrong with a still frame. Movement for movement's sake alone sucks.

2 and 3 are good rules, though.

[Produce man]

99% of the time, stand-ups lend nothing to the story. It's just an ego boost for the reporter.

(Sorry, reporters)

[tazz765]

On the local news station I watch, there is one reporter that has to get his face on camera no matter what the package is about.

[Clever Login Name]

Originally posted by tazz765:
On the local news station I watch, there is one reporter that has to get his face on camera no matter what the package is about.Well, that certainly narrows it down as to who it could be ...

[dlr2133]

Our shop doesn't typically do standups internal to the package. If at all, we do "look-live" packages with standup intro and standup out. We also do standup teases for topicals. We are always encouraged to be demonstrative, though never encouraged to walk or move unless there is a specific reason for it.

As a one man band... You have to really be creative. I know from experience. We have a reporter in the market who insists on walking towards the camera in every standup he does. It's SO annoying... especially when the same tease runs thrice in a show.

We also had the reporter who had to put his face in every story. I tell my producers I don't care about facetime and if I can do a "straight package" with voice and visuals only - that's my preference.

[Spike]

Originally posted by The Thrill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by overthehill:
I tell my college journ students, good standups usually have one of three elements, all of which involve "movement:"
1. The camera moves. Usually just a slow push or zoom inUnless there's a REASON for the movement, I disagree with #1. A slow push or zoom in is as lame as a reporter walking for no apparent reason.

If you're showing me something specific that the reporter is referencing, then it's great. Otherwise, there's no reason for it. Put the damn thing on sticks and lock 'er down. Nothing wrong with a still frame. Movement for movement's sake alone sucks.</font>[/QUOTE]There's a name for this. It's called motivation, and it's one of my pet peeves. If you're going to make a camera move, the move should be motivated by something in the frame.

The term originated in theater, where actors need to know what is motivating their performances. You can't just tell an actor to cry. You have to tell him why his character feels like crying. But that goes for simple movements also. Just walking across a stage or screen looks odd if the actor doesn't understand why he's doing it, or doesn't know his motivation.

The term comes to us through motion pictures, where cinematographers adapted the concept of motivation to their own work. Lighting has to be motivated by a reasonable source, or it ends up looking out of place. Camera movement needs to be motivated by action within the frame, or it ends up looking contrived and draws negative attention to itself.

A slow push is not always unmotivated, even when there's no other movement in the scene. It can work when it's motivated by the reporter's track as an attention directing mechanism. But just telling students to put some movement in there for the hell of it doesn't make their work any better. They need to have some concept of why they're making that push, as in the effect they hope to achieve in the audience.

[ June 13, 2007, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Spike ]

[midwestnewsgirl]

I've always believed standups should only be used to demonstrate something, when video is lacking, or as a transition.

When I was a reporter, my theory was if a standup comes to me naturally then I'll do it, but if I have to sit around and think of one, then it's obviously unnecessary.

That being said, I work with a guy who puts himself in every story...not just in the form of a standup, but actually places himself in the shot. For example, if he's doing a story about volunteers loading trucks with donated items, he will become part of the loading line and load items. Now, there's someone desperate to get on camera!

[cameragod]

There is really only one rule for stand ups.
It must work in the piece.
What annoys me is over the years I have found out what works and what doesn’t. So I use my skills with the journalist to make a stand up that moves the story on in a manner that complements the story as a whole with some very good results.
However there are other’s who don’t have my skills but rather than learn what works in what circumstances. They will do a crappy walking stand up and then say “See it didn’t work. Stand ups are lame.”
And after some truly horrible stand ups some stations will ban all walking stand ups rather than talk to the lazy SOB who would rather ***** about stand ups than make the effort to do them right.

If you are creative you can do stuff like this.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2866163876567882838

or this

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4678060994928208669

Obviously the stories are light and fluffy so the stand ups reflect that. I will see what I have in the more serious stories and post some of those.

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Spike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Thrill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by overthehill:
I tell my college journ students, good standups usually have one of three elements, all of which involve "movement:"
1. The camera moves. Usually just a slow push or zoom inUnless there's a REASON for the movement, I disagree with #1. A slow push or zoom in is as lame as a reporter walking for no apparent reason.

If you're showing me something specific that the reporter is referencing, then it's great. Otherwise, there's no reason for it. Put the damn thing on sticks and lock 'er down. Nothing wrong with a still frame. Movement for movement's sake alone sucks.</font>[/QUOTE]There's a name for this. It's called motivation, and it's one of my pet peeves. If you're going to make a camera move, the move should be motivated by something in the frame.

The term originated in theater, where actors need to know what is motivating their performances. You can't just tell an actor to cry. You have to tell him why his character feels like crying. But that goes for simple movements also. Just walking across a stage or screen looks odd if the actor doesn't understand why he's doing it, or doesn't know his motivation.

The term comes to us through motion pictures, where cinematographers adapted the concept of motivation to their own work. Lighting has to be motivated by a reasonable source, or it ends up looking out of place. Camera movement needs to be motivated by action within the frame, or it ends up looking contrived and draws negative attention to itself.

A slow push is not always unmotivated, even when there's no other movement in the scene. It can work when it's motivated by the reporter's track as an attention directing mechanism. But just telling students to put some movement in there for the hell of it doesn't make their work any better. They need to have some concept of why they're making that push, as in the effect they hope to achieve in the audience.</font>[/QUOTE]Can I roll my eyes at the oblique Konstantin Stanislavski reference? :rolleyes:

Here's two simple declarative sentences:

Following the rules can lead to good journalism.

Breaking the rules can lead to great journalism.

[New and improved...No Talent Hack]

Demonstrative standups can really make a story great...but movement for the sake of movement, or standups for the sake of standups are a major no-no.

I work in a sports department where every other member of the department does in/out standups...which are NOT standups. They're a poor man's excuse for starting an ending a story.

With a little creativitiy, you can make your story sing...and the standup will be a reflection of that.

I had a nice long talk with the ND about my OMB standups...sure, there's little movement, but what I'm working on now is being more "demonstrative"...it's tougher - so I use less standups...but usually I can make my stories sizzle with minimal reporter involvement. Letting the subjects tell the story...the way a story is suppose to be.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Mockingbird Peeps:
Here's two simple declarative sentences:

Following the rules can lead to good journalism.

Breaking the rules can lead to great journalism.Ah, but breaking the rules only results in great journalism when you have a reason for doing so. In other words, the violation of the rules is motivated. tongue.gif

And now for today's out-of-context moment:

Originally posted by cameragod:
What annoys me is over the years I have found out what works and what doesn’t. Yes, knowing what works and what doesn't can be quite annoying. ;)

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

My personal rule of thumb for standups is ....
1)to say something I can't show
2)to demostrate something/creative
3)to show off my beautiful eyes.
((kidding on #3....1 and 2 are my justifiers.
(and the push standups? ARRGGGGG!)

[Pinkie]

I know a news director, thank goodness not mine, that says a package isn't good unless it has a stand-up. I thought the point of a stand-up was to show something, demonstrate or transition the story. Or in some cases, make up for a lack of video. graemlins/eusa_doh.gif

[Fake Post]

Originally posted by tazz765:
On the local news station I watch, there is one reporter that has to get his face on camera no matter what the package is about.As a reporter, I once did a package where I was in every shot. Granted, some shots only saw my hand, back of my head, feet, etc., but I accomplished it and it gave the staff and the control room a good laugh for the day. BTW, it was on a serious topic.

[Bill Lumbergh]

Oh, how nice it would be if we'd go back to focusing on what we say, rather than how we say it.

These consultant-driven "active standups" that I'm seeing these days (usually as multi-part sequences) are an annoying, distracting, and unnecessary cover for bad reporting.

[overthehill]

You guys miss the point!

We all agree use of a standup--demonstrative, with a push or movement or whatever--should be journalistically sound, make sense and become part of the storytelling. No doubt. But that's US speaking, the ones DOING the standups.

Our bosses, who listen to the consultants, want standups to show off the talent, to show off the mike flag, as part of the justification to pay you that high priced salary (he said in jest). Guess who usually wins in these "how should I do my standup" battles?

Seriously--I don't mind the slow zoom (push) in a standup, assuming the timing of the push corresponds with the serious nature (narrative) of that portion of the standup.

Zoom out/reveal standups make me motion sick.

[ June 15, 2007, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: overthehill ]

[Consider This]

Originally posted by Produce man:
99% of the time, stand-ups lend nothing to the story. 99% of the time having a reporter lends nothing to the story. You could have a field producer do the interviews and write it for the anchor to voice over.

Why do we have reporters? To show the audience that someone was tasked with going someplace and learning the details of the story. Why do stations have reporters do standups? To reinforce to the audience that someone has gone someplace to learn the details of the story.

Television news is a personality business and its viewers want to see the people who are talking to them. Standups are a convention of the form. If you don't like them, you are in the wrong profession.

People who watch news strictly for information are rare enough that they have a special name:

Newspaper readers.

[overthehill]

Excellent post Consider This.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Consider This:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Produce man:
99% of the time, stand-ups lend nothing to the story. 99% of the time having a reporter lends nothing to the story. You could have a field producer do the interviews and write it for the anchor to voice over.</font>[/QUOTE]At least one local station in a 30-something market has tried that seriously, getting rid of all its reporters and instead using field producers or photogs who could write. All the day's news was presented either as VOs and VOSOTs or as anchor packages.

It was not successful.

Its failure stemmed from the lack of variation among the voices, both literally and figuratively. In the literal sense, the newscast present little variation from story to story, and stories seemed to run together in a blur. It wasn't easy to watch.

In a figurative sense, even though there were several writers, they were all writing for the same two anchors. They had no creative voice in the product, but instead adapted their own creative endeavors to the style of the two anchors whose literal voice was heard in the program. Even though many reporters are bad writers, there is definitely more variation in writing styles and more varying expression of creative voice when many reporters are writing for their own presentation.

That's what reporters add to the equation more often than not. It's not simply a matter of showing the audience that someone was actually there at the event to witness it or went to the trouble to dig up the information. It's the telling of the story in a way that only someone who was there to witness it or who dug up the information himself could relate it.

This figurative voice is important. But since it can't really be quantified, the MBAs who never did news themselves don't know how to handle it and tend to discount it.

[cameragod]

Originally posted by Spike:

And now for today's out-of-context moment:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by cameragod:
What annoys me is over the years I have found out what works and what doesn’t. Yes, knowing what works and what doesn't can be quite annoying. ;) [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Yes that wasn’t too clear. Part of the reason I’m a shooter not a writer smile.gif
I guess that part of how I see stand ups. The journalist can take care of the content, I’ll make sure it looks right and complements the story. That’s part of my job. Rolling my eyes and going “not another stand up” as many cameramen seem to do, isn’t helping anything, I am the part of the team and we are all responsible for the final look of the piece, work with me and I will give you as much help as I can to make it work.
Stand ups can suck but they can also bring life to a dull story.

[MacG]

I have another reason to do a reporter standup:

When the content of what you are going to say is important enough that you want viewers to focus on the information, and not be distracted by video.

OOPS ... I forgot. We are talking local television news, aren't we?

[Eyegetit]

I want to see the reporter in the package in a creative way that serves the story.

This helps with branding and reporter credibility. It also gives the package a unique feel, since it's likely everyone is doing the same story.

My rule is, there are no rules. Just make it work. The talented ones can do it.

(The person who said most standups are useless has got to be a photog in love with his "pretty" video. Booorrring!)

[Pinkie]

I'm curious, how many OMBs shoot stand-ups on a regular basis? I never had to do it much so I'm not too familiar, but I would imagine that would have a big effect on your stand ups.

[omb]

I do one every day.

Necessity often dictates that your standup covers something for which you have no video. But it can also be, as someone said, for a point you wish to make without distracting vidoe -- just you staring dead-eye in the camera to make a point.

[Eeps Snorps Now]

Originally posted by dlr2133:
thrice in a show. Extra points for using the word "thrice." Double-secret extra points for using it correctly and in context.

"Thrice" is such an underutilized word these days. Pity. Most people resort to the predictable "three times."

Only the bold and efficient reach into their quiver for the fine word "thrice."

I salute you, brave warrior.

[bw3508]

I do an average of three standups, or looklives every day OMB... without a flip-out screen. Lifes good.

[omb]

bw,
Are you talking about standups for three separate packages or other "standup" elements (teases, etc.)?

[WalMartNation]

Originally posted by Produce man:
99% of the time, stand-ups lend nothing to the story. It's just an ego boost for the reporter.

(Sorry, reporters)Its not an ego boost whatsoever when you ND or GM demands that standups be done in PKG's.

[bw3508]

Its usually three stand ups or minute-long look lives for different stories. We do news & weather updates at the top of every hour.

Yea, small, cable only news station (not TW). Not bad for a first gig still in college though.

[omb]

Been there, done that bw. For what it's worth, I haven't had the flip-around screen all that long. I did it the old way for the first decade of my career.

[bw3508]

I know its been asked a hundred times, but is there anything else OMBs can do as far as going beyond the traditional stand up?

[omb]

I try to look for a crazy angle whenever possible - shoe level upward to show something up high behind me, over my shoulder to show something on the ground.

[Produce man]

Originally posted by WalMartNation:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Produce man:
99% of the time, stand-ups lend nothing to the story. It's just an ego boost for the reporter.

(Sorry, reporters)Its not an ego boost whatsoever when you ND or GM demands that standups be done in PKG's.</font>[/QUOTE]True. YOu do what you're told to do. Still, that doesn't make them any more relevant to the story.