Videojournalist?

[jaded2]

Just saw three openings on medialine under the Anchor/Reporter category for videojournalists. Stupid question, but by looking at the call letters, I am guessing videojournalist is a glorified term for one-man-band?

[Marty McFly]

Welcome to TV!
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~violette/quiz!!!_files/moron.jpg

[SpxGrunt]

And Maintainence Engineer means Janitor.

[Roy Hobbs]

And "Linkin'" is the capital of Nebraska!

http://www.labproductions.com/news/authors/jon/kfm2.jpg

[That Camera Guy]

That was post of extraordinaire magnitude.

[Signature on File]

They are hiring "one man bands" at the NBC station in St Louis.

[2:30]

They're hiring one man bands at McGraw Hill and Young Broadcasting stations. So far, they've gotten what they paid for...

[Fearmonger]

One man band =
Bad photography
bad editing
bad interviews
bad product

I never worked in a small market and have not done this for TV. I've worked as a field producer in medium and large markets.

Having two blogs that where I can submit video reports has been a difficult challange for me. I hate lugging all the equipment and chasing stories at the same time.

It can work for that rare story (and I mean rare)where everyome will hold still for you and you're not rushed for time.

[ December 13, 2006, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Fearmonger ]

[Spike]

Originally posted by jaded2:
Just saw three openings on medialine under the Anchor/Reporter category for videojournalists. Stupid question, but by looking at the call letters, I am guessing videojournalist is a glorified term for one-man-band?And now for a serious answer to your question.

Yes, it is a glorified term for a one man band, but the term VJ normally carries a couple of additional implications. The difference between a VJ and a conventional one man band is that VJs typically use small DV or HDV prosumer cameras instead of full sized broadcast gear, and they generally edit on laptops. You will also see them listed as "backpack journalists," the idea being that everything you need for a story can fit in a backpack and be carried with you. That's naive, but that's the way the proponents of the "VJ system" think. Otherwise, a VJ reports, shoots, writes, voices and edits, just like a one man band.

This term videojournalist is often associated with Michael Rosenblum, a snake oil salesman of the lowest order whose mission in life is to make as much money as possible from the ruin of as many television operations as he can infect. He's a big proponent of getting rid of rugged broadcast quality gear and using cheap cameras instead, and he tries to sell his "system" of one man bands to stations and networks under the brand of videojournalist. The sales pitch is that stations now using conventional two-man crews can save money on both equipment and personnel by training everyone, including reporters and photogs, to work as one man bands.

Now, there ARE stories on which the VJ one man band concept actually works. Unfortunately it does NOT work as a wholesale replacement for the conventional two person system used in most newsrooms. It takes a special kind of journalist/craftsman to pull off this kind of work well, and there just aren't that many of those special talents available. That leaves the rest of the newsroom struggling with their own weaknesses and producing mediocre work in the majority.

If you think you can do it, go right ahead. I don't fault anybody for taking work where they can get it. Just please don't get in the way of everyone else when the limitations of your camera and workflow become a hindrance.

[jaded2]

Okay, so if you are a one-man band and apply for a reporting position with a photographer, should you disclose you shoot your own stuff in your cover letter, etc.? It will likely come out in an interview anyways. Bottom line, is one-man banding looked at as an asset/strength by a news director or as a disadvantage?

[Desert Rat]

They're hiring one man bands at McGraw Hill and Young Broadcasting stations. So far, they've gotten what they paid for...

I think they call it a higher profit margin..

[CorkySherwood]

gannett has also jumped on the VJ bandwagon... sad

[adam & doctor drew]

many good points, Spike.

I don't know Rosenblum at all and have never worked at one of his stations.
he may well be a horrible human being; I have no clue.

but to be fair, his VJ concept is simply an idea that he sold to stations.
the stations could've just as easily said, "No, we're not interested."

so IMO, anyone who's angry about VJ's infiltrating the business (an understandable anger) should be mad at the station management that BOUGHT Rosenblum's idea, not Rosenblum himself.

[ December 14, 2006, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: adam & doctor drew ]

[John M.]

Originally posted by jaded2:
Okay, so if you are a one-man band and apply for a reporting position with a photographer, should you disclose you shoot your own stuff in your cover letter, etc.? No. I would not. Not because you don't want an ND to know it but because when you're applying for a traditional reporting job your cover letter should sell your reporting skills. Mentioning your shooting doesn't do that and will likely look like you're making an excuse for a deficiency in your tape's contents.

Disclosing that you shoot your own stories is probably unnecessary because, depending on your current market, an ND will likely know that you're shooting your own stuff anyway.

As far as whether one-man-band experience is seen as a plus, I don't know for sure but I think that it would be, especially if you didn't mind shooting. It demonstrates that you care more about the making of stories than merely appearing as their face.

[jaded2]

Thanks for your reply!

[Michigan J. Frog]

Sadly, quality photography doesn't matter in TV news any more.

[Spike]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
but to be fair, his VJ concept is simply an idea that he sold to stations.Actually, it's not that simple. The problem with Rosenblum isn't just that he sells a failed concept. The problem is that he lies about it to sell it. He lies about VJ accomplishments at other networks. He lies about his own accomplishments. If you go over to B-Roll.net and search through the message board there, you'll find example after example where he has lied about himself or his system and been caught at it.

See, he knows he is selling a failed concept, and yet he continues to sell it. Would you consider it ethical for a car salesman to sell a car he knew wouldn't make it more than a mile down the road while representing it to the buyer as a solid vehicle? The managers who buy Rosenblum's consultant services are idiots for being blinded by dollar signs and not doing their own homework, but Rosenblum is still a scumbag.

[adam & doctor drew]

I'd assume a car dealer selling cars of poor quality would eventually be found out, and his business would then fail.

then again, maybe TV executives are dumber than the average used car buyer.

also, the definition of "failed" likely means different things to different people.

a TV executive under pressure to cut costs may buy Rosenblum's idea, see the quality of his product plummet while his costs also drop.
is that a failure or a success?
depends what that guy's priorities really are.

[Roy Hobbs]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
Sadly, quality photography doesn't matter in TV news any more.Nor does quality reporting. Now hurry up and get those four vo/sots shot by 2 p.m. so our one editor can get to them in time for our new news anchor who's only worked in sports can narrate them with insight and clarity born of experience.

------------
Local TV News, where reporters are former anchors who never reported, Anchor/reporters don't report, and the hottest new news anchors are sports anchors who have never done news.

[Bureau Chief]

You see, Nds and GMS KNOW this wont work...they arent as stupid as we think they are. BUT they know that this will produce cost savings and thus will mean nice bonuses for them. Then when the rating drop, they can point their finger at this wacko, claiming that its his fault, he sold them on the system or that it must be the employees fault that it aint working. The bottom line is all that counts anymore in corporate broadcasting.

[Charlie Brown]

Originally posted by Roy Hobbs:
Now hurry up and get those four vo/sots shot by 2 p.m. so our one editor can get to them in time for our new news anchor who's only worked in sports can narrate them with insight and clarity born of experience.Jesus Roy...bitter much?

[NewsDirector]

At our station, we list all reporter openings as reporter/photographer positions but not for the sake of the bottom line.

I think in two years we have had three incidents where reporters actually shot their own video. Our philosophy, though, is that the absence of a photographer should never stop us from getting a breaking news story. It makes sense to have reporters who can shoot, even if they rarely or never do. You never know when a tornado, etc., is going to hit and you are going to need a camera on any shoulder available.

[Diplomat]

I've seen VJ work on a couple of stations and haven't been impressed.

I've seen small-market quality work on larger market stations, an ethical lapse or two, bad writing, bad photography and so on.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Diplomat:
I've seen... an ethical lapse or two...Like secretly recording audio of a funeral (http://www.news2wkrn.com/religion/2006/03/was_my_discernment_meter_off.html)? That's a link to the blog of WKRN's "Faith and Ethics" reporter demonstrating that he doesn't understand his beat. He snuck a wireless mic into a funeral while another VJ sat outside recording the service. Be sure and read the comments. They're classic.

This is the kind of work Michael Rosenblum advocates.

[amp]

Here is my 7 cents...(it's worth more cause it's true!)...

The problem with most VJs is that they start off as reporters. Luckily, when I had to one man band, I had been shooting for just over a year. I didn't have to worry about white balance, shot composition, or editing. Trying to start off learning to shoot and interview and write and edit and deal with everything else in the job is too much. You have NO downtime to gather your wits.

For those of you management types in the forum: stop looking at the short term bottom line! If you have a photog and a reporter, you get better stories and help insulate the station from lawsuits. Someone who has an extra set of eyes on a story is more careful with the facts. They aren't as flustered.

We have 2 one man bands at my station. Both started as photogs for many years. They now do what they do very well. I would not recommend any station having ALL one man bands. It is a bad idea for journalism sake.

Well, there is my 9 cents (blame inflation for the increase)

[ December 15, 2006, 08:11 AM: Message edited by: amp ]

[Spike]

Originally posted by amp:
The problem with most VJs is that they start off as reporters. Luckily, when I had to one man band, I had been shooting for just over a year. I didn't have to worry about white balance, shot composition, or editing. Trying to start off learning to shoot and interview and write and edit and deal with everything else in the job is too much. Ah, but Rosenblum addresses that in his sales pitch. Since he's selling them on the practice of using prosumer camcorders, he tells these managers that anybody can learn to shoot in three weeks because the cameras can be put on full automatic. Thus, he thinks they don't need to learn to white balance, and composition is something he claims to teach during his course. As for editing, he claims anybody can do that also, because Final Cut Pro is allegedly so user friendly that it can be mastered during his three week course.

That's one of the reasons he advocates the cheap gear, because it fits with his sales pitch that anyone can shoot and edit with a minimum of training. So while you appeal here to the managers to use common sense, they instead will listen to the snake oil salesman and say, "Why, he's right! I get perfectly good video with my OWN home camcorder when I tape little Billy's birthday parties! And we can save $6,000 per camera this way, too, and eliminate some jobs!"

[Roy Hobbs]

Originally posted by Charlie Brown:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Roy Hobbs:
Now hurry up and get those four vo/sots shot by 2 p.m. so our one editor can get to them in time for our new news anchor who's only worked in sports can narrate them with insight and clarity born of experience.Jesus Roy...bitter much?</font>[/QUOTE]http://www.antiquebottles.com/bitters/carmeliter.jpg

On the rare occasions when I do drink I prefer a chilled wine to bitters...

[ December 15, 2006, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Roy Hobbs ]

[Sir Dropham Pants]

How long till a majority, or at least a large number of stations go VJ?

[Rosenblum]

My first time on Medialine and I find myself unbidden being slandered up and down the street ... or rather thread.

I don't want to repeat the 680+ entries on tvspy, so I will try and be concise. I have designed and built stations in Europe for many years that work on the concept of a newspaper rather than a "TV show". As everyone in a newspaper has a paper and pencil and goes out and reports, papers can put many reporters on the street. Now, as cameras and edits become cheaper, easier to use, and there are more and more Jschool grads who can so this, we can begin to structure local news as local newspapers are built - with the same economics.

This is not OMB. This is instead creating a television news operation on a much older and far better model. It is however, a new working and economic model and it scares the crap out of a lot of people who don't like or want change.

Sorry for them.

To answer your question, I will guarantee it is coming to a lot more stations.. and soon. If you want to have any kind of future in video journalism, (and this incorporates webcasting, video on phones, newspapers and phone companies (and now I read Skype) moving into this realm, you best learn how to do this, and do it well.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

how is it different than OMB, Michael?

[Spike]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
This is not OMB.Yes it is. You've just branded it.

http://www.retro.com/employees/lee/SnakeOil.gif

[ December 18, 2006, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Spike ]

[cinehead]

Hey Michael,

I'm not sure if I buy into the VJ concept, but I think it's an issue worth discussing here. I hope you stick around for a lively (and with any luck, civil) debate.

[Rosenblum]

VJ v. OMB

This is not so easily answered but I will touch a few of the more important differences.

1. OMB is really a way that small market stations save money by making the reporter do everything but hoping that the product looks like a conventional television news story - stand up, interview, exterior etc... As well, many OMB shops make the reporter do as many pieces as possible in a day. Many OMB shops continue to use old, heavy gear which, while it still works saves the group money, clearly makes the task even hard. The core of the VJ premise is to maximize the number of cameras/edits in play at any given time. In most of the stations we have converted we target for 30, 40 or even 50 VJs in play. The target for any given VJ is 2.5 pieces per week, with one of those a day of air story. Hence, that leaves 1.5 pieces to be done in 4 days. In reality, about 25% of the stories covered on any given day are 'day of air'. We have for a long time engendered a kind of hysteria about 'day of air' or 'breaking news', much of which is neither and often little more than a fender bender. When you only have 6 crews to cover a given time period you often have to take anything that moves, any press conference (snore) and turn it into a news story. When you have 50 cameras in play, you can spend a lot more time on the journalism and crafting the piece.

The VJ driven piece tend to be more character driven, more intimate, richer emotionally and in focus groups resonate better with test audiences. But the key here is to buy the VJ time by taking people out of the newsroom and putting them out on the street to report.

2. Style. Small cameras and edits in the hands of one journalist give us the opportunity to change the style or grammar of video news. We all know the cookie cutter formula that everyone uses. This is completely different, or at least it has the potential to be completely different.

Look at it this way: When still cameras were first invented they were big and bulky and complex. They sat on tripods and the photos from that era are of stiff men in suits staring into a camera. When Leicas were developed in the 1930s, suddenly photojournalism changed. Photography became more intimate, more immediate and much more powerful. Look at the work of Magnum or Cartier Bresson. These small digital video cameras can be the Leicas of television journalism. We can move away from the stiff, heavy handed, static work that marks most television news now and create something that is equally powerful. That is the challenge.

One final point. This is far more than a philosophical question. This is happening now. The economics and technology make this inevitable. As with any radical technology driven change, there are those who will adapt well to it and discover new opportunities (and there are many) and those who will never be able to make the shift. I knew a great tape editor who simply could not learn Avid, or any other nonlinear system no matter how hard he tried. Talented, gifted in fact, but today fundamentally unemployable. No one escapes from the consequences of change. No one.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

well, I have to ask: why couldn't any OMB's stories also be "more character driven, more intimate, richer emotionally"?

getting away from everything being day of air is good.
so are smaller cameras.

I'm not sure I buy the "50 cameras" on the street part, though.
many, many local TV newsrooms don't even have 50 newsroom employees, period.
can you name a few places that actually have 50 cameras on the street every day?

and have the ratings improved markedly at any place that's implemented the VJ model?

[Rosenblum]

At the BBC, which is the largest place to have ever done this, we went from covering the entire UK with 84 beta crews to more than 900 cameras after a five year conversion. In the largest operations (ie, BBC Scotland or BBC Wales that translated to 50 VJs, sometimes more. In Germany at Hesse Rundfunk, the ARD station in Frankfurt we went to 75. In the US, where this is just getting started, we targeted 40 (I think at KRN in Nashville). The number should be the same in San Diego when the process is complete. Smaller stations obviously cannot reach these number, but just as newspapers in smaller markets put fewer reporters on the street than those in larger markets, so too will TV stations follow suit. Soon it will be inconceivable that a station like WABC in a market like NY actually attempted to cover the entire area with 12 crews. Its like saying the New York Times fielded 12 reporters today.

Could an OMB do a character driven, intimate piece. Sure, but good journalism takes time. Time with the subject, time to report a story. Its all about the number of cameras and edits in play. More VJs on the street buys more time for each VJ, and the ability to take risks that some stories might not pan out.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

so does Nashville actually HAVE 40 on the street now?

does anyone in the U.S.?

and is there any proof this has boosted ratings?

[ December 19, 2006, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: adam & doctor drew ]

[Ralphie the buffalo]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
so does Nashville actually HAVE 40 on the street now?

does anyone in the U.S.?

and is there any proof this has boosted ratings?Mike was only a tool used by management to cut costs and make WKRN and KRON more profitable stations. That is the long and short of it. They couldn't grow ratings so they cut costs.

I have read all the lectures on the b-roll.net message board and it all boils down to a couple things:

- more
- cheaper
- less quality

Mike is a used car salesman at heart. He will tell you that his plan will improve journalism, and perhaps he really believes it. But, the end result is worse quality product and lower wages for the workers. And the beans counters are happy.

[Consider This]

The difference between VJ and OMB, as you can discern from above, is marketing. Kudos to Michael Rosenblum for finding a way to re-label an old concept and make it sound new. And to make it sound like more than cost cutting. You can accuse him of selling snake oil but stations know exactly what they're buying, though it is more than a little disingenuous for either station managers or Michael to claim it's anything else.

This idea that VJ transforms a newsroom full of desk jockeys into an army of on-the-street newsgatherers is baloney. The assignment editors will stay planted by the scanners. The producers will still sit in their pod. The difference is that photogs will now have to write and report the stories they shoot and reporters will have to shoot and edit the stories they report.

Most aspects of the VJ model are merely rationalizations for its shortcomings. "No, no! We WANT interview subjects to look directly into the camera. It looks better." And it does. In home movies. That shaky tripod's-too-heavy-to-carry video is intentional too. "This is what kids are used to from watching YouTube. They'll relate better to it that all those stodgy well-framed still shots that let the action happen in the frame. Those don't belong in a newscast aimed at the hip generation; they're for the hip replacement generation!"

The smaller cameras are easier to carry and their features can help the settings-challenged. But to think they're for a TV reporter what a pencil and notebook are to a newspaper reporter is a ridiculous oversimplification. That analogy also equates editing a television story with typing. I realize that TV news is so often done inartfully that it's easy to forget that, much more than print journalism, it is an aesthetic medium. In TV you have to entertain to inform. If people can't stand to watch the pictures, they're not going to listen to the words. Conversely, make listening to the narration too much of a task and viewers won't tolerate that, either.

But that won't stop TV stations from adopting that model, or something similar. Several Gannett stations, including large market operations in Tampa in Denver, are adding jobs called "backpack journalists." Funny how that hasn't gotten shortened to "BJs" yet. I wonder why. Raycom's station in Memphis recently advertised here on MediaLine for an OMB. I don't remember what its name for the job was. By whatever name you use, Michael is correct when he says that OMBs will become more common.

Just don't believe any mumbo-jumbo that it's anything more than a money-saving move.

[Rosenblum]

Ironically, to some degree I agree with the above comment, but with a caveat.

This is indeed going to happen.

Knowing this, what YOU decide to do with it, that is, what the journalistic community decides to do with this technology is very much up to us. You can use it to hone a new generation of quality and depth and personalized video reporting or you can allow it to be used to make cheap, shaky video. Be certain, it can be used for either. The camera, quite literally, is very much in your hands. What you do with it now is entirely up to you.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

so Michael, do you have answers to my questions about Nashville and ratings?

[Rosenblum]

I have not been in Nashville in about 6 months and Mike Sechrist could give you more accurate information but I think ratings have improved slightly in the morning and held even for the rest. I also think there should be between 35-40 VJs, but again, I am not certain.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

I have no idea who Mike Sechrist is.
does he read or post on this board?

I'd be interested in the data.

[News Is Broken]

It's not so much that ratings have improved. It's that they have pretty much remained constant. Therefore, it's a success in that they reduced their expenses without sacrificing what little ratings they had, resulting in more profit for the parent company.

In the case of WKRN and KRON they seem to just not understand the concept of doing deeper stories and taking more risks like Rosenblum says his model allows. They instead do the same daily turn and churn of fires, crashes and crimes that any other station in their market is doing. I don't think any station in the US that is adopting this model intends to use it to better the product. If they do, I just haven't seen it yet. So far all I see is an attempt to create the same product they always have for less money.

HOWEVER

If the dollar wheel (see the xmas bonus thread) is any indication of where priorities lie with today's companies, you can expect VJ/OMB to not only become a reality, but it will someday become YOUR reality. Times are changing and those changes will inevitably be driven by cost first, quality second. It's up to you whether or not you want to adapt to the change or find a new way to make a living. As stated in another thread earlier today, every ND in the country has a stack of tapes on his/her desk of people who would love to replace you. I'm sure many won't have any qualms about VJing their way in for half the pay either. Sad but true.

Discuss.

[Roy Hobbs]

Yep. Last one out turn out the automated studio lights.

Those of you in NY, LA and Chicago...smile, you've got ten years left. Tops.

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
I have no idea who Mike Sechrist is.
does he read or post on this board?

I'd be interested in the data.Mike Sechrist is the GM at WKRN.

As for ratings, it should also be noted that the station recently reshuffled its anchor line-up on its morning and evening newscasts.

There have also been anchor shuffles at the NBC and CBS affiliates, which may also be a factor in ratings.

[ December 19, 2006, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Diplomat ]

[Another side]

Originally posted by News Is Bro-ho-ho-ken:
Times are changing and those changes will inevitably be driven by cost first, quality second. In the beginning, perhaps. But eventually they're going to want people who can perform, and if your gut responds, "Well, I can't learn and improve and perform for that little of money," then you're going to be sitting on the curb, watching those who can. You're going to have to adapt ... or get out of the way.

[Consider This]

Originally posted by Another side:
In the beginning, perhaps. But eventually they're going to want people who can perform.Then eventually they're going to pay them. It's hard enough to get people decently qualified to shoot OR report on the current salaries in most places, let alone to get people who can do both.

[Another side]

I dunno ... the tapes are piled pretty high on more than a few NDs' desks.

[Consider This]

Originally posted by Another side:
I dunno ... the tapes are piled pretty high on more than a few NDs' desks.There's never a shortage of the willing.

It's the number of able that is lacking.

[Roy Hobbs]

I've had a couple ND's take me on a tour of the stack. It's more quantity than quality.

[Another side]

Originally posted by Consider This:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Another side:
I dunno ... the tapes are piled pretty high on more than a few NDs' desks.There's never a shortage of the willing.

It's the number of able that is lacking.</font>[/QUOTE]"Willing" often trumps "able," particularly in new ventures where everyone will need training to one degree or another. There are going to be competent, able vets around who are clearly "able" but will spend half their time ridiculing the changes and the other half glowering at management and the newbies who were hired to affect them. They will be happier somewhere else and there are going to be news directors who will quickly send them on their way rather than put up with the foolishness. And replace them with cheaper help that is more willing.

[Consider This]

Originally posted by Another side:
"Willing" often trumps "able," particularly in new ventures where everyone will need training to one degree or another. But wait a minute. In response to someone who said that "Times are changing and those changes will inevitably be driven by cost first, quality second" you said earlier:

In the beginning, perhaps. But eventually they're going to want people who can perform.So which is it? Do they want the willing or the able? Because even after the training of those ready to jump aboard and the firing of those who aren't, you're not going to have a lot of people who can report and shoot and do both of them even decently well. It's hard enough to find people who can do either one of them at a high level.

I'll say it again: If you want people who can perform as OMBs, you're going to have to pay them. They will be rare no matter how tall the stacks of tapes are.

[Rosenblum]

As in the writing business, there are many who can write, but the spectrum of quality ranges from David Halberstam to the guy who writes for the weekly supermarket freebie. The same is true, and will be true for the VJs.

The technical skill set to do this is not hard to learn. The ability to create a compelling story however, is. And just as in print, those who can do this extremely well will be able to command a very good compensation - even better than those who currently command a good salary but need a support team to make the product.

We are in a transitional phase. I have no problem finding 23 year olds who can shoot and cut with their eyes closed. Their problem is lack of journalistic experience. They will get this over time, but it takes years. You cannot teach that in a week or a month. Those in the business already who can master the technical skill and marry it to the journalists will find a ready window of opportunity now, but one that will diminish as time progresses.

For those who resist making the change entirely, they will find an ever shrinking pool of employment possiblities as more stations and others (phone companies, web sites and newspapers) move in this direction.

The smart money will be those who can already do the journalism and write and then add this ability to their skill set. For them, and for those who can really do it well, there will be limitless opportunities. The best will be able to command top dollar, as always.

[John M.]

I do freelance stories that I shoot with my own camera and edit on my own computer (I posted an example here recently that should still be around). I like to do it. And I agree that we're going to see more stations adopt one-person-crews (whatever you want to call them).

But I also know that it will come at the cost of quality. I'd like to think I one-man-band as well as anyone but it's still difficult. The shooting and cutting, especially in a TV news time frame, is not as easy as some would lead you to believe. I don't conduct interviews as well when I have to shoot them too. The time I would spend getting an interview subject to forget about the camera I spend instead getting the camera set up. Time I would spend nosing around, talking someone up for background or simply observing I spend shooting b-roll.

Those things don't preclude turning good stories. I like that my photographer and I are always of the same mind. If the reporter me needs a shot I know I'll get it. If the photographer me sees or hears something cool, I know the reporter will use it. I edit with equal concern for the editorial and artistic sides of the story.

But how many other reporters have an interest in the technical side of electronic news gathering? How many would get satisfaction from capturing something cool looking on tape? I got a thrill when I saw this image in my viewfinder while covering a cross country state championship meet:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/115/1522/320/2006-11-11CrossCountryTV.jpg

I'm more than happy to show off this story (right-click and "Save Target As" to download the QuickTime version (http://ia331324.us.archive.org/2/items/FHSAA2006CrossCountryMeet/2006-11-10-FHSAACrossCountryWEB.mov)) simply because I'm proud of the shooting.

But how many people like me are there versus those who will tolerate shooting because it's their ticket to being on TV?

Photographers can probably convert to OMBs at least as easily as reporters. Many have more interest and insight in the stories they cover than their reporters. But can they write for broadcast? Will they want to do the practice it takes to become skilled narrators? Can they step in front of a camera and effectively communicate from that side of it? All while simultaneously doing their former jobs?

Truly good photographers and reporters are not that plentiful now. I can tell you from experience that people who can do both jobs well -- at the same time -- will be even less common.

I'm not optimistic that TV stations going this route to save money are going to pay them what they're worth.

[The Mockingbird]

If you're already using the economic model of journalists as disposable labor, skill doesn't matter much, honestly, since they're going to be gone in a year anyway.

Ideally, of course, you want someone good, but since, you can't afford to keep someone good... it's not required.

The appearance of competence is all that is really necessary.

[Union Label]

Originally posted by Diplomat:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
I have no idea who Mike Sechrist is.
does he read or post on this board?

I'd be interested in the data.Mike Sechrist is the GM at WKRN.

As for ratings, it should also be noted that the station recently reshuffled its anchor line-up on its morning and evening newscasts.

There have also been anchor shuffles at the NBC and CBS affiliates, which may also be a factor in ratings.</font>[/QUOTE]Anchor shuffles=poor management buying time for themselves. Good managers hire good people and know how to position them in the first place. Anchor shuffles usually have the same impact as a new news set.

OMB has its place in today's market but I've seen no evidence to lead me to believe that it warrants the sea change that the evangelists are professing.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

I have no doubt that it A) cuts costs and that's likely the #1 reason a station would implement it.

I've still seen no evidence that it B) improves the quality of the newscast or C) raises the ratings.

then again, the bosses probably don't care about B or C as long as they're getting A.

[ December 21, 2006, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: adam & doctor drew ]

[Roy Hobbs]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
As in the writing business, there are many who can write, but the spectrum of quality ranges from David Halberstam to the guy who writes for the weekly supermarket freebie. The same is true, and will be true for the VJs.

The technical skill set to do this is not hard to learn. The ability to create a compelling story however, is. And just as in print, those who can do this extremely well will be able to command a very good compensation - even better than those who currently command a good salary but need a support team to make the product.

We are in a transitional phase. I have no problem finding 23 year olds who can shoot and cut with their eyes closed. Their problem is lack of journalistic experience. They will get this over time, but it takes years. You cannot teach that in a week or a month. Those in the business already who can master the technical skill and marry it to the journalists will find a ready window of opportunity now, but one that will diminish as time progresses.

For those who resist making the change entirely, they will find an ever shrinking pool of employment possiblities as more stations and others (phone companies, web sites and newspapers) move in this direction.

The smart money will be those who can already do the journalism and write and then add this ability to their skill set. For them, and for those who can really do it well, there will be limitless opportunities. The best will be able to command top dollar, as always.Michael, I wish I could believe that last paragraph. Especially since I'm part of a generation that started out shooting and reporting and ended up as storytellers without a forum to tell stories...just a live camera to stare into and hurredly justify why a story we didn't really cover is being covered "right now."

I'll VJ 'til I'm poor white-balanced blue-in-the-face but isn't it the real reality that from this point forward only 23 year olds get hired while those with TRUE experience get the poop-eating grin in person and/or the "you certainly have an impressive resume" b.s. line from news directors who will NEVER hire anybody over 30 again?

[ December 23, 2006, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Roy Hobbs ]

[Another side]

Originally posted by Consider This:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Another side:
"Willing" often trumps "able," particularly in new ventures where everyone will need training to one degree or another. But wait a minute. In response to someone who said that "Times are changing and those changes will inevitably be driven by cost first, quality second" you said earlier:

In the beginning, perhaps. But eventually they're going to want people who can perform.So which is it? Do they want the willing or the able? Because even after the training of those ready to jump aboard and the firing of those who aren't, you're not going to have a lot of people who can report and shoot and do both of them even decently well. It's hard enough to find people who can do either one of them at a high level.

I'll say it again: If you want people who can perform as OMBs, you're going to have to pay them. They will be rare no matter how tall the stacks of tapes are.</font>[/QUOTE]Same chapter, different verse -- my two quotes are consistent. As Mr. Rosenblum said, there's no shortage of youngsters who can shoot and edit (and, I'll add, no real shortage of writers who can spin a pretty good yarn.) If they can learn each other's craft they'll one day be rewarded handsomely for it.

My point is, I don't think you're going to be able to march into a newsroom with a resume touting 12 years experience as a reporter and demand the same dollar that experience, alone, might get you today. And if you sneer at the prosepect of becoming a VJ, you're not going to be hired at all.

[ December 23, 2006, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: Another side ]

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by Union Label:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Diplomat:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
I have no idea who Mike Sechrist is.
does he read or post on this board?

I'd be interested in the data.Mike Sechrist is the GM at WKRN.

As for ratings, it should also be noted that the station recently reshuffled its anchor line-up on its morning and evening newscasts.

There have also been anchor shuffles at the NBC and CBS affiliates, which may also be a factor in ratings.</font>[/QUOTE]Anchor shuffles=poor management buying time for themselves. Good managers hire good people and know how to position them in the first place. Anchor shuffles usually have the same impact as a new news set.

</font>[/QUOTE]Allow me to clarify something on the anchor shuffles in question:

At the ABC affiliate, ALL the anchor teams have been shuffled in recent months. This happens from time to time, and as you pointed out, doesn't help.

At the CBS affiliate, the lead anchor is retiring within the next year and now just anchors the hour-long 6 pm show and fills in on the other evening shows when needed. The 5 pm anchor team, fairly new, also does the 10.

At the NBC affiliate, the morning and noon anchor teams were switched after less than a year. I personally think that was a bad move but it wasn't my call.

So I would say in the case of the CBS affiliate, it's really "succession planning."

But, as you said, shuffling anchors and getting new sets generally don't help ratings. I don't think the VJ thing will help, either.

[Rosenblum]

Dear Roy,

Lemme give you a bit of career advice, if I may.

As the news business has become commoditized, there is only marginal value in the quality aspect of it. As you so clearly point out, you spend the bulk of your time staring into a camera explaining why this "breaking news" story is important.

Let us not confuse the skill of storytelling with news. (Let us also not confuse 'news' with journalism).

The appetite for good quality content turned quickly at a reasonable cost has never been higher, but the great beast to be fed is not news but rather cable. If you turn on your TV set you will note that (if you live in NY like me) there are nearly 1,000 cable channels (and with the web going to video that is going to multiply enormously). Each channel MUST be filled. Watch Nat Geo or TLC or Discovery or Spike or whatever you like. MTV, VH1. It is an endless parade of video driven content. All of it must be created. Almost all of it is made by outside production companies

What does it take to be a production company? An idea, a camera, a laptop and the ability to tell a good story and deliver it in video.

Do you think you could use your skills to create 22 minutes of story telling (a cable half hour?). Shoot it and cut it and write it? I bet you could. Would you be amenable to going out and making one of these fo $50,000? How about $40,000? How about $30,000? That is the marketplace now. And they buy in blocks of 13, 26 or 52. Do the math.

Can you command top dollar for your skills at your age? As PF Bentley, who was my VJ for Drew Carey's Sporting Adventures on Discovery. PF is (sorry PF, plus 50). He is a VJ. He was formerly White House photographer for Time Magazine. (You can see some of his work at www.pfpix.com). (http://www.pfpix.com).) (I don't think he'll mind).

If you can make the kind of work he makes, you can command top dollar also. Only you know, but now at least you know its out there.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Another side:
As Mr. Rosenblum said, there's no shortage of youngsters who can shoot and edit (and, I'll add, no real shortage of writers who can spin a pretty good yarn.)There is no shortage of people who can point a camera and string shots together. There IS a shortage of people who can do it well. There is no shortage of people who can write something resembling a story. There IS a shortage of people who can do it well.

There are even fewer people who can do all those jobs at the same time and do them well. The person who can achieve anything approaching excellence as a one man band is a rare find.

This is the problem with Rosenblum's magical elixir. You might be able to find one or two stars who can do it all, but you'll have to fill out the rest of your staff with people who might have been good as a reporter or photog alone but who now have to deal with the distractions of the other craft. Rosenblum assumes that a station that adopts his model will attract a staff full of stars, but there just aren't that many out there to fill those spots. Any station that adopts it is doomed to mediocrity at best.

The strength of the two man system is that it plays to individual strengths. Someone who is a good reporter but bad shooter can still achieve excellence by simply not shooting and teaming up with someone who is a good shooter. A good shooter who is terrible at writing and presentation can still achieve excellence when teamed up with a good reporter.

Rosenblum's version of the VJ model doesn't allow for that. As a result, the pressure is on the station to find an entire staff of supermen who can do everything, or settle for mediocrity. Since those supermen simply don't exist in the kind of numbers necessary to fill out the rosters, the quality of the television product at these stations WILL suffer tremendously. All you have to do is look at the product at the stations that have already converted to see the result. For the most part, the work sucks.

And when viewers get a look at this kind of work, they tune out amateur hour in favor of the higher quality at the stations still running two man crews. Those stations may not even be doing excellent work, but they'll still do better work than the VJs simply because they are playing to their strengths and not constantly trying to shore up or work around weaknesses.

I think you'll see VJs in practically every station in this country eventually. But you won't see the kind of wholesale change that Rosenblum wants. You'll see more stations doing what Gannett is doing, making room for the stars who really can do it all while maintaining the quality of the primary product by playing to their strengths with conventional two man crews. Stations that are not dead last in their markets will not risk driving off viewers with a piss poor product.

[Rosenblum]

Needless to say, I beg to differ, but of course I am the consumate 'snake oil salesman', so beware of anything I tell you!!! smile.gif

First, if you take a cold hard look at the vast majority of local news stories in any given night, they are not (sorry) exactly masterworks of cinematography. Go ahead. Burn a few DVDs and look at them shot by show. (I do it all the time). You tell me what you see. Exterior of house. Police tape line. Wide shot as car drives down street. Window. Talking head. More police tape. Make notes. Be critical. We're not exactly talking Sven Nyquist here (with all deference to cameramen who often have little time to shoot better stuff). Also, our standards are so remarkably low for visuals already for the most part that it is easy to reach. How many times do you see the same shot repeated in one piece just so the editor can get to the end. Blue Velvet this is not.

By the same token, ironically, I have found that most experienced cameramen are far better 'reporters' than the reporters are! Its true. You know this yourself. You know that the new, green reporter is taught the ropes by the cameraman. While most reporters are busy clawing their way upmarket, most cameramen make a commitment to a station (and a community) for years and years. They know the players and the stories and the questions far better than the reporters do. Sorry, but this is the truth. Cameramen transit, in general far better and faster than reporters. And of course here we are not talking Youtube junk you seem to be so frightened of.

Can anyone who can write a story learn how to do that? Oh yes... and much better. If you don't believe me, take a look at the stories posted on www.rosenblumtv.com (http://www.rosenblumtv.com) or www.travisfox.com. (http://www.travisfox.com.) I have just taken a dvd from KGTV with their most recent stuff. Great! Really! I will put it up as soon as I get back from Tokyo so I can share it with you, but I am already showing it to newsrooms across the country and they are impressed.

Trust me, this is going to happen, and it is going to happen in lots and lots of places. And it is going to happen soon.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
First, if you take a cold hard look at the vast majority of local news stories in any given night, they are not (sorry) exactly masterworks of cinematography. That work is still better than the majority of the daily stories your VJs are turning, not only in photography but in writing and presentation as well. The VJs are hamstrung by their own weaknesses, and you've set up a system that not only doesn't allow them to make up for it, but also distracts them from exploring their strengths.

As for photogs making better reporters, you only say that because it fits with your money saving sales pitch. Tell station owners that they can get rid of "high priced" reporters (which aren't really all that expensive) and use photogs for everything, and they adore you with dollar signs in their eyes. Meanwhile the work coming from former photogs at the stations you've ruined is not increasing in quality for the most part. On the contrary, experienced shooters are making rookie mistakes in the photography and editing while turning an amateurish performance in the writing and presentation.

[Rosenblum]

First, I obviously don't agree with what you have written here. More significantly, we are in an interim and transitional phase. There are hundreds, if not thousands of 23 year old aspiring journalists who are video, online and computer literate. For them, shooting and editing comes second nature. What they lack is the journalistic experience, but that will come with time. They are the future.

As far as those who currently occupy newsrooms, they are faced with an admittedly unpleasant choice. They can either learn and become good at the new skillset, or find themselves effectively unemployable in the next 5-10 years. It is their misfortunte to be caught in a technological shift, but that is life. They are fortunate in that they have a window of opportunity in which they can seize the moment, embrace the new gear and become proficient, but each day wasted brings them closer to redundancy. The convergence of both technology and pure economics makes this absolutely inevitable.

Times change, and those who wish to survive must change with them. Success today is no guarantee of a sucessful future, as corporations like Kodak have so ably demonstrated.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
There are hundreds, if not thousands of 23 year old aspiring journalists who are video, online and computer literate. For them, shooting and editing comes second nature. No, it doesn't. They shoot and edit, but they don't do it well. This is where you show your ignorance, in thinking that just because someone can operate a camera and an edit machine, it means he's doing the job well. You have no idea what good work looks like.

[Rosenblum]

Sorry
But having spent the past twenty years in local newsrooms in this country and abroad I very much know what good work looks like... and I also know what bad work looks like. The truth here is that the process of 'making television' is not the dark art and highly complex event we like to pretend it is. Anyone can do it.

Can they do it well? That is up to the individual...now. Can YOU do it well? I dunno. But one think I can guarantee... if you can't do it well, you almost certainly have no future in this business.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
Sorry
But having spent the past twenty years in local newsrooms in this country and abroad I very much know what good work looks like... Bullsh*t.

You have very little idea how local newsrooms in this country operate. Your local news experience is what, as an AP twenty years ago?

And you don't know what good work looks like. How do I know? Because we've seen what you think is good work, and it isn't.

[Consider This]

Originally posted by Another side:
As Mr. Rosenblum said, there's no shortage of youngsters who can shoot and edit (and, I'll add, no real shortage of writers who can spin a pretty good yarn.) If they can learn each other's craft they'll one day be rewarded handsomely for it.
Where are all these whiz-bang writers? They're not on my local newscasts and I live in a top-15 market. And we must be operating under different definitions of "can shoot and edit." Many people can punch the buttons or operate the software. The number who can craft good video with them is significantly smaller.

I don't fear the OMB concept. I could one-man-band with U-matic 3/4" gear when I broke into this business and I can do it now with Mini-DV.

My bottom line is that the sole reason stations are adopting these positions is for their bottom lines. Cost matters more than quality. If it's more important to find the willing than the able, fine. I understand. Just don't pretend it's for any other reason.

[Rosenblum]

I have had these dumb discussions on other sites and I am not going to repeat it here.

However, I will say this: this is a business and there is nothing wrong with doing things more cost effectively. If you think when you go into the news business you are signing up to work in a religious order, you are in the wrong place. If you understand that this is first and foremost a business you might be able to deal with the real world a bit better.

[RollTide98]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
this is a business and there is nothing wrong with doing things more cost effectively.Finally, the true reasoning emerges.

[Randy Steinman]

Great thread.

Rosenblum, welcome to MediaLine.

[Another side]

Originally posted by Consider This:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Another side:
As Mr. Rosenblum said, there's no shortage of youngsters who can shoot and edit (and, I'll add, no real shortage of writers who can spin a pretty good yarn.) If they can learn each other's craft they'll one day be rewarded handsomely for it.
Where are all these whiz-bang writers? They're not on my local newscasts and I live in a top-15 market. And we must be operating under different definitions of "can shoot and edit." Many people can punch the buttons or operate the software. The number who can craft good video with them is significantly smaller.

I don't fear the OMB concept. I could one-man-band with U-matic 3/4" gear when I broke into this business and I can do it now with Mini-DV.

My bottom line is that the sole reason stations are adopting these positions is for their bottom lines. Cost matters more than quality. If it's more important to find the willing than the able, fine. I understand. Just don't pretend it's for any other reason.</font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I'm not. Money counts, money is important.

But let's not pretend the television world is filled with just two kinds of writers and photographers -- outstanding and lousy -- either. Most of us, regardless of our specialty, are somewhere in the middle.

And my bottom line is, if you've got a decent writer who can (and is willing to) learn to shoot and edit, then that someone is going to be paid well for the same reasons skilled photographers and writers are paid well today -- to keep them happy on their job, and to keep them from going to the competition.

I do agree it's up for debate whether a VJ will ever deliver a product as good as that turned in by a team comprised of an excellent reporter and an excellent photographer ... I'm just not sure it's a valid point, though, because it doesn't matter -- as Mr. Rosenblum says, the VJs are coming, like it or not.

[News Is Broken]

I blame Bush.

[SpxGrunt]

Rosenblum claims those of us who can master the BJ...er..VJ jobs will "command top dollar." So, who's paying top dollar for anything when they're lowering their standards to hire BJs to save money? Are we to believe TV stations will give us the discount supermarket argument that "the savings go directly to you!"?

[Rosenblum]

I am in Tokyo at the moment, but the miracle of jet lag a-la Lost in Translation keeps me up at 3AM. Glad you give me something to do.

Yes, VJs who produce really well (and I mean really well) will and do indeed command 'top dollar', but maybe not where you think it comes from. My very first VJ pieces were two I did in a Palestinian Refugee camp in the Gaza Strip (Jabalya). I sold those two piece to MacNeil/Lehrer for $50,000 in 1988. (I would call that top dollar). If you can deliver high quality without need of crew, editor, producer, you can still be profitable from the perspective of the client but earn much more yourself.

I pay my best VJs a lot, trust me, but they are worth every penny.

Cable presents the best opportunity for vj-driven income, if you can put the deal together yourself. They pay anywhere from $40k to $80k per half hour (22 mins), and they buy in bulk, (12, 26 or 52). Think you could manage to make that profitable?

The opportunties are there (and in lots of other places), but probably not where you are used to looking.

[News Is Broken]

So to get paid top dollar you have to go into business for yourself? Otherwise you get peanuts?

Sounds great.... for TV station budgets. graemlins/face_banghead.gif

I wonder if the fire department is hiring... or what about that truck driving school ad I saw on TV last night? Hmmm.

[SpxGrunt]

Am I missing the point here? I thought we were talking about LOCAL television stations going to OMBs, not about producing my own stuff to sell.

[Spike]

Originally posted by SpxGrunt:
Am I missing the point here? I thought we were talking about LOCAL television stations going to OMBs, not about producing my own stuff to sell.That's one of Rosenblum's regular tactics, trying to change the argument to confuse the issue. He constantly does this on other message boards. When he's losing an argument about VJs in local newsrooms, he'll start talking about Swedish television and the BBC. Wait 'til he drags out the horrible 5 Takes Europe show and tries to say that's the future of local news.

[Rosenblum]

The self destructive negativity of some people will never cease to amaze me.

You ask me where the 'top dollar'is in the VJ model. I tell you. And by the way, those who became VJs at KRON, KRN and KGTV have not suffered in terms of income at all. Some in fact have made more. But their long term earning prospects, by learning the skill, have appreciated a hundred fold. Should you care to take advantage of this information, please be my guest. Should you simply prefer to nothing but sit and complain about the state of the world and how unfair it all is, by all means, you are doing a great job so far.

Do you have to go into business for yourself to earn 'top dollar'? As a rule of thumb, you will generally make more money selling to a network than as an employee. But this is entirely up to you.

In so far as the 5takes model is concerned, you are more than welcome to look at the site www.5takes.com. (http://www.5takes.com.) The show has just been renewed for its fourth season.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
But their long term earning prospects, by learning the skill, have appreciated a hundred fold. Baloney.

[SpxGrunt]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
And by the way, those who became VJs at KRON, KRN and KGTV have not suffered in terms of income at all. I'm sure they haven't. They're getting paid the same salary to do twice the work.

[Rosenblum]

Originally posted by Spike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rosenblum:
But their long term earning prospects, by learning the skill, have appreciated a hundred fold. Baloney.</font>[/QUOTE]Naah. You are right Spike.
There is no value at all to knowing how to shoot, cut, write and produce content on your own.

Who would want to hire someone like that?

You just stick to that shift job you got until pension time comes along, ....if you can manage it.

[Another side]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
In so far as the 5takes model is concerned, you are more than welcome to look at the site www.5takes.com. (http://www.5takes.com.) The show has just been renewed for its fourth season.The link doesn't work. Do you have another?

[Rosenblum]

try this one:

http://5takes.travelandlivingasia.com/

That one leads to Discovery Asia site. If that is no good, go to www.Discovery.com (http://www.Discovery.com) and follow links to 5takes.

lemme know what you think.

[Rosenblum]

Here's the Discovery USA link

http://travel.discovery.com/fansites/5takes/usa/usa.html?clik=netmain_feat1

[Spike]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Spike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rosenblum:
But their long term earning prospects, by learning the skill, have appreciated a hundred fold. Baloney.</font>[/QUOTE]Naah. You are right Spike.
There is no value at all to knowing how to shoot, cut, write and produce content on your own.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I am right. It carries the same value that one man banding has always carried. And yet, people who one man band when they start out in small markets don't often see their earning prospects "appreciated a hundred fold." If what you say about one man bands were true, then the majority of television news reporters in this country would be millionaires, since most of them have worked as one man bands at some point and should have seen their earning prospects "appreciated a hundred fold."

This has very little to do with people going off to produce their own shows to sell to cable networks. The people who are going to do that would do so whether they ever had to one man band or not. We're not talking about those people. We're talking about people who want to work as journalists in their communities, covering good stories and being paid for their craft. You know, the people you're *****ing over to make money for yourself.

This is simply another example of you trying to change the argument to something you think you can win. People here want to know how their skills will be valued by employers under your influence, so you start talking about going into business for themselves instead of answering them. That's because you know what you're doing will drive the value of the work down. You're not fooling anyone except money drunk managers and 23 year olds who haven't yet learned about trying to buy a home and raise a family on peanut wages.

[Spike]

And by the way, that 5 Takes garbage has absolutely nothing to do with local news and the stations you're ruining.

[Rosenblum]

Man.. do you have some hostility in you or what?

What we are talking about here is the impact of new technologies on our industry. We are actually talking about the impact of three technologies:

1. Cameras are now small, inexpensive and easy to use without sacrificing quality. Hence, many more people can get access to them.
2. Edits that once cost hundreds of thousands of dollars are now avaialble in a laptop and can operated by virtually anyone.
3. The delivery platform, which was once circumscribed by transmission or cable is now beginning to be open to the web, which means many more outlets for content, but also a fractionalization of the audience and per minute revenue.

That is the basis of all that is happening and all that is going to happen. It is going to mean a massive shift in our business that is going to impact every aspect of it. The basic economic structure of ALL parts of TV are going to change. Local news included. It is all part of a much more massive and fundamental shift in the entire video/online/television business.

The way that stuff is made (tv shows, journalism, news) is going to change. The people who make it are going to be different. The way it gets delivered is going to be different. This is all borne by a confluence of technology and economics.

You find yourself caught in this confluence and you are angry. Get over it. Change comes to all industries. Those who adapt survive. Those who fail to die. This is nothing new and television and journalism are nothing special.

You are not going to hold back the tide of technology and the laws of economics. No one is. So the intelligent person looks at what is coming and says, 'how can I profit from the change? What is the new world going to look like?

The new world is going to look a lot like print - lots of people with a skill set, relatively simple technology for delivery and creation. Big demand for content across many platforms.

Journalism seems not only to survive in print, it thrives. Better than the current controlled and expensive tv archtecture. But it is different.

Print does not need 'professional scribes' to write out what the journalists want to say. The do it themselves. Some print journalists at newspapers command a pretty good income. Some make little. It is based on the quality of their work.

If you can deliver a good product, you can command a good price, no matter what the platform.

What does 5takes have to do with this? I dunno. YOU brought it up, not I. It is, however,, produced with exacty the same technology and by the same people.

Is this kind of rapid technology borne change scary? You bet it is. Can people profit from it? You bet they can, if they understand what it is all about. Will you profit from it? I doubt it. You are too busy slandering me and looking for 'enemies' who are 'destroying good working people'. Look to yourself. Your future is dependent upon what you do, not what I do.

[Spike]

Nice. Change the subject again.

Tell us about those VJs at local stations who will be making top dollar, Mike.

[Rosenblum]

And, by the way, not to have missed the point, KRON, for example is reportedly paying its established VJs $75k - $100k, while new hires are coming in at $65k. This is probably pretty commensurate with what the SF Chronicle pays its print journalists.

[2:30]

Oh, crap.

The self proclaimed messiah of the late DV Dojo has brought his idiotic argument here.

Congratulations on having worked out a more profitable way to teach Final Cut.

Stand by for "it's coming, get ready" spiel...with the obligatory (and correct) "it doesn't work, it's destined to fail, it's bad reporting" rejoinders from people who actually have careers in television news, as opposed to consulting.

[ December 30, 2006, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: 2:30 ]

[Spike]

Originally posted by 2:30:
Stand by for "it's coming, get ready" spiel...with the obligatory (and correct) "it doesn't work, it's destined to fail, it's bad reporting" rejoinders from people who actually have careers in television news, as opposed to consulting.You haven't read the thread, have you?

[2:30]

No. After wading through more than 600 posts on TVspy - and that was just the last time around - I'm totally done with it. The master marketer has many guises, and is as trustworthy as any consultant.

From what I hear, his success rate in this country is equal to his trustworthiness.

[The Thrill]

Plenty more on b-roll.net, too.

[Fake Post]

Got news for you on one man banding. You can see it at the network level as well.

CNN's Anderson Cooper knows very well how to shoot a standup while he's looking into the camera and operating it at the same time. I've seen plenty of his more enterprising stories where he has done just that.

Also, before Ted Koppel of ABC News' Nightline also OMB'd some of his own video stories when he went behind bars into prison and in the Middle East.

Brian Williams of NBC News used his cell phone camera to catch the inside of the Superdome in New Orleans when the rain from Hurricane Katrina began leaking onto the field.

[ January 03, 2007, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Fake Post ]

[The Mockingbird]

You may see it on the Network level, but it's generally only in very, very specific circumstances, and emergency ones at that.

The fact is, you have one guy concetrating on the interviewing, and one guy concentrating on the mechanics, and you, on average, get a lot better product.

Also, many people are either visually or verbally oriented, and both skillsets are required for good storytelling.

I think there's probably a better dynamic than the OMB phenomenon, but it hasn't been conceived yet.

[Spike]

Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
I think there's probably a better dynamic than the OMB phenomenon, but it hasn't been conceived yet.Oh, I think it has:

VJ Mark II (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2135476365027281417)

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
1. Cameras are now small, inexpensive and easy to use without sacrificing quality. Hence, many more people can get access to them.
2. Edits that once cost hundreds of thousands of dollars are now avaialble in a laptop and can operated by virtually anyone.If I give you four $5 paintbrushes, a $15 canvas and a palette of oil paints, can you create a masterpiece?

Come on now, anyone can afford those tools. So anyone can be Van Gogh, right?

No skills are required, no ability. Just access.

Your theory is flawed. It is driven by a desire to do things more cheaply, not to make them better.

[Rosenblum]

Van Gogh can produce great paintings with a $5 brush or a $500 brush (if such a thing exists). Indeed, creativity is all about talent.

People who have come to work in television are there because they want to create television and believe that they have some degree of talent - like people who become artists (and by the way, not everyone becomes Van Gogh, but that does not stop them, nor should it).

Anyone who works in television and cannot pick up the 'brush' and create something of value is in the wrong business and should get out.

Van Gogh did not require a 'professional brush man to hold his brush, nor did he require an easel person to hold the easel. I could not agree with you more in fact. What I am tryhing to do is to empower talent. Those without talent to make tv should and will get out of the way while those with talent who can create content will not only survive but thrive.

[Roy Hobbs]

Not many of us have lost an ear but more than a few are losing their a$$.

[Original Cynic]

Those with talent are getting out of the business all together. What we will be left with is a bunch of 22 year old college grads who can't tell opinion from fact

[Rosenblum]

On the contrary, those with true talent will find a very bright future. Rather I would say that it is the deadwood that will be eliminated.

[Another side]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
If I give you four $5 paintbrushes, a $15 canvas and a palette of oil paints, can you create a masterpiece?

Come on now, anyone can afford those tools. So anyone can be Van Gogh, right?

No skills are required, no ability. Just access.

Your theory is flawed. It is driven by a desire to do things more cheaply, not to make them better.My interest in Mr. Rosenblum's proposals is for my website, not TV news. But if the argument is that by staffing VJs the TV news industry is going to lose its Van Goughs, then pardon me while I snort and slap my knee.

There was only one Van Gough, and there aren't many more than that throughout the broadcast ranks. And probably fewer when you consider that what your suggesting is that there is a Van Gough photographer teamed with a Van Gough reporter primed and ready to run out every newsroom door as soon as the assignment desk finds them a canvas on which to paint. That's preposterous.

I have a question: Are you denying that changes are coming, that deep-thinkers in the news business are concerned about the future of their product and their company? Do you believe the audience numbers are muscular and stable and that there's no reason to look at the future and see where it's going?

How many presumed TV professionals here on Medialine have said they don't watch the news when they are off ... or on vacation ... or between jobs? How many have switched to another profession and say they now watch no local TV news at all? I'll answer for you: many, many, many.

All this argument about "preserving" the quality of local TV news is hilarious. In its present incarnation and in the vernacular ... local news broadcasts SUCK. It expects the viewer to arrive at a given time -- a precise 30-minute window determined by the news executives -- and to sit attentively in a living room chair and watch the latest collection of mind-numbing car crashes, cops offering little more than a "no comment" to whatever robbery or identity theft case just appeared, all broken up by "happy talk" between a couple of toothy, grinning anchors who were hired for their looks and personality and would have to grab a encylopedia to find out just who the hell this Van Gough is that some people are referring to. You think this is good TV ... "quality" TV? Something worth preserving? The audience sure doesn't and it's proving it every day.

And for the life of me, I can't figure out why adults, far enough along in their careers to consider themselves "professionals" can't grasp the fact that stockholders demand returns on their investments, and that the folks running these businesses have an obligation to provide for the stockholders -- through lower costs, fewer expenses and increased net profit.

I personally think people like you and Spike are done. And I really don't have a stake in it anymore -- I'm retired, out, finished. I hope you're close to retirement as well, because you'll soon be irrelevant.

And I'm not blind. I can see that local TV news as we know it is on its way out. It doesn't work, few watch it, and if it doesn't change it will die.

Are VJs the answer? Who knows. But let's face it -- the mythical "quality" of the work turned in by the alleged TV professionals you're so damned afraid of insulting or losing, hasn't done it either. People are rejecting their efforts in droves, despite that which you inexplicably continue to argue is the secret to the future: stay the course, except reward those unable to attract a sufficient audience by paying them more. That's laughable.

[John M.]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
If I give you four $5 paintbrushes, a $15 canvas and a palette of oil paints, can you create a masterpiece?

Come on now, anyone can afford those tools. So anyone can be Van Gogh, right?
Yes. At least anyone can try. For one of my freelance jobs I shoot stories with my own camera and edit them on my own computer edit station. Here's one I just completed. (http://ia310909.us.archive.org/2/items/2007TommyWyherStory/2007-01-03-TommyWyherWEB.mov) (Right-click and "Save Target As..." It's 13 MB.)


No skills are required, no ability. Just access.
Plenty of skills are required. Lots of ability. To do it well. Just not expensive equipment. Or anyone's help. Not many people can do this. Nor can many paint like Van Gogh. But the possibility exists.

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
Van Gogh can produce great paintings with a $5 brush or a $500 brush (if such a thing exists). Indeed, creativity is all about talent.

People who have come to work in television are there because they want to create television and believe that they have some degree of talent - like people who become artists (and by the way, not everyone becomes Van Gogh, but that does not stop them, nor should it).

Anyone who works in television and cannot pick up the 'brush' and create something of value is in the wrong business and should get out.

Van Gogh did not require a 'professional brush man to hold his brush, nor did he require an easel person to hold the easel. I could not agree with you more in fact. What I am tryhing to do is to empower talent. Those without talent to make tv should and will get out of the way while those with talent who can create content will not only survive but thrive.And I'm sure the bean counters would love to pay its VJ's an amount similar to what Van Gogh earned in his lifetime, too. (Next to nothing)

[Spike]

Originally posted by Another side:
All this argument about "preserving" the quality of local TV news is hilarious. In its present incarnation and in the vernacular ... local news broadcasts SUCK. It expects the viewer to arrive at a given time -- a precise 30-minute window determined by the news executives -- and to sit attentively in a living room chair and watch the latest collection of mind-numbing car crashes, cops offering little more than a "no comment" to whatever robbery or identity theft case just appeared, all broken up by "happy talk" between a couple of toothy, grinning anchors who were hired for their looks and personality and would have to grab a encylopedia to find out just who the hell this Van Gough is that some people are referring to. You think this is good TV ... "quality" TV? Something worth preserving? The audience sure doesn't and it's proving it every day.And yet, Rosenblum's VJ system isn't going to fix any of that. On the contrary, the product at WKRN and KRON has gotten worse, not better.

See, you have misunderstood a crucial point. I have not argued for the quality of local news. I have argued that this is not the solution. There's a big difference. Rosenblum tries to confuse the issue, implying that if you don't like his system, that you must think the current system is perfect. That's not the case, yet you bought his sales pitch hook, line and sinker.

What is the solution? I'm not sure. But I don't actually have to have a solution to be able to see that Rosenblum's solution will end in failure. Worse than failure, even, in that it will make the product worse and drive off the remaining audience.

[John M.]

Originally posted by Spike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John M.:
For one of my freelance jobs I shoot stories with my own camera and edit them on my own computer edit station. Here's one I just completed. (http://ia310909.us.archive.org/2/items/2007TommyWyherStory/2007-01-03-TommyWyherWEB.mov) (Right-click and "Save Target As..." It's 13 MB.)
You're getting almost as bad as Fearmonger.</font>[/QUOTE]Ha! Ha! Thank you for the chuckle.

But not by a long shot. You may rest assured that the link goes directly to a QuickTime movie file. There are no ads or anything attached to or embedded in it. I included it only so people could judge for themselves how qualified I was to comment.

I don't have a dog in this fight. It is worth noting that the producer of the show to which I contribute these stories doesn't care how big the crew is that covers them. All he cares about is the product that gets delivered. He pays the same no matter how many people I use. For two people to split, it's not a lot. For someone working solo, it adds up nicely.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
What I am tryhing to do is to empower talent.No, what you are trying to do is make one person do more work. You want them to be the proverbial "Jack of All Trades" without remembering that the rest of that line is "...Master of None."

All you want to do is please your ND and GM masters who pay you to convince them that they can cut salaries and staff sizes and yet still cover the news as well.

[Another side]

Originally posted by Spike:
And yet, Rosenblum's VJ system isn't going to fix any of that. On the contrary, the product at WKRN and KRON has gotten worse, not better. I'll take your word for that; I simply don't know.

See, you have misunderstood a crucial point. I have not argued for the quality of local news.
What? You need to go back and reread your posts -- they're all about the destruction of "quality" if Mr. Rosenblum's ideas are put in to practice.

I have argued that this is not the solution. There's a big difference. Rosenblum tries to confuse the issue, implying that if you don't like his system, that you must think the current system is perfect. That's not the case, yet you bought his sales pitch hook, line and sinker.As far as local TV news, I haven't bought a damn thing -- hook, line OR sinker -- and said so earlier. Where I do agree with him, is that TV news has to change, that if you can put 25 cameras on the street (my number; you didn't seem to like 50)everyday, there are more options available to producers and for the audience. Your position has been it won't work because it hurts the quality and besides, Rosenblum is a fraud; Mine is I don't know whether he's a fraud, and I don't know whether it would work, but in theory it makes enough sense that I'd like to see it.

What is the solution? I'm not sure. But I don't actually have to have a solution to be able to see that Rosenblum's solution will end in failure. Worse than failure, even, in that it will make the product worse and drive off the remaining audience.I agree: you don't have to have a solution -- Lord knows, I don't. But what if you took another man's solution, tried it, tinkered with it, barnstormed with others on how best to modify it, and worked out its imperfections? To do that, you have to start somewhere. Maybe it will never work, but we apparently agree on this much: TV needs fixed, and right now,it seems to be the only proposal on the table.

[ January 04, 2007, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Another side ]

[Spike]

Originally posted by Another side:

What? You need to go back and reread your posts -- they're all about the destruction of "quality" if Mr. Rosenblum's ideas are put in to practice.
No, it's not about the destruction of quality. It's about the overwhelming tendency of the VJ system to cause the quality to trend downward.

Nowhere have I argued that the news product in general, throughout the country, is high quality. But quality is not an absolute attribute. You don't usually either have quality or not have quality. You have some stations that are high quality, some not so high, some mediocre, some bad, etc.

VJ makes them all slide downward on the quality scale. If you start with a good newsroom, you'll turn mediocre or worse. If you start with a mediocre newsroom, you'll turn bad. In this way the quality is degraded, no matter the starting point, because the VJ system simply does not allow the individual to play to strengths and shore up weaknesses through teamwork.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:


All you want to do is please your ND and GM masters who pay you to convince them that they can cut salaries and staff sizes and yet still cover the news as well.and what's wrong with that?

remember, Rosenblum is simply selling an idea.
if you don't like it, blame the STATIONS that are buying it.

[Another side]

Originally posted by Spike:
No, it's not about the destruction of quality. It's about the overwhelming tendency of the VJ system to cause the quality to trend downward.*laughing*
OK, Spike. You're trying to hard, my friend.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:


All you want to do is please your ND and GM masters who pay you to convince them that they can cut salaries and staff sizes and yet still cover the news as well.and what's wrong with that?

remember, Rosenblum is simply selling an idea.
if you don't like it, blame the STATIONS that are buying it.</font>[/QUOTE]..and drug dealers are simply selling a product.

If you don't like it, blame the DRUG ABUSERS who are buying it.

Right?

Or is the seller culpable as well?

[The Mockingbird]

Well, that's a bit hyperbolic.

The fact is, the vast majority of consultants do little good or harm to the industry; however, consultants like Rosenblum are doing a LOT of harm.

It's interesting to hear people who haven't seen KRON's recent work defend the system, though. I managed to catch a show when I was passing through. Wow.

If you're going to use the basic philosophy that VJ's entails, why just go halfway? Why not train a million monkeys, and have them run around your market. You might get video Shakespeare, according to the laws of probability.

[Backup QB]

Michael, I think it takes a stand-up guy to come here and face the criticism and offer replies.

That being said, I don't agree with you at all. Your model is the same as one-man banding. It's like saying there's a substantial difference between Nestle Crunch and Krackel. I think we'd only need one hand to count the number of operations where this is working successfully.

Yes, it could, in theory, allow more people to go out into the field and cover stories, and each of those people could have more time to put stories together. However, most news stations would simply view this as a cost-saving measure and expect to have stories produced in the same timing as they are now.

Your comments, while well-intentioned on your part, sound little more than the rhetoric that comes from the general managers and station group managers who profit by giving us fast talk and thin paychecks. Glad I'm out of the business!

[Rosenblum]

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to engage in this kind of give and take, which I think is productive.

Please bear in mind that the VJ component of this is part of a much larger picture, one that encompasses a complete rearchitecting of how newsrooms work, and to a greater degree (if things pan out) how complete news organizations work. But it begins with the reporting. The system is, if nothing else, reporter driven. It seeks to maximize the number of reporters on the street and changes the kind of stories that they do. All the rest flows from this.

Our is first and foremost a business. It is an important business, but it is very much a business, and as such it has be flexible and respond to both challenges and new technologies. The basics of television newsgathering and dissemination have not changed much in 50 years and it is far past the time for tinkering. Audience numbers are in decline everywhere. As we saw with CBS Evening News, fixes like changing the anchor are no solution. It is time for a kind of revolution.

Is VJ the answer? Of course not. Is it part of the answer? I think so. I think so because of the ramifications of how limited resources in a newsroom get spent. I would rather spend them putting reporters on the street. I don't have to tell you that for Katie Couric's $16 million I would have put 200 VJs at $80K each in the service of CBS News. (or if you prefer 100 at 160K). In either case, I think the audience and journalism would have been better served.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Spike:
On the contrary, the product at WKRN and KRON has gotten worse, not better.

See, you have misunderstood a crucial point. I have not argued for the quality of local news. I have argued that this is not the solution. There's a big difference. Rosenblum tries to confuse the issue, implying that if you don't like his system, that you must think the current system is perfect. That's not the case, yet you bought his sales pitch hook, line and sinker.Spike, there's a really smart guy named Gregg Easterbrook who write the Tuesday Morning Quarterback column, now hosted on ESPN's Page 2. Check it out... the guy can flat-out write, and brings in a wide variety of interests.

I mention him, because he is also a flag football coach, and has designed a play that is unstoppable. It is called "Blast Gold," and on the 9 occasions his team ran the play this season, they scored 7 touchdowns, and the other two plays netted over 40 yards each.

I would love to see the diagram for Blast Gold so I could weigh the merits of the scheme for myself. But I do feel confident in saying this:

If you run Blast Gold with fewer players on the field, it won't work.

You cite crappy quality out of KRON and WKRN. Yet from everything I've heard out of the Young operations, there was far greater than anticipated attrition, and no priority placed on rebuilding the roster.

You are calling Rosenblum's paradigm a crappy design and a failure, yet you haven't seen it run with the appropriate number of players on the field. I dare say that if you criticized "Blast Gold" under similar conditions, Easterbrook would tear you a new one and make you cry Uncle. Or just cry.

Now -- I have openly criticized Rosenblum on precisely this point: that heretofore, in American markets, he's failing to maintain the necessary corporate buy-in to ensure the playbook runs as intended. He's been open to that criticism. Over the last couple of years of heat, he's changed parts of his program, particularly with regards to the way a newsroom ought to be organized to best utilize the advantages of "troop strength."

I turned down a very generous offer to report at WKRN, and later got out of the business. I have no doubt that I'd be a very successful VJ if I were there now. Many are of the mindset that they can learn, adapt, and make themselves more valuable for the long haul. Your denigration of the entire concept is an insult to those individuals who are making it work, and feel a greater pride of ownership and accomplishment for turning their own vision into reality.

I'm not saying you have to like it -- nor do you have to kiss Rosenblum's butt -- nor do you have to bow down and worship our new insect masters. I'm still not sold on the model from top to bottom. But the reactions of many hear are based in emotion instead of analysis and reason.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Vulcan:
You cite crappy quality out of KRON and WKRN. Yet from everything I've heard out of the Young operations, there was far greater than anticipated attrition, and no priority placed on rebuilding the roster.No, no, no. Rosenblum doesn't get to use that, for two reasons.

First off, that's a typical consultant copout. I know you've probably seen it yourself. A consultant comes in with a bunch of changes for a station that are guar-an-teed to increase ratings. When they don't, the consultant simply says, "Well, my ideas would have worked if the station would have followed my instructions."

See, it's always the fault of the client that it didn't work, and never the fault of changes that weren't actually workable the way the consultant wanted to use them. The stations that haven't put 50 one man bands on the street, the ones that don't have their producers, assignment editors and news directors turning content the way Rosenblum said they would, abandoned much of his drivel because they saw immediately that it wouldn't work.

Have you ever studied business systems? I have. Successful human systems ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS take into account not only the money, not only the production needs, but also the psychology of the employees AND managers. If the clients refuse to implement the system the way you design it, then you have failed in the design to understand all of the psychology involved, and your system itself is a failure.

And that leads to the second reason Rosenblum doesn't get to use that copout. This was explained to him two or three years ago, before he ever had a deal with Young Broadcasting. He splattered his garbage all over B-Roll trying to recruit people to his DV Dojo classes, and a large number of people told him not only that his system wouldn't work, but why. A bunch of us predicted exactly what has happened. What did he say? He said that the system was so great and wonderful that our objections were irrelevant, that the stations WOULD accept it the way he claimed. He was so confident in that point that their acceptance of his system exactly the way he wanted to do it became part of the success of the system. Thus, if they didn't do what he asked, then the system failed, by his own benchmarks.

Originally posted by Vulcan:
You are calling Rosenblum's paradigm a crappy design and a failure, yet you haven't seen it run with the appropriate number of players on the field. I dare say that if you criticized "Blast Gold" under similar conditions, Easterbrook would tear you a new one and make you cry Uncle. Or just cry.Terrible analogy, and here's why. The number of players on a football field is set by the rules. Easterbrook knew how many players he had to work with when he started, and he designed a play around that number. Rosenblum, in contrast, looked at the number of players he had and realized his system would NOT work, so he inflated the numbers to try to make it work out on paper. The Easterbrook equivalent of what Rosenblum has done would be to design a play that required 22 players, then whine that the play didn't work because not enough players could be fielded.

Originally posted by Vulcan:
Many are of the mindset that they can learn, adapt, and make themselves more valuable for the long haul. Your denigration of the entire concept is an insult to those individuals who are making it work, and feel a greater pride of ownership and accomplishment for turning their own vision into reality.If they take it as an insult, then they aren't being honest with themselves about the system. I have actually seen some decent one man band work. There are some very talented people doing this kind of thing. They were doing it long before Rosenblum started peddling his snake oil.

The problem is that the people who can do this well are few and far between. As I have said before, this system will only work if you have an entire newsroom full of video and journalism geniuses. One or two or five isn't going to cut it, because the rest of your newscasts will be filled out with mediocre to poor work coming from the one man bands who aren't good with one or the other skill sets required and whose work suffers as a result. That's where the conventional model is so much stronger, in that someone who is visually weak but verbally strong can play to his strengths and let a collaborator who is strong in visuals and weak in verbals play to his strengths as well.

Rosenblum thinks he can train a legion of video geniuses, but people with the talent and multi-tasking ability to do it are too rare. Returning to your football analogy, it's like trying to create an entire playbook of plays that only work if the majority of the players run the 40 in under 4.6 seconds, then trying to make ALL the teams in a league use that playbook.

And to bring it back to your accusation above, a true craftsman capable of turning good work under Rosenblum's horrible conditions wouldn't (or shouldn't) be insulted by anything I've written, because I haven't criticized them. I've criticized the system. I've criticized the overall body of work, which IS poor because of the poor system. Getting insulted by that would be like someone who can run that 40 in 4.38 seconds getting insulted because I said his 8 second team average was slow.

Originally posted by Vulcan:
But the reactions of many hear are based in emotion instead of analysis and reason.I think what I've written is pretty damned well thought out already, and I see no reason why I can't also be angry at the conclusions at which I've arrived through reason and direct personal observation. But if you really want analysis and reason, I'll give you a good application of Gresham's Law.

Gresham's Law originally applied to coins. The idea was that debasement of some coins brought down the value of all the coins in circulation. For example, if you had solid silver coins worth a dollar, and the government then began minting dollar coins that were only 50% silver, people would begin hoarding the 100% coins, taking them out of circulation. They would be traded only among collectors or sold outside the country for their silver content. Soon only 50% silver coins would be in circulation, and the total value of the coinage in circulation would have dropped. Gresham lived in the time of Elizabeth I, and used his analysis to explain to the queen why her gold was leaving the country at an alarming rate.

Gresham really doesn't apply to money any more, because money is no longer pegged to a commodity like gold or silver. Gresham's Law does, however, pop up in other markets. Take, for example, antiques. Suppose someone began flooding the antique market with imitation pieces. Soon the entire market would lose value, not only because people would hoard the genuine pieces and keep them off the market, but also because the confidence in the antique market would be shaken as well and would restrict it to serious collectors.

Slightly modified, Gresham applies in education as well. Suppose you have schools that are designed to teach for excellence. Then you introduce standardized testing that establishes a baseline achievement level of 70% of the scores of the brightest students and force the schools to turn out students that meet that 70% level in order to graduate. The schools will then refocus their efforts to getting 100% of their students at the 70% level. They'll focus on the less talented students while somewhat ignoring the excellent students. They shift toward the mediocre. The lower focus debases the value of the education.

Now how does Gresham apply to craft fields? Independent film, to which Rosenblum likes to refer sometimes, is a perfect example. Digital cameras came along, "democratizing" independent film. Suddenly anyone could afford to make a movie, and many, many people did. Where there were a few hundred people making 16mm films before, thousands began churning out DV "films." People like Rosenblum proclaimed a victory for "artistic expression" and hailed the coming of brilliant masterpieces that otherwise wouldn't have arrived. DV film schools popped up in New York and LA to teach anyone how to make a movie in just three or four weeks.

But in reality they couldn't get away from Gresham. Did the masterpieces come? A few bright spots appeared. But for the most part, the work was utter dreck. The majority of those people trying to make their big movie on the cheap really had neither the talent nor the training in the craft (important even with automatic cameras) to achieve the brilliant artistic expression we were supposed to see.

And here's the important part. The value of the independent film market overall dropped like a rock. Was it because the true masterpieces weren't desirable by the distributors looking to buy them? No! Distributors still wanted good product. They just couldn't find it very easily when it was mixed in with all the garbage. Where they once might watch 20 or 30 hours of films to find one they could market, they now had to watch 500 hours. They had neither the time nor resources, so good DV films languished in the NY Film Market catalog and never found an audience.

The DV apologists want to say that the problem is with the distributors, and that artists don't need distributors because they can simply distribute their work themselves, via the Internet, directly to the consumer. But here again Gresham's law dashes their dreams. With all these people going to the Internet, the noise level gets so loud that the consumers have difficulty finding the product among all the garbage. Yeah, YouTube ratings and such help, but people still get tired of wading through garbage. In the end, the "democratic" Internet only serves to drive down the value of the entire body of work, and devalue unlucky individuals' work by extension. How does your "masterpiece" get seen if nobody can find it among all the other garbage out there?

This is why the current model of television news still works, and will work for some time to come. The Internet is just way too crowded. People can't wade through all that crap. Even among people who get their news from the Internet, they generally get it from one or two places that assemble it for them, spoon feeding it to them like a newspaper, without going much further for more information. As television migrates to the web, you'll see that same phenomenon. Successful websites will put together newscasts that look remarkably like the ones we have on broadcast stations. Oh, they may be broken up so you can skip around, but the essential rundown structure will remain the same, as will deadline pressure. In fact, deadlines will likely be worse, since the competition will be to get it on first instead of at 5pm.

Is that scary? Not really. This is where Rosenblum and his ilk don't understand their detractors at all.

What's scary is Gresham's Law. You can take a quality video product to the Internet and package it on a web page so that you end up with something that would retain its value in a vacuum. But when you use the Internet as an excuse to make an inferior product, and you have LOTS of people doing it, the value of the entire market begins to slide. Soon that quality video presentation on that quality website gets lost among all the noise. It's harder to find, and it loses value. As it loses value, the people in charge of the money that produces it look for ways to cut costs. To cut costs, they cut quality. Everything trends away from excellence and toward less value. As it gets even less valuable, it reaches a tipping point where it's just no longer worth the time, money and effort to try to achieve excellence. The formerly excellent product has no excellent products in competition with it, so it no longer has to be excellent to win.

If Rosenblum would just stay there in the Internet world as a champion of mediocrity, I wouldn't really care. But instead he's intentionally bringing Gresham's law into broadcast television. He brings an inferior product into the market. Does that make other stations differentiate their own products by embracing higher quality? No! Instead, they realize the bar has been lowered, and that they don't have to work quite as hard to compete. The value of the entire body of work drops.

Gresham's Law.

See, rather than embrace quality, Rosenblum has created a system that by its very nature embraces mediocrity. As more of these VJs enter the market, Gresham's Law says the value of the work will decrease. He keeps trying to convince people that "anyone can do this." I've already explained why anyone can't do it, at least not well. But as he manages to convince people that they can, the value of their skills declines according to Gresham's Law. Those people he claims will be able to command top dollar actually won't, because the entire craft will have lost its value.

And what happens to people like you, who could do an excellent job as a VJ? As the value of the work decreases, would you want to get back into the business competing directly with 23 year olds being paid $20K per year for jobs? I think you know this business well enough that you can anticipate how station owners will react. Why hire some 40-something, when I can hire a 23 year old who can do it just as well (according to Rosenblum)?

So where would you go, then? Will you head to the Internet? If the skillset has been devalued, as Gresham's Law predicts it will be, it won't be worth much more, if any, on the Internet. Actually, Gresham would predict that it would be worth less on the Internet in the long run, simply because of the higher noise level there from all the inferior product being tossed about.

The reason I despise Rosenblum is that we have been over most of this stuff with him in the past, and I believe he knows exactly what he's doing. He knows he is driving down the value of the product. He simply lies about it. He makes up all manner of bullsh*t to sell his system, so that he can make money.

Is it bad to make money? Of course not. But doing it at the sacrifice of a very large number of good people, driving their opportunities down and eventually driving many of them out of the business, makes him a scumbag. I don't mind at all that he takes money from the idiot station owners, if they're dumb enough to throw their profits away on him. It's that he's convincing owners to ***** over their employees, without the slightest regard to the damage he's doing to both the people and their craft.

Simply put, Gresham's Law says what he's doing will ruin your industry. Why would anyone with half a brain support that?

[ January 05, 2007, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Spike ]

[Original Cynic]

Well said Spike.
I totally agree.

[Vulcan]

Spike, your arguments are quite well presented, even if I don't agree with some of your premises. (Especially on the Easterbrook analogy. Check out his stuff, anyway.)

Rosenblum has not, to my knowledge, been anything but forthright with regards to the "number of players needed on the field." In fact, he has publicly warned stations not to do the very thing they end up doing: cutting costs above all else.

Wonderful explanation of Gresham -- but misapplied fury. Don't blame Rosenblum for devaluing the craft. Blame the communications schools that collectively pump out more graduates every year than there are jobs in the entire industry. Blame the legions of wannabes and trust-fundies who are in it for the wrong reason. The "craft" had been economically devalued LONG before Rosenblum arrived. If anything, I might argue his approach encourages a broadening of the skill set for those who still seek a career.

As for me getting back into the business... forget it. I've found happiness using my skills and talents in a field that is more rewarding in every way. "Teevee Personalities" need to figure out that the pressure cooker they call a job is a fantastic training ground for branching into other industries. What you all do with regards to communication, time management, people skills, and flash analysis is in great demand in the business world. But that doesn't get you recognized in the supermarket (or laid at the dance clubs.)

Broadcast Journalism today is not a realistic lifetime career -- it's the professional equivalent of a starter job. You do your time, you move up, or you just plain move out. The vast majority of those in minimum wage jobs never stay there for very long, for the very same reason.

Again -- I have aired my beefs with Rosenblum for years now just as you have. And I've seen him incorporate suggestions, and seek out direction from his critics -- at least the ones honest enough to want a dialogue instead of a one-way shoutdown.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

That was a very thoughtful post Spike. I have a new respect for you.

This is the long and short of Rosenblum right here.

Originally posted by Spike:

The reason I despise Rosenblum is that we have been over most of this stuff with him in the past, and I believe he knows exactly what he's doing. He knows he is driving down the value of the product. He simply lies about it. He makes up all manner of bullsh*t to sell his system, so that he can make money.Please don't tell us it is about the "democratization of news" or some other marketing BS you dish out. It is all about you and the dollar. If it isn't then you are lying to yourself. And that is the worst lie you can tell - the one you tell yourself.

You are like the clear cut timber company that tells everyone that they are improving the view for people driving along the highway.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Vulcan:
Wonderful explanation of Gresham -- but misapplied fury. Don't blame Rosenblum for devaluing the craft. Blame the communications schools that collectively pump out more graduates every year than there are jobs in the entire industry. Blame the legions of wannabes and trust-fundies who are in it for the wrong reason. The "craft" had been economically devalued LONG before Rosenblum arrived. If anything, I might argue his approach encourages a broadening of the skill set for those who still seek a career.Nope, Gresham still applies.

Let's go back to the beginning, with Queen Elizabeth and gold coins. There were several ways that money could be debased, but two of the most important were when the government diluted the gold content with another metal and when individuals damaged the coins themselves by shaving off gold to be melted down and resold. One was controllable, the other was not. This is what Gresham was arguing before the queen, to convince her government not to debase its own currency.

The debasement by individual citizens was difficult to control and widespread, but it had also already brought the value of the money down to a stable level. Just because the money was already debased was no excuse for the government to debase it further and dilute its own wealth.

In local television, there are also several ways that the value of the work has been debased. Deregulation has done a lot of damage. But the market has somewhat restabilized. An abundance of graduates into the field also has devalued the craft; but as you, yourself so much as admit above, it was already done long before Rosenblum hit the scene.

Rosenblum, however, is a new, deliberate factor. The glut of graduates is the equivalent of widespread debasement of coins by individuals filing a little off, coin by coin. The market has already adjusted for it. Rosenblum's intention, however, is the equivalent of the government devaluing its own coinage. Gresham couldn't say, "Hey, stop the people from filing coins," but he could say, "Hey, don't devalue your own money!"

See, just like the coins, the fact that the industry has been devalued already is NOT an excuse to devalue it further. That's like saying "Hey, the value of steel has dropped in response to foreign imports, so let's intentionally make our steel weaker to devalue it further."

Gresham still applies.

Originally posted by Vulcan:
As for me getting back into the business... forget it. I've found happiness using my skills and talents in a field that is more rewarding in every way.And you are a perfect example of Gresham at work. (Actually, so am I, since I recently quit the biz as well.) We both have something to contribute. We would stay in if the value were still higher. But because the value has declined, neither of us has a desire to return. But as more of us leave and don't return, the value declines further.

Crap like Rosenblum's snake oil will only serve to drive people like us out of the business down the road or prevent them from ever getting into it in the first place. People with real talent won't see the point in working their asses off for so little return. Then the value of the craft trends downward even further.

So thanks for proving my point.

[ January 05, 2007, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Spike ]

[Spike]

Originally posted by Ralphie the buffalo:
That was a very thoughtful post Spike. I have a new respect for you.You have an old respect for me. You just haven't realized it.

[Clever Login Name]

Sometimes, I have an uncontrollable urge to debase myself.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Clever Login Name:
Sometimes, I have an uncontrollable urge to debase myself.That will lead to lower value as a human being.

[News Is Broken]

Originally Posted by Spike:
Simply put, Gresham's Law says what he's doing will ruin your industry. Why would anyone with half a brain support that? Well said, but I disagree. Let's take for example, the internet (since you brought it up) - according to Gresham's law, the fact that anyone with a few bucks a month and a text editor can create a website should devalue all the sites on the internet. This has not happened, has it?

That's the thing about laws. They were meant to be broken. Same holds true for news, if one network or station hires and trains the best of the best and places emphasis on quality first (and pays their staff accordingly) they will shine far brighter than everyone else out there that hires and pays for mediocrity. This will drive the viewers towards the best and the brightest - just like it does on the internet.

Hell if I were a GM I'd clap with glee everytime one of my competitors went VJ (and gladly scoop up all the talented people they lost in the process). It would just make it that much easier for my station to kick their ass. :D

[Spike]

Originally posted by News Is Broken:
Well said, but I disagree. Let's take for example, the internet (since you brought it up) - according to Gresham's law, the fact that anyone with a few bucks a month and a text editor can create a website should devalue all the sites on the internet. This has not happened, has it?Actually, it has. The Internet is not one big homogenous market. It's a simulation of the world outside the computers. As such, the Internet really consists of many smaller markets, many of which are connected in important ways to their counterparts in the real world. You can't take the Internet as a whole and apply Gresham's Law. Instead, you have to look at individual markets.

So let's look at one. How about blogs? While there are some blogs that have value, the overwhelming majority of them don't. If you only had ten blogs out there in the whole Internet and five were good, those five would have tremendous value. But when you have 10,000 blogs, it's more difficult to find the good ones. Even if the same ratio of good to bad held, and you have 5,000 good blogs out of the 10,000 total, you still have a hard time finding the good blogs. And when you did find the good blogs, you wouldn't be able to read all 5,000 of them. Those 5,000 would be sharing the readers of the 5 good blogs if there were only ten in total.

Blog fans say, "But, but, but! There are some blogs that do very well and are very popular!" But imagine how much easier those would be for the average person to find if they weren't swirling in the sh*t around them. They would hold their value even more. Not to mention that even though some blogs have value, the ones that don't drag down the total value of the "blogosphere."

Now let's look at an Internet market Gresham hasn't ravaged: Search engines. It's not anywhere near as easy to build a search engine as it is to post a blog. Thus, the few search engines there are have retained and actually gained value, because they're not competing among thousands of other search engines for your business. The search engine market has retained its value.

Originally posted by News Is Broken:
Same holds true for news, if one network or station hires and trains the best of the best and places emphasis on quality first (and pays their staff accordingly) they will shine far brighter than everyone else out there that hires and pays for mediocrity. You mean, like what's happening throughout the business already? You mean all those stations that are already hiring and training the best of the best and paying their staff accordingly? What fantasy job market are you watching?

Experience levels necessary to land jobs are dropping. A reporter position that ten years ago would have required five years experience now requires two. Of course, it pays less as well.

My point with Vulcan, above, was that that's no reason to speed up the debasement in a race to the bottom. When your competitor goes all VJ, that doesn't mean your station gets better. That means your station suddenly has less pressure on it to turn a good product. It has less pressure to hire good, experienced employees. It has less pressure to pay good people what they're worth. "Sorry, no raises this year. Don't like it? Then there are plenty of VJ refugees that are itching to take your place."

Originally posted by News Is Broken:
This will drive the viewers towards the best and the brightest - just like it does on the internet.Two words: Drudge Report.

[ January 05, 2007, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Spike ]

[Vulcan]

Spike -- I think the antithesis to your argument can be found in The Long Tail. The "cheapening" and "debasing" is only valid if you are still interested in mass-audience fare. Your business model here is based on what will soon be an antiquated paradigm.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Vulcan:
The "cheapening" and "debasing" is only valid if you are still interested in mass-audience fare. Aren't we talking about television, perhaps the most definitive example of mass communication?

[News Is Broken]

Spike: I was actually thinking fark.com, but OK...

Good stuff - good thread. Do continue.

[Desert Rat]

Spike,

What it comes down to in the end is that corporations are weighing "news quality" vs "profit margin".

These days, profit margin will win..

The main question that hasn't been asked....are these corporations really that upset over the "weakening" of the news product(local news).

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Spike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vulcan:
The "cheapening" and "debasing" is only valid if you are still interested in mass-audience fare. Aren't we talking about television, perhaps the most definitive example of mass communication?</font>[/QUOTE]No, we are talking about visual storytelling, which is becoming increasingly democratized. The decline in equipment and distribution costs allows more niche and narrowcasting, bypassing transmitters and towers altogether. It's that "Long Tail" thing.

Television will one day be considered just "one" of many outlets offering the same kind of information.

Yes, the quality will suck. But the "quality" train left the station quite a while back. Pirsig be damned.

[Spx Guy]

I'm getting in on this late...but I don't agree with this early post:

One man band =
Bad photography
bad editing
bad interviews
bad product

Maybe it's because I'm a sports guy (yes -- bash me now) -- but I one-man band pretty much all of my stories and, quite frankly, I feel I do a good job...in fact, I've gotten awards out of these.

[Original Cynic]

Originally posted by Spx Guy:
I'm getting in on this late...but I don't agree with this early post:

One man band =
Bad photography
bad editing
bad interviews
bad product

Maybe it's because I'm a sports guy (yes -- bash me now) -- but I one-man band pretty much all of my stories and, quite frankly, I feel I do a good job...in fact, I've gotten awards out of these.Sports is a different story.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

Originally posted by Spx Guy:
I'm getting in on this late...but I don't agree with this early post:

One man band =
Bad photography
bad editing
bad interviews
bad productPart of the Rosenblum formula also involves prosumer grade cameras and very limited production value. It is a step above home video in many cases.

Most of us agree those are not things that lend themselves to quality stories.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Ralphie the buffalo:
Part of the Rosenblum formula also involves prosumer grade cameras and very limited production value. Since you mentioned it...

I actually don't have the problem that so many other photogs have with the picture quality of the small cameras. I don't think that's where the bulk of the quality issue lies. Sure, they're still not the quality of their bigger cousins, and I personally would still want to use a full sized camera if I were one man banding. But someone with skill and an understanding of the limitations of the camera can overcome those limitations.

But notice that I said someone with the skill and understanding of the limitations, not just some kid out of college who took a three week course. Rosenblum is marketing the cameras as idiot proof, which they aren't. He thinks anyone can get good pictures with them, which they can't.

The biggest quality issue that I see that cues me in immediately on the fact that a smaller camera is being used is the way they are typically used. A large camera on a man's shoulder is closer to the center of mass than a small camera in someone's hand out in front of him. Being close to the center of mass, motion is naturally more smooth.

In contrast, the jiggly motion that results from holding a small camera out in front of the operator, even in the hands of someone quite skilful, gives the game away immediately. It's simply not designed to work with the design of the human body, and the motion that results marks the work as amateurish from the second frame. It screams "home movie."

An extension of that problem is the up the nose shot. Having to hold the camera in front of you already puts you at a disadvantage. Holding it at eye level and maintaining anything approaching a steady picture over time is impossible. The arm and shoulder don't naturally relax in that position. Rosenblum knows this, and to compensate he actually teaches his VJs to hold the camera down low at waist level, where the arm is in less strain, and shoot up at their subjects.

Folks, that's just bad photography. First, that angle is unflattering on anyone. It makes people look like they have double chins, and it accentuates the nasal cavities. It's just ugly.

But beyond that, an interview frame in which you can't see anything in the background except ceiling tiles is boring. Good photographers will make the frame strong with an interview foreground element and some kind of relevant background element. The only time the ceiling would be a relevant background element is if you're talking about ceiling tiles.

Now, Rosenblum has here and on B-Roll tried to argue that the up the nose shot makes people look heroic or something, and that's why he trains them to do it. He says it actually looks good to him. Here again is another example of Rosenblum trying to redefine "good" to mitigate some technical limitation of his equipment. Too bad for him it doesn't work.

In fact, he contradicts himself in his own shooting style with his staring-into-the-lens interviews. He says that having an interview stare into the lens (which is also bad photography) is good, because it directly engages the viewer and draws the viewer's attention away from the camera, effectively making the camera the viewer's eyes and ears. Not only is that simply not the way to achieve that goal, it's also contradicted by his waist-level shooting. If the goal is to let the camera be the audience's eyes and ears, he must think all his viewers are three feet tall.

The stupidest part of his attempts to redefine what's good in order to overcome the technical limitations of the camera is that they can be overcome without trying to force an inferior aesthetic on the craft. You could simply use a tripod, but Rosenblum is afraid of tripods because he's already given his VJs too much to do and carry to learn how to use one.

Alternately, I know a guy who gets fantastic steady video with a DV camera, at eye level even, by using a monopod. He doesn't actually use it as a monopod, though. Instead, he mounts the camera on top of it, then handholds the monopod and runs around with the camera at eye level. Using it that way puts his hand lower down, where there's less strain. It also puts the camera further away from the fulcrum so that the arc of motion is wider, like on someone's shoulder. It takes skill, but done right it's difficult to tell it's not on Darryl Barton's shoulder. There are even Steadicam substitutes designed on this principle.

Of course, that's just one more piece of equipment Rosenblum can't insist the stations buy. He has to keep the inventory down to make it cost effective.

Then there's the choice of camera itself. Canon's XL series is designed to press against the shoulder to get rid of that out front jiggly motion. Add an Anton Bauer battery to it, and you can balance Canon's mini DV on the shoulder with stability approaching that of a full sized camera. I suspect the reason Rosenblum doesn't like them is because of their expense. It makes his whole scheme harder to sell.

There's really not much wrong with the cameras otherwise. In the right hands, they really are "good enough." But as with everything else, the problem comes back to Rosenblum and his willingness to do or say anything to make sales.

[Consider This]

The problem with the Gresham's Law analogy, Spike, is that it applies only to coins that are accepted legal tender. In cases where governments did not enforce the value of certain coins and people were free to set their values themselves, the higher quality coins did not disappear. The debasement did not happen.

Here is a primer (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/selgin.gresham.law) that details some of the exceptions.

For Gresham's Law to apply to television news, some entity would have to establish the value of the "coins" and impose that value on all users. Instead, just as in the exceptions involving actual coins, viewers are free to attach whatever value they wish to television newscasts. They don't have to watch them at all. Higher quality broadcasts do not get chased out by the weaker ones. They certainly can't be stuffed into a chest in the attic and hoarded. If people value them, they'll watch them and the stations which produce them will make money.

If you want to argue that KRON going VJ reduces pressure on KPIX or KGO to produce a quality newscast, that may be true. But it's not Gresham's Law.

As far as quality rising out of a billion blogs, Sir Gresham (not to mention Henry Dunning Macleod, who coined the term "Gresham's Law" in the 19th century) could not consider algorithms. As a blog develops a following, its readership can grow not only from loyal readers linking to it on their own blogs or passing it to others through e-mail, the hits on the blog make it a bigger hit among search engines. Technology makes it so that I don't have to wade through all existing blogs myself to find ones that I judge to be good. Will I miss some that I wish I had seen? Sure. But that's better than never reading someone who never got access to publishing because he couldn't convince an agent to shop his manuscript and no one ever printed his book. At least with blogs the work exists for someone to read.

Are these blogs as successful as bestselling books? Nope. And that goes to a point Vulcan raised: They don't need to be. With cheaper access to the tools to "publish" or "broadcast" you don't have to have the ratings of "Friends" to succeed.

Have you ever seen the site dooce.com (http://www.dooce.com)? If not, don't worry; that illustrates the point even better. Its author is a woman who starting blogging about work. Her biting snarky comments about her boss and her co-workers were hilarious. Except to her boss. And when he discovered it the woman lost her job. She got enough notoriety for it that when someone gets fired for things they've written in a blog it's called getting "dooced." The notoriety also gave her blog enough readership that she started making money off of it. Her following grew to the point that not only did she not have to go back to "work," her husband quit his job too.

How is that site debased by all the "st*t swirling around them"? And who decides what is crap and what is good?

Similarly, who decreed that "the value of independent film dropped like a rock" after the means to make movies became widely available? Because distributors have to work harder to find the works they want? Too bad for them. You argue that independent film was better because the medium was limited to those who could afford to shoot actual film? No, it wasn't. DV just changes the marketing. Where you once fought your competition for financing to make your film, now you fight to get your project noticed. The difference is that people aren't protected by the exclusivity of their equipment. Access to a camera isn't enough anymore. Now you have to know what to do with it.

Mass media is losing mass. It means fewer traditional opportunities but not necessarily fewer opportunities. That doesn't mean I think the OMB model is good for television news. It means I think people are going to become more personally responsible for their success if they want to work in any information medium. They're going to have to assume more of the risks of ownership of their work.

I know that doesn't sit well with you. The theme of your postings is that the world would be so much better off if people weren't burdened by having to make all these pesky choices. We should let someone better or smarter decide for us. Back in Sir Gresham's time it was widely believed that people were too stupid to govern themselves. Sure enough, democracy has proven to be a terrible form of government. Except for all the others.

[Marty McFly]

Originally posted by Original Cynic:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Spx Guy:
I'm getting in on this late...but I don't agree with this early post:

One man band =
Bad photography
bad editing
bad interviews
bad product

Maybe it's because I'm a sports guy (yes -- bash me now) -- but I one-man band pretty much all of my stories and, quite frankly, I feel I do a good job...in fact, I've gotten awards out of these.Sports is a different story.</font>[/QUOTE]http://tinyurl.com/y976n6

Sports IS news.
So is weather.

I shoot.

I can shoot with my work-provided Panasonic DVCPro camera or I can shoot with my personally owned Sony DSR-PD170.

I can take GREAT pictures and get GREAT sound with either.

I can edit at work on Newsbyte or at home on FCP.

I can promise you that the last thing you would think about looking at my work is, 'Hmph. This could be better if McFly used a Betacam.'

What tool I used for the video wouldn't even come up.

I'm not saying I'm a great photog or the be-all-end-all photog.

What I am saying is that the camera is only a TOOL used in the news gathering (sports gathering, etc.) process.

Never have I seen so many people get so bent out of shape over the type of TOOL used.

'Nice ditch! It would only be a better ditch if you used a bigger shovel!'

Also... there have been numerous times where I've been sent out to go 'get enough for a package.' An anchor or other reporter will write or voice over what I got and the viewer is none the wiser.

And my video still looks good. Even if I did get it all myself.

[Shank]

After reading the pages of this discussion I have wanted to scream many times at those who defend the VJ model.. instead I offer this... this the the "system" in action.. and this is what it has really done in the real world... and this was not written by a TV person.. it was one of those "old school newspaper model folks" that the BJ or VJ model is supposed to be based on...

KRON's Last Gasp
How a once-proud San Francisco television station became ground zero in the nation's most controversial experiment in local TV news.
By Ron Russell
Article Published Apr 12, 2006

Time was when KRON (Channel 4) was at the top of the television news heap. Its newscasts were among the most watched in the Bay Area. Its anchors were stars. Its owners, San Francisco's blue-blooded de Young family, who also owned the Chronicle, were beneficent stewards who had nurtured the station from its infancy in 1949.
In a medium often derided for car chases, talking hairdos, and ratings-week sensationalism, KRON's news department in the '80s and for the first half of the '90s was widely considered to be the gold standard for local television news. While local news operations around the country were turning silly, KRON stuck to its knitting, earning a reputation as a place where serious news still mattered.

Management thought nothing of dispatching teams of reporters across the country, or abroad, for the sake of a worthy story. The station maintained news bureaus in Washington, D.C., Sacramento, the East Bay, and the South Bay. It attracted top talent and regularly won prestigious national journalism awards, including the DuPont-Columbia, Peabody, and Polk, not to mention a slew of local Emmies.

But that was then.

These days the once-proud San Francisco station is an also-ran in the local news race. It has been that way ever since its current owner, Young Broadcasting Inc., forked over a whopping $825 million to buy the station in 2000. New York-based Young then watched helplessly as the NBC television network, which had wanted to own KRON, yanked its network affiliation and — in the ultimate indignity — bestowed it upon a then-obscure Bay Area rival, San Jose's KNTV, Channel 11.

Now, with the independent KRON struggling financially (the parent company's stock has plummeted from $65 to $3 in six years) and the station's news programming mired in fourth place among the Bay Area's five competing news stations, management has launched a bold — some say, desperate — attempt to rein in finances while purporting to rebuild the franchise.

In a first-of-its-kind move by a local television station in a major market, KRON is jettisoning the traditional way TV stations report the news — that is, with two-person teams consisting of a reporter and camera operator, backed up by videotape editors and sometimes field producers. That team is being replaced with so-called "video journalists," aka VJs, or "one-man bands" — a breed of all-purpose (and generally lower-paid) news hunter-gatherers equipped with handheld digital video cameras and souped-up laptop computers enabling them to report, shoot, and edit their stories solo.

The results so far have been less than stupendous.

With its 35 or so VJs, KRON is able to put more bodies in the field compared to when it deployed about a dozen traditional news teams. (It still relies on two or three such teams for most newscasts.) But transforming former reporters, camera operators, assignment editors, and even a tape-rewind person or two into VJs who report, shoot, voice-over, and edit a story, has, overall, been no picnic. As discerning viewers have undoubtedly noticed, the results at times are more akin to home movies than news programming broadcast to the nation's sixth-largest TV market.

Cameras are sometimes angled clumsily, or are ill-focused, or the sound is a little off. News pieces that are shot well often lack acceptable editing, or writing, or both. Often there's no time for the VJs to include archival material to provide context. Some of them sound more like coal miners or shoe salesmen than television enunciators. And even when the reporting is first-rate, the video can be distractingly bad, as with the anti-death-penalty rally at San Quentin State Prison in December at which rapper Snoop Dogg's face was obscured by tree branches.

While insisting publicly that the move was made primarily for journalistic reasons, company officials acknowledge the cost savings inherent in having one person do the job of three or more people. Mark Antonitis, KRON's general manager, who was sent in from a station in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to oversee the transition, also acknowledges the rough spots. "We're a work in progress. These things take time," he says. "A year from now, two years from now, you're going to see a remarkable transformation."

Predictably, the experiment has set off a firestorm in television news circles, and especially at KRON, where management has pitted the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), the union representing anchors and on-air personalities, against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), composed mostly of cameramen and other traditionally back-of-the-camera professionals. The result is a kind of survival of the fittest to see which employees make the cut in the brave new world of the multipurpose "one-man band."

Early reviews have been less than glowing.

"Considering the competitive environment out there, this isn't the time to retrench on quality, which is clearly the way the VJ experiment is being perceived," says Bruce Lindgren, a consultant to about 25 TV stations across the country. Dan Rosenheim, news director at KPIX (Channel 5), and who held the same post at KRON in the early '90s, agrees. "It's not something that we have under consideration," he says of the VJ campaign. "But at the same time, I think all of us have to realize that the [media] world is changing very rapidly."

Others are more vehement.

"You can call the VJ experiment anything you want, but a pig is still a pig," says former television journalist Hub Brown, who heads the communications department at Syracuse University's Newhouse School of Public Communications. "When you shove a camera and editing equipment into everyone's hands and expect them to do it all, you devalue the entire news-gathering process."

At KRON, meanwhile, "there's no question that people are running scared, and who could blame them," says Greg Lyon, a longtime former reporter who left the station before the VJ initiative, but who nonetheless is pessimistic about the kind of journalism it has wrought. "There's no way you can ask one person to do the work of three people at the same time and expect that quality won't suffer, and it has," he says.

He and others acknowledge the "fear and anguish" at Young's applying the one-man-band concept — long common in small markets among stations with meager resources — to a major market like San Francisco. One staffer, echoing what some of his colleagues are saying privately, brands the move as "horrifying," adding: "There's nothing wrong with one-man bands. That's why God created Bakersfield."

Terisa Estacio is running late. The veteran reporter-turned-video journalist is supposed to be at an apartment building in the Tenderloin, where Mayor Gavin Newsom is making an appearance to showcase a housing initiative, but she's stuck in traffic.

By the time she arrives, a phalanx of news crews from other stations have staked out positions in the lobby where Newsom is speaking. Putting aside notebook and handbag — not to mention her ego — Estacio, 41, a former CBS News correspondent who also covered the Clinton White House for Tribune Broadcasting, pulls out a puppy-dog-sized video camera. Then she does something that no TV news reporter outside of small-town markets whose stations can't afford otherwise could, until recently, ever imagine: Instead of focusing on reporting, she's shooting her own news footage. She's still at it after the mayor leaves, pressing a tenant for a tour of the new apartment he shares with his teenage son. Then, camera rolling, she interviews a city housing bureaucrat before rushing outside for a "wide shot" of the building. She even manages to shoot her own "stand up" — a clip of herself speaking into the camera — as if someone else is operating it. She does it by carefully positioning the camera atop a concrete planter.

Back at the newsroom, after transferring the video onto a laptop computer, Estacio settles in at a communal desk beside other VJs and hurriedly edits her story in time for the 5 p.m. newscast. As "shooter," reporter, and video editor, she has done the work of three people. "Do I get snickers [from the other stations' crews]? Sure, sometimes," she says, answering her own question. "It's more fear than loathing."

The fear among some in the TV news industry is that what KRON is doing may take root at other major-market TV stations, here and elsewhere. "People at large-market stations all over the country are looking at KRON and wondering if it can happen where they are," says Cathryn Poff, a producer at Voice of America in Washington, D.C., and a KRON alum.

Estacio hears it all the time. "I've had people from other stations say to me, 'It's nothing personal, but I sure hope you fail.'"

Willingly or not, she has become a poster girl for what KRON management hopes the VJ enterprise becomes. But, so far, at least, she's more the exception than the rule. In the heady days of last summer, when management brought in VJ guru and former CBS News producer Michael Rosenblum to train its eager-or-not-charges, the prevailing mantra was that — far from being solely about cost-cutting — VJs would give the beleaguered station the chance to do more with less.

Instead of a dozen or so traditional two-person news teams, mostly working under daily deadlines, the station would have up to 50 VJs. That, in theory, would make it possible to produce more daily content, as well as free up some of the VJs to develop the kind of in-depth pieces that require more time to produce.

The economics of the move are unassailable.

Equip the VJs with handheld digital cameras that retail for under $5,000, give them a high-powered laptop that costs less than $2,000, making it possible to edit and transfer video via the Internet from any Wi-Fi hotspot — or from home for that matter — and voila! Gone is the need for videotape analog editing booths that run $50,000 apiece and traditional cameras that cost upward of $25,000.

As for those TV trucks stuffed with expensive microwave and satellite equipment? Swap them for Pontiac Vibes, the station's economy car of choice for its VJs. And, of course, that doesn't begin to address the payroll savings derived from training one person to assume multiple jobs.

Yet, nearly six months into the new era at KRON (and slightly longer at much smaller WKRN-TV, a Young sister station in Nashville, Tennessee, which has also gone one-man band), reality hasn't quite matched the corporate ballyhoo. Much of the VJ material that makes it to air features the disembodied voices of former cameramen, assignment editors, and behind-the-scenes players such as tape editors who probably never dreamed of being on-air.

The product often looks good, sounds good, or is written well, but seldom all three. Then again, in fairness, probably not even Edward R. Murrow could excel at three jobs at once. "Reporters don't necessarily make good shooters or [video] editors, and people who've worked behind the camera don't necessarily know how to convey a story," says Greg Lyon, the former KRON staffer.

Of the approximately 35 people at the station who underwent VJ training and who've remained (another 15 who were trained either didn't make the cut or left voluntarily), only about half a dozen have sufficiently mastered the complexities of their new roles to turn out news pieces on a daily basis. Most of them, including Estacio and veteran newsman Don Knapp, whose resume includes a dozen years as a CNN correspondent, are from the ranks of traditional reporters.

As a result, the news programs continue to rely heavily on "live shots" from the handful of two-person crews the station still deploys, with many VJ pieces relegated to back-burner status. Neither has the VJ campaign helped improve KRON's anemic news ratings. Up against a ton of competition from other stations and from cable, even the station's nightly 9 p.m. newscast, its most-watched news show, seldom attracts more than single-digit percentages of Bay Area TV households.

Last summer, the station's then news director, Chris Lee, boldly proclaimed that by putting an army of VJs on the streets the station would leave its competitors in the dust.

But Lee resigned last month, sounding somber. In an e-mail that made the rounds of KRON's pared-down and dispirited newsroom, the ex-news honcho said he needed time to "detoxify" after the "constant layoffs, downsizing, and calculating at just what speed the sky is falling."

Forty-five minutes into KRONs bread-and-butter 9 p.m. newscast, with the serious stuff safely out of the way, Gary Radnich, the stations resident alpha male sportscaster and its biggest star, is up to his usual mischief. His guest, his wife Alicia, has come on the show to read questions from viewers, and as part of the schtick, the ever-jocular Radnich is pretending to give her the star treatment. "OK, honey, I've given you a break to let you on the air here, but no matter what happens, you're not going to become a VJ," he tells her.

It's the latest in a barrage of good-natured jibes delivered by Radnich since the VJ model was unveiled (which includes his on-air needling of the station's "crack VJ coverage" and lightly mocking references to weekend sports anchor Vernon Glenn as "VJ Vern") that he shares with viewers as a kind of running joke.

And it's contagious.

At the end of the segment, after Radnich pitches it back to co-anchors Tom Sinkovitz and Pam Moore, and Moore allows as how she thinks Alicia is going to be "a star," Sinkovitz pulls out a phone from behind the anchor desk and chimes, "KPIX is on the line."

It's yet another inside joke for a station than can definitely use the humor. As KRON's fortunes under Young Broadcasting have declined, at least two dozen staffers have wound up at KPIX. "KRON has had some wonderful people, and we're lucky to have gotten some of them," says Dan Rosenheim, the KPIX news director, who was managing editor at the Chronicle before getting into television. So many KRON people have gone over to Rosenheim's station, whose downtown offices are near the eastern waterfront, those left behind refer to it as "KRON East."

Among those making the switch was veteran reporter Linda Yee, who shuffled to Channel 5 last November rather than stick around to see how the video journalism phenomenon unfolds. "I have lots of friends at KRON and they're doing what they have to do, but I didn't want to work there anymore because of the VJ thing," she says. Like other departed KRON staffers who do not have a high opinion of the VJ concept, she's reluctant to openly criticize her former station. "I still think of it fondly," she explains. Yee is part of a diaspora of veteran on-air talent who've fled KRON since the VJ model was first rumored. Other notables include investigative reporter Joe Ducey, who left for Phoenix, and reporter/anchor Ross Palumbo, who went to Los Angeles.

For many, the biggest blow came in January, when, after 33 years on the job, award-winning reporter Vic Lee, the dean of the KRON newsroom, left for KGO (Channel 7), even after management, in a bid to keep him from walking out the door, offered to exempt him from VJ duty. "When Vic left it was really crushing to a lot of us, both personally and professionally," confides Sinkovitz, the prime-time co-anchor.

Official word of the VJ switch arrived last May when Mark Antonitis, the station manager, gathered the troops into a first-floor conference room to break the news. "The station jammed the VJ thing down our throats," recalls an attendee, who didn't want their name used. "[Antonitis] pitched it in the name of improving the journalism, rather than cost-cutting, but that didn't impress many people."

Antonitis acknowledged that not everyone would embrace the VJ concept and for those who couldn't, "there is no dishonor in leaving," one attendee recalls him saying. "The higher-scale veterans took it as a clear signal to go and find other jobs," recounts one ex-staffer, who describes the video journalist program as "more the start of a purge than something visionary."

To lay the groundwork for the change, the station brought in Rosenblum, the New York-based consultant and self-professed evangelist of the VJ concept. Rosenblum had conducted similar training for the British Broadcasting Corporation and for several cable stations, including NY1, the all-news cable channel in New York, but never at a major-market local news operation. For two and a half months, from September into November, he and his team conducted six-day "boot camps," training about a half-dozen people at a time. The sessions lasted 12 hours a day. "They even brought in our food; there was never a letup," recalls one participant.

Morale in the newsroom sank.

Many who were able left for jobs elsewhere. "People were walking around in a daze," says one newsroom employee. "I'm talking about talented professionals who gave their heart and soul to this place and were suddenly eliminated because they didn't fit the scheme."

A female employee tells of walking in on a colleague crying in the restroom. By the time the training rounds wrapped up, people were dropping like flies, says another staffer. "They generally fit into two camps: those who were let go and those who could see it coming and voluntarily jumped off the cliff." One newsroom veteran learned that she hadn't made the VJ cut via a voice message left on her home phone two days before Christmas. "It was brutal," she says.

As a perennial also-ran in the local news ratings wars, KRON arguably has little to lose in retooling its news operation. (KTVU, Channel 2, the Fox affiliate headquartered in Oakland, is currently the undisputed leader of the Bay Area pack.) The once-high-flying station has struggled almost from the day that Young Broadcasting — which owns nine other stations in smaller markets scattered across the South, Midwest, and Northeast — outbid NBC to buy it from Chronicle Publishing Co. in 2000.

The $825 million price tag stands as the most money ever paid for a TV station in the United States. Some critics viewed it as an insane amount, even considering that the Bay Area was at the epicenter of the dot-com boom and local stations were brimming with advertising money. But shortly after the sale, the dot-com bubble burst and advertising dried up.

That was only the start of KRON's troubles.

Spurned in its earlier bid to acquire the station, which for years was an NBC affiliate, the peacock network renewed its quest for KRON with the winning bidders at Young. When the sides couldn't come to terms, NBC played hardball. The station's network affiliation agreement was set to expire at the end of 2001. The network turned the tables, demanding "reverse compensation" for its programming — insisting that if Young wanted to keep the station in the NBC family, it would have to fork over millions of dollars for the privilege.

Then came the zinger.

After Young balked at the "reverse compensation" plan, NBC cut the deal with KNTV in San Jose, whose over-the-air signal was so weak it couldn't even be seen by nearly 400,000 people in the North Bay. As part of the deal, the network was given the option to buy the station, which it did early in 2002. By then, the network had already made good on its threat to yank the affiliation from KRON.

Life as an independent hasn't been kind. Without network programming to attract viewers, KRON has had to rely heavily on a mix of reality shows, infomercials, and syndicated re-reruns. To try and remedy the problem, Young announced last month that KRON will join the as-yet-to-air MyNetworkTV, a startup controlled by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which also owns Fox. The new network plans to unveil 12 hours of weekly prime-time programming in September, with a heavy reliance on guilty-pleasure miniseries akin to the Spanish-language telenovela concept.

Meanwhile, KRON continues to pay dearly for syndicated lead-in shows such as Dr. Phil and Sex and the City, in an effort to lure viewers to tune in to its flagging newscasts. The newscasts generally compete against those of KNTV — its usurper as the NBC flag-carrier — for the dubious distinction of avoiding last place among the Bay Area's competing news stations.

With KRON a giant monkey on its back, Young Broadcasting lost $91 million last year, more than double the $44 million in red ink from the year before. At one point, its stock price plunged as low as $1.70. Debt service alone on the KRON purchase drains $60 million a year from Young's coffers. Its credit rating has been reduced to "junk bond" status.

Within broadcasting circles, it's no secret that Young has for at least two years stood ready to entertain offers for the station. "As KRON goes, so goes Young, and right now we're obviously not doing very well," says a station insider, who asked not to be identified.

Against that backdrop, the bloodletting in the news department has been relentless. The station killed off its award-winning investigative unit in 2002 and ditched its special projects team the next year. More recently, it has jettisoned both its medical unit and a popular Contact 4 consumer team, whittled the staff of its weekend news programming, and placed its Sunday morning public affairs show, 4 the Record, featuring Chronicle political gossip Phil Matier and former Mayor Willie Brown, on hiatus.

Even before the VJ model was introduced, writers, field producers, and control room technicians were being let go. "If someone quit or went out on leave, they weren't being replaced," says Knapp, the new elder statesman among on-camera reporters remaining in the newsroom. "Looking around, compared to how it was before, it's almost like working in a morgue."

Some complain the station has also changed in other ways.

Last month, for example, its morning news show aired a weeklong series of segments extolling Australia as a tourism destination after having sent two anchors and three VJs to the country for two weeks — all of it, as it turns out, paid for by the Australian tourism ministry. Antonitis defends the segments, along with other so-called "product integration" deals the station has forged of late, citing economic necessity. "I've got to find money where I can because I don't want to lay off any more people," he says.

Others cringe, calling the Australia junket the most embarrassing episode since the station was fined two years ago after a performer from a stage troupe flashed his genitals during the morning news show.

It's a far cry from the golden era of the '80s and early '90s, when under the tutelage of Chronicle Publishing, controlled by the wealthy heirs of Chronicle co-founder M. H. de Young, the station enjoyed a sterling national reputation; the kind of chops that enabled it in 1985 to entice the likes of Sylvia Chase to leave ABC's 20/20 and join KRON as a news anchor. At the peak of the station's prestige in the late '80s, when it operated the four news bureaus, KRON boasted a staff of 175. Today, the bureaus are long gone and there are fewer than half as many editorial employees.

The station's heyday was also important in another way.

KRON propped up the Chronicle financially in the newspaper's circulation war with its longtime rival, the old Examiner. "Even so, the de Youngs were good about plowing profits back into the station," says Lindgren, the television consultant. While de Young heir Nan Taylor McEvoy carved a reputation as the newspaper's chief protector, her nephew, Frances "Rani" Martin III, held sway at the station's bunker-like headquarters on Van Ness Avenue, keeping an office on the third floor.

"It was really important to Rani, and to others of the de Young family, to have a TV station they could feel proud of," says Mike Ferring, who was news director from 1981 to 1987. "Whatever good things we were able to do, much credit has to go to the de Young ownership."

That changed in the mid-'90s when the increasingly dysfunctional family dynasty imploded in internecine warfare. An ascendant new generation of de Young heirs eager to cash out the family fortune helped force McEvoy off the Chronicle Publishing board (Martin had already been deposed from KRON, after an earlier tiff with McEvoy.) The coup set the stage for the sale, first of the newspaper, to the Hearst Corp. in 1999, and then the TV station, to Young, the following year. "The ownership change was everything," says Lindgren, the consultant. "Nothing has been the same since."

The new paradigm has generated winners and losers. For every traditional newsperson alienated by the VJ concept, there's someone else for whom it has meant a career boost.

"I feel liberated and free," says VJ Gabriel Slate, 27, who, besides loving the creative aspects of the work, points to another reason why he prefers it over his old job as a cameraman. "I never have to be stuck in a [news] truck all day with someone who bosses me around like I'm a servant, or whose perfume is too strong."

Sometimes, as when VJs on deadline must scramble to find a coffee shop or other Wi-Fi hotspot from which to transfer their video, the challenges can be unpredictable. VJ Will Tran was chased from a Starbucks in Oakland after the manager didn't approve of his plugging his battery-depleted laptop into a wall socket. "It turned out OK," he says. "I went to a nearby hotel lobby to finish up."

In the newsroom, it isn't unusual to see reporters swapping story ideas in exchange for technical help from former cameramen and video editors. "It's a two-way street and people have been good about helping each other," says Managing Editor Andrew Shinnick. "The learning curve has been phenomenal."

But there's also an unsettling undercurrent.

On-air reporters in the Bay Area typically earn salaries in the neighborhood of $125,000 a year, compared to $80,000 for cameramen and technical editors. In instituting the VJ model, management has cleverly exploited the difference.

AFTRA, the union that represents the on-air people, has long had a contract that prevents the station from using non-AFTRA personnel to do the work of its members. That means, for example, that a cameraman, whose union is the IBEW, could not be an on-air reporter. In the pre-VJ world, it was a potential conflict that rarely arose. But it has been four years since AFTRA last negotiated a contract with KRON management, and, in the meantime, the company has done an end around.

Last fall, as the station put the first wave of VJs on the streets, and as contract renewal negotiations with AFTRA languished (they still are), management struck a deal with the IBEW in which its personnel assumed on-air roles as VJs, a clear incursion of AFTRA's turf. And who could blame the IBEW employees? For some, it meant a sizeable raise. AFTRA has a pending grievance before the National Labor Relations Board, accusing the station of unfair labor practices. But in deference to Young Broadcasting's precarious financial condition, the union, after considerable hand-wringing, decided not to stage a walkout.

"If we'd chosen to strike, it would have played straight into the company's hands," says one deflated staffer, convinced that Young management would have merely accelerated the VJ transition. "As it is, people are just trying to hang on, to see how this ultimately plays out, and to survive."

Survival also weighs on management's minds.

Station boss Antonitis, who acknowledges that the personnel changes brought about by the VJ switch have been "gut-wrenching" — and whose company is swimming in red ink — is less than reassuring.

"I'm never going to say the turmoil has completely passed," he says. "There are always going to be other challenges."

here's the link if your interested on the source..

http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2006-04-12/news/feature_full.html

[Sir Dropham Pants]

Just wanted to say - this has been a great discussion. Nice to see four pages (and counting) on something industry related that really stands to affect a lot of us. Kudos to Spike, Vulcan and Rosenblum (and many others) for a lively and well thought out and well written discussion.
Please continue.

[Another side]

Shank: Great article that truly focuses on both sides. I sincerely appreciate you posting it.

[Roy Hobbs]

I like how the vet reporters are the ones who are making the best transition.

Will ND's get a clue from Michael or others that this scenario makes sense? Hope so.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Roy Hobbs:
I like how the vet reporters are the ones who are making the best transition.Yes, they've made an excellent transition. They left for KPIX and KGO.

[Roy Hobbs]

Agreed, that would be a better transistion.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Hey, Rosenblum?

Where are ya, boy?

Don't you want to have a crack at telling us how that whole article is wrong and the VJs at KRON are actually doing great work, serving the community?

[Rosenblum]

I am here.
You here?
Good.
Yes, KRON had massive economic problems before, during and after the transition. They would have had them with or without the VJ move and that certainly impacted on how well it was implemented.

Now, still with me Froggy? Good.

I have done about 40 stations around the world. They have, in all honesty, had varying degrees of success due to lots of factors. Channel One in London in 1993 was probably the worst, because they had only a tiny handful of homes on cable when they started. I have also had my own share of success and failure. That is what happens when you try new things. That is what happens when you take risks. When you push the envelope. That is how you learn and get better.

Still with me?
Good.

While I regret some of the mistakes I may have made in the past, I have never made the same mistake twice. And I don't bury them or hide from them. In the case of DV DOJO, I personally lost $700,000, but it was something I believed in.

Ever take a risk in your life?
Ever put your money on the line for something you personally believed in? Ever mortgage your house and all your credit cards to invest in an idea and then work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week while sleeping on your mother's couch at the age of 35?

After you have done that, call me. Until then, you can stick to the very low risk position of posting your opinions here. It doesn't cost you a thing.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

here's (http://newslab.org/articles/vjs2.htm) an interesting take.

[Marty McFly]

WOW! Hey Frog... looks like Rosenblum has your number!
http://www.kamikazemicrowave.com/andrew_ftp/pwnd/owned-beer-cat.jpg

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Marty McFly:
WOW! Hey Frog... looks like Rosenblum has your number!
http://www.kamikazemicrowave.com/andrew_ftp/pwnd/owned-beer-cat.jpgNope. He's simply unwilling to admit his chosen scam doesn't do what it does, despite evidence to the contrary. That's to be expected. If he did, he'd have to find another crusade.

He has no idea what risks I've taken in life nor what challenges I face, so his "look at what I did, have you ever done this" post matters not.

[ January 07, 2007, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Michigan J. Frog ]

[SpxGrunt]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:

I have done about 40 stations around the world.Truer words were never spoken.

[Another side]

Well, I don't agree Frog; it does matter. If you're going to constantly ridicule and deride someone for something they've tried to do and failed, then I think you oughta step up and tell us what chances you took, what investments of time and money YOU took and how THEY came out. Because we all fail at one time or the other, Frog, so if you're going to call someone out on it, fine, but then, fess up: If you've done more than point at others and snicker, let's hear about it.

One other thing: I didn't know anything about the KRON experiment until these threads started, and everytime you or Spike or one of your fellow critics brought it up, I'd think "What the hell happened at KRON ... I wish someone would elaborate." Well, finally someone did, with a lengthy look at the entire story.

And what did I find? That you, and Spike and others who kept beating Rosenblum over the head with the financial failure KRON went through, didn't bother mentioning that the station lost its network affilliation, or that it was experiencing financial difficulties BEFORE the experiment began. Long before.

That's the height of intellectual dishonesty and you and Spike dropped a few levels in my book.

[Fearmonger]

I don't like the VJ system even though it could work for the things that I do for news.

Something has to be done and it won't be a cash bail out for local TV news. Nobody but Democrats know how to throw good money after bad money.

I ask Frog and Spike what ideas they have that will save the concept of local TV news?

If you hane no ideas we are in trouble. I can see all the brand new and well dressed Wal-Mart greeters who used to report in TV news.

graemlins/eusa_whistle.gif

[Michigan J. Frog]

AS, I never said KRON's financial troubles were a result of VJs. I am well aware of KRON's affiliation issues.

And I don't have to elaborate on my personal life to be "allowed" to tell Rosenblum that what he's doing is wrong. In fact, his personal risks have nothing, zero, nada, to do with the validity of the VJ concept, and that fact that he brings them up suggests he can't adequately defend the idea when confronted by evidence that it doesn't work.

Originally posted by Another side:
Well, I don't agree Frog; it does matter. If you're going to constantly ridicule and deride someone for something they've tried to do and failed,Are you saying you agree that the VJ concept has failed?

[ January 07, 2007, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Michigan J. Frog ]

[Spike]

Originally posted by Another side:
Well, I don't agree Frog; it does matter. If you're going to constantly ridicule and deride someone for something they've tried to do and failed, then I think you oughta step up and tell us what chances you took, what investments of time and money YOU took and how THEY came out.That logic pretty much rules out anyone's opinion of anything. You're basically saying that somebody watching a football game can't criticize the coaches unless he's ever tried something similar. You're basically saying that nobody who has never tried to work in public service can criticize a politician, even if he's running your city, state or country into the ground.

Rosenblum's system doesn't work. My successes and failures have nothing to do with that. Frog's successes and failures have nothing to do with that. "You suck too" is not an excuse for sucking.

Originally posted by Another side:
That you, and Spike and others who kept beating Rosenblum over the head with the financial failure KRON went through, didn't bother mentioning that the station lost its network affilliation, or that it was experiencing financial difficulties BEFORE the experiment began. Long before.I haven't blamed Rosenblum for Young's current and former financial difficulties. Not once. In fact, I have admitted that his system probably does save them money in the short run.

This is the kind of thing that really irritates me about discussing anything with you. You keep attributing positions to me that I haven't tried to assert. You say your opinion of me or Frog is lowered, but here you're the one who seems to have to substitute an argument you think you can win for the real argument that you can't. That's a straw man. Rosenblum doesn't understand that term, but I do.

[Rosenblum]

"You're basically saying that somebody watching a football game can't criticize the coaches unless he's ever tried something similar."

Yeah, the world is filled with monday morning quarterbacks. Talk is cheap.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
"You're basically saying that somebody watching a football game can't criticize the coaches unless he's ever tried something similar."

Yeah, the world is filled with monday morning quarterbacks. Talk is cheap.And a number of sportscasters and sports writers, who are considered experts on the matter. I guess nobody should be listening to their opinions either.

By the way, if talk is so cheap, then why are you so worried about it? If talk is so cheap, why are you here trying so desperately to keep people from believing any of it?

[ January 07, 2007, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Spike ]

[Fearmonger]

So Spike and Frog what's a better answer to failing TV news outfits?

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Fearmonger:
So Spike and Frog what's a better answer to failing TV news outfits?All the same things journalists have been saying for years--the ideals like quality journalism, not pandering during sweeps, and so on--that management has ignored and failed to implement for years, all the while complaining that fewer people are watching.

[Rosenblum]

"if talk is so cheap, why are you here trying so desperately to keep people from believing any of it?"

Actually, I came to this board late. Someone tipped me off that you (yes you) were slandering me up and down the board. I was not even on it. I did not even know it existed. Personally attacking me.

I have not even met you.
I don't know who you are.

Yet you took it upon yourself to attack me personally. A one man crusade.

And now, I gotta ask again, what exactly is your problem. For me, this is what I do for a living. But you? What drives you to this very personal vendetta? Why does this annoy you so much? And particularly the idea that I would get paid for this. This seems to really bug you. Just what is your problem, pal?

[Spike]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
And now, I gotta ask again, what exactly is your problem. For me, this is what I do for a living. But you? What drives you to this very personal vendetta? Why does this annoy you so much? And particularly the idea that I would get paid for this. This seems to really bug you. Just what is your problem, pal?Jesus *****ing Christ, how many times do I have to repeat it? It irritates me not because you are making money, but because you are doing it at the expense of good craftsmanship, at the expense of good people and, most importantly, at the expense of the labor value of those good people. What you're doing is putting craftsmen out of work and running down the salaries of the people who are left, driving many of the good ones out of the business altogether. That in turn drives down the quality of the work, devaluing it so that the people who do that work are worth less still.

These aren't just numbers on paper. These are real people you are *****ing with. You can't expect to screw with the lives and livelihoods of real people and expect them to like it.

THAT is why it makes me mad. Add to it that you're not accomplishing any of the positive goals you say should result from your devastation, it makes it really easy to despise you.

You're trying to wreck a noble craft and injure people who never did anything at all to you, all for your own personal gain. That is criminal in its intent.

[Rosenblum]

If you think I am responsible for what is happening to television you give me far too much credit.

I am responding to a need that was created before I ever got there. Television news is not in a static state. It might have been for fifty years, but those days are long since gone.

If you read Three Blind Mice by Ken Auletta you will see how news organizations once were encouraged to run deficits of hundreds of millions of dollars because the networks deeply supported quality news at any cost. Those were great days for news but they ended twenty years ago.

The plethora of cable channels fractionalized audiences and station income. Today, all three networks news shows together get fewer viewers in total than Cronkite got on his own. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. The problems run far far deeper. Local stations are strapped for cash. In most markets nearly 90 percent of audiences don't watch any local news, and local news is an extremely expensive operation to run. The web going to video is only exacerbating this situation. In 2006 alone (!) 10 percent of broadcast revenues went to the internet. Do you have any idea of how massive a shift that is? Advertising budgets are a zero sum game. When ten percent of your revenue vanishes in a year, you are in serious trouble. Really serious trouble.

Broadcast news has not been re-invented since the 1950s, for all practical purposes. It is fundamentally the same animal it was in 1958. And there was no reason to change it for years, because it worked really well. It does not work well at all any more. If you have not noticed, take alook at what NBC 2.0 means to all the folks who work or used to work there.

A massive change is coming to everyone, everywhere. And I am not driving it. What I am doing is responding to a real need, a real demand. And by the way, I don't call station groups or news directors. They call me.

You have problems with my model? Fine. It is not perfect, but it is the beginnings of a rearchitecting of news organizations which makes them more cost effective, more flexible and more responsive.

Does this impact on the people who work there? Yes it does. Does this mean that what people do on a day to day basis changes? Yes it does. Does this make people unhappy? Sure it does. No one likes change.

But it also creates as many jobs as it terminates and it creates greater opportunity in an expanded landscape. But it is a different landscape. For those who can deal with the change and understand what is coming, it offers far greater opportunity.

Your anger at me is misplaced. You can be angry with the basic economics of the television industry if you like, but what is...is. And I can assure you that those stations and networks ...and people that do not change will probably not survive into the future. So no, instead of 'destroying' good people's lives, I am giving them a heads up on what is coming. And believe me, it is.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:

But it also creates as many jobs as it terminates and it creates greater opportunity in an expanded landscape.In theory.

Not in reality.

This is the problem with your whole "model," as you call it--what you're selling doesn't happen in real life; the lofty goals you espouse aren't achieved. All that happens is, management hears the "give everyone a small camera and make them a VJ and we'll save money" part, and that's the part they implement.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
I am responding to a need that was created before I ever got there.If that were really true, then the failures of your twenty years doing this would have been successes. If the need were really there for what you're selling, NY1 wouldn't have junked your labor model. Was it NY Times Television that went off the air? The VJ unit at Voice of America wouldn't have had to bring in photogs and editors to finish up the pieces that the VJs had been working on without success for four months.

And over twenty years, if there were really a need for your model, local television stations would have already jumped on it.

No, you didn't find and offer a solution to a problem. You concocted a solution you could put a brand on, then went looking for a problem to which to attach it. It's your miracle drug, developed for no ailment in particular but effective against any ailment you throw at it. Says you.

Now see why we call you a snake oil salesman?

[Spike]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
All that happens is, management hears the "give everyone a small camera and make them a VJ and we'll save money" part, and that's the part they implement.That's all he ever expected them to implement. He's desperately trying to keep up the appearance of caring about the quality to keep reporters and photogs from running for the door as soon as he approaches their stations. He knows he can't possibly succeed in converting a newsroom if the employees are in open revolt.

I wonder what will happen the first time someone gets wind that Rosenblum is coming and, realizing he has nothing to lose anyway, starts a union petition drive at his station.

[Rosenblum]

Boys
I can see that it is a waste of time to try and have an intelligent conversation with you. You will believe what you want to believe so have a good time. New York Times Television never went 'off the air' because it never was on 'the air'. It was a production company. The VJ Unit at VOA still exists. Call Brian Padden. If I had 20 years of failure why do people continue to hire me and pay me? Are they so much dumber than you two? Do you know 'something' they don't? Don't you think that before you sign a multi million dollar contract with a major client that they vet you up and down the street? Your research sucks. Like I said, you are no journalists.

You are angry though. And that is something I can do nothing about.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
The VJ Unit at VOA still exists. But it still needed the assistance of photogs and editors, as well as additional training, since the VJs apparently weren't able to function as one man bands after your training. I worked alongside some of those people, so I've heard directly from the people involved.

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
If I had 20 years of failure why do people continue to hire me and pay me? Because you're a very slick salesman. I'm convinced you could sell water to a drowning man and would sell your own grandmother if you thought there were profit in it.

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
You are angry though. And that is something I can do nothing about.Sure you can. You can go away and leave our craft alone.

[Original Cynic]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
"Yet you took it upon yourself to attack me personally. A one man crusade.
It's not a one man cruade......practically everyone hates you.
On tvspy and b-roll too.

[Original Cynic]

You want a better "idea" of how to cut costs Rosenblum?

How about if our stations stopped paying consultants to tell us what supposedly does and doesn't work?

How about they take the cash from the sales people?

How about the GM and the ND taking a pay cut.
How about getting rid of all the perks given to the people in the front office.

How about realizing that times are changing and letting the stockholders know that so they are prepared for the adjustment of making 10 percent profit instead of 44.

Reducing the quality of your product will do nothing but put you further down the hole.

[Fearmonger]

TV news folks are snobs that play to themselves what they want to see. I do exact the same with my blog! I don’t owe my livelihood to that blog yet so I can do with it whatever I want. It’s only a training ground right now.

A for real profit making news business is another matter. We have to give the viewers what they want. The truth is they want to see Britney’s beaver and Saddam swinging at the end of a rope. The want sex, violence and scandal. Americans don’t care who the Speaker of the House is. They don’t even understand the platform of the political party where send their votes and money. A significant percentage of these folks are college educated. Most people in the medical profession don’t care to watch the news or read anything beyond medical journals.

TV news has to attract viewers with a lower common denominator in order to have any viewers at all. People watch news for anything but news. They tune in for weather, sports or business news to see how much the won or lost today.

The grand quality product of television and print news is on its deathbed as Americans flock to goofy YouTube videos over quality news.

Barnum and Bailey are sorely needed to bring some life to news. The late Steve Irwin won viewers only because he was over the top. If Irwin copied the more conventional Marlin Perkins we’d have never known his name or mourned his loss. I think many here don’t even know who Marlin Perkins was. Perkins was on the air doing animals for decades more than Irwin.

Journalism has found itself in the new world with new challenges. With these challenges new pioneers will be the stars of tomorrow. What methods will be used to grab people’s attention?

VJ’s are a stop-gap that probably do little more than slow the hemorrhage. We can only hope for a new Messiah to repackage and save journalism.

[Original Cynic]

Originally posted by Fearmonger:
TV news folks are snobs that play to themselves what they want to see. I do exact the same with my blog! I don’t owe my livelihood to that blog yet so I can do with it whatever I want. It’s only a training ground right now.

A for real profit making news business is another matter. We have to give the viewers what they want. The truth is they want to see Britney’s beaver and Saddam swinging at the end of a rope. The want sex, violence and scandal. Americans don’t care who the Speaker of the House is. They don’t even understand the platform of the political party where send their votes and money. A significant percentage of these folks are college educated. Most people in the medical profession don’t care to watch the news or read anything beyond medical journals.

TV news has to attract viewers with a lower common denominator in order to have any viewers at all. People watch news for anything but news. They tune in for weather, sports or business news to see how much the won or lost today.

The grand quality product of television and print news is on its deathbed as Americans flock to goofy YouTube videos over quality news.

Barnum and Bailey are sorely needed to bring some life to news. The late Steve Irwin won viewers only because he was over the top. If Irwin copied the more conventional Marlin Perkins we’d have never known his name or mourned his loss. I think many here don’t even know who Marlin Perkins was. Perkins was on the air doing animals for decades more than Irwin.

Journalism has found itself in the new world with new challenges. With these challenges new pioneers will be the stars of tomorrow. What methods will be used to grab people’s attention?

VJ’s are a stop-gap that probably do little more than slow the hemorrhage. We can only hope for a new Messiah to repackage and save journalism.You know nothing about journalism.
Go get a doughnut.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

Originally posted by Original Cynic:
You want a better "idea" of how to cut costs Rosenblum?

How about if our stations stopped paying consultants to tell us what supposedly does and doesn't work?

How about they take the cash from the sales people?

How about the GM and the ND taking a pay cut.
How about getting rid of all the perks given to the people in the front office.

How about realizing that times are changing and letting the stockholders know that so they are prepared for the adjustment of making 10 percent profit instead of 44.

Reducing the quality of your product will do nothing but put you further down the hole.it would be great if all that happened.
it would be great if I were in a hot tub now with Jessica Alba too.

be realistic.
and remember: Rosenblum, like him or not, doesn't have a gun to the heads of station owners forcing them to do this.

[Fearmonger]

I know my last message is like throwing gasoline on a fire here but its the sad truth. People just don't care about news anymore or we'd be stronger than ever with our larger than ever population.

Question: If journalists are so important why do the monkeys in the sales department make so much more money?

More profit will win any day. Who in their right mind wants to invest money in a low yield or no yield product like news?

[ January 07, 2007, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: Fearmonger ]

[Emily Latella]

http://anesthesia.duhs.duke.edu/education/aig/images/cartoon1.jpg

[Marty McFly]

How about they take the cash from the sales people? Ah... envy rears its ugly head.

[The Mockingbird]

Fearmonger.....
TV news has to attract viewers with a lower common denominator in order to have any viewers at all. People watch news for anything but news. They tune in for weather, sports or business news to see how much the won or lost today.You know, this philosophy is why news operations have been steadily driving away viewers since 1990. Some consultant got it in his head that it didn't matter why the viewers were tuning in, just that they were.

And then we stopped getting real news in our broadcasts. If you're a health food store, you probably shouldn't fill your store entirely with microwave french fries.

Journalism has found itself in the new world with new challenges. With these challenges new pioneers will be the stars of tomorrow. What methods will be used to grab people’s attention? Stars, grabbing people's attention: That's entertainment at best, annoying at worst. In either case, it's not real news.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

Originally posted by Fearmonger:
The grand quality product of television and print news is on its deathbed as Americans flock to goofy YouTube videos over quality news.
Cheap and quick can be popular for a while, but does it last?

Remember when viewers flocked to watch "America's Funniest Home Videos"? It was on fire!!!And where is it now? Cable reruns mostly.

Remember when viewers flocked to watch "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" ABC responded by running that thing 4 nights a week. Ratings soared and then crashed. And where is it now? Afternoon syndication.

I know. I know. YouTube is a different beast. It may be fun to watch:

- classic hockey fights
- old music videos from the early MTV days
- home videos relating to my hometown
- blah
- blah
- blah

But, after a while it gets old and the only reason to go there is to watch home video your family across the country has posted for everyone to see. For me, that is the highest and best application of YouTube.

Is YouTube the real thing or just more iron pyrite? Only time will tell. It is just a novelty for me.

In all things and not just televison news:
Quality will always be in fashion.
Quality is always desirable.
Quality is timeless.
Quality endures.

[Rosenblum]

I think it is not so much the content on Youtube at the moment, but rather the delivery platform that is interesting, and what made it so valuable.

You can put anything on this thing (or similar platforms) - nonlinear, on demand, open platform, and online. That is the part that makes it so interesting.

The better analogy would be to the earliest days of radio. They broadcast a lot of junk... or marine weather and shipping news. But for those who could look beyond the content, they saw the future.

[News Is Broken]

The unspoken truth is that YouTube is popular because they do very little to restrict the posting of copyrighted material. We all know it. Once that changes, YouTube will just be a fond memory we'll be able to tell our grandkids about.

To compare the VJ model to YouTube is like comparing a wristwatch to a coffee maker. They have NOTHING in common and the success of one over the other also means nothing.

[Vulcan]

There are two things that made the YouTube phenomenon click:

- The ease of the interface. There are many sites that allow you to upload and host video. None made it as easy as YouTube.

- The social sharing aspect. YouTube made it very easy to share individual clips, and to subscribe to a particular member's offerings.
Originally posted by News Is Broken:
The unspoken truth is that YouTube is popular because they do very little to restrict the posting of copyrighted material. We all know it. Once that changes, YouTube will just be a fond memory we'll be able to tell our grandkids about.Not true. NBC learned a big lesson about viral sharing. Where it once pulled the plug on "Lazy Sunday" uploads, it actually posted the official version of the uncensored "d!ck in a box" video.

YouTube has skated by on the user agreement, which holds the uploader accountable. Of course, this may yet be challenged further -- which is why it is scrambling to put together licensing deals, and has a $50,000,000 fund expressly for buying its way through.
Originally posted by News Is Broken:
To compare the VJ model to YouTube is like comparing a wristwatch to a coffee maker. They have NOTHING in common and the success of one over the other also means nothing.The only comparison was to say that the upcoming generation will likely have lower standards for resolution if they really want the content.

[Rosenblum]

I actually was not comparing the two.

You might find a posting called Epic 2015 of interest. http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/epic Its a video online doc. about 7 minutes. deals with copyright issues in the world of online, along with other stuff. worth the 7 mins.

[ January 08, 2007, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Rosenblum ]

[News Is Broken]

Yep. I've seen that. Cool.

But, I don't know Mike... Remember back in the 50's when everyone thought we'd have flying cars and robots doing our household chores and such? Well I'm still waiting for my flying car and my wife would love to have one of those robots, but they don't yet exist. Maybe in (ha ha) another 50 years, we'll have them. Or maybe not.

That's how this whole VJ rings to me. Like it's all hype and desperate predictions, only to find out 10 years from now that TV news is still "in need of drastic change" and there will be no shortage of "messiahs" with a solution that, in the next 10 years, will totally change the way we do our jobs. Get it? It's a never ending cycle.

I say enough is enough. News may be broken (hence my SN), but it still functions and still will 10 years from now with or without VJ/BJ/PJ/JJ/AJ or any other amount of silly acronyms and sillier ideas.

Now let's move on to a more interesting topic. Like flying cars. I still want one, dammit, they look cool.

[Rosenblum]

I don't know when we'll get flying cars, but I am pretty sure Toyota will bring them out about 10 years ahead of Ford and GM. And they'll look a lot better.

[Spike]

Originally posted by News Is Broken:
Now let's move on to a more interesting topic. Like flying cars. I still want one, dammit, they look cool.They actually do exist:

http://www.cojoweb.com/skycar-i-1_Bx.jpg

The Moller Skycar (http://www.moller.com/)

[ January 08, 2007, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Spike ]

[Vulcan]

Spike -- Rosenblum didn't say Toyota would have flying cars FIRST. He only said Toyota would have them before Ford and GM, and they would look better.

// sarcasm.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
You might find a posting called Epic 2015 of interest. http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/epic Its a video online doc. about 7 minutes. deals with copyright issues in the world of online, along with other stuff. worth the 7 mins.What a load of crap. It reminds me of Conan O'Brien's "In the Year 2000" skits. Plus, there's only one mention of anything having to do with copyrights, and they pretty much got it wrong.

Originally this thing was shown in 2004 under the name Epic 2014 (http://idorosen.com/mirrors/robinsloan.com/epic/). Their speculations were so off base that they had to update it to what Rosenblum posted not even a year later in 2005. Another two years have shown them to be even more clueless about the future.

What's really funny is that in the original version the EPIC news system from "Googlezon," which is supposed to represent the final form of this decentralized, customized "democracy of journalism" that Rosenblum keeps preaching about, is described as "merely a collection of trivia, much of it untrue, all of it narrow, shallow, sensational."

And yet, this is where Rosenblum is getting his vision of the future.

[ January 08, 2007, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Spike ]

[Rosenblum]

It was produced by Robin Sloan who is Chief technology officer at Current.tv. Many people found it to be provocative and compelling. You, of course, are smarter than all of them.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
Many people found it to be provocative and compelling.Apparently those people are too easily impressed.

[Rosenblum]

You should get in touch with them. The could probably learn a lot from you.

[Gonzo 77]

Firstly, I want to thank Rosenblum for his postings. While I don't necessarily agree with some of his ideas, I am impressed with his determination in defending them.

I'm not going to weigh in on the whole VJ controversy, but I wanted to comment on OMB's. I was a OMB for about four years in three markets. It was how I got started in this business, as many others have before me.

I wasn't the best shooter out there, but I was pretty good. I had a wonderful chief who taught me a lot of tricks, and actually helped me shoot quality video. I also worked on my storytelling, and found some advantages to working alone. Typically I found that there were situations OMB's had problems with...(namely press conferences and breaking news.) When I had to do more conventional work, I did a fine job.

Another thing. No one hates inept OMB's like other OMB's. I watched a lot of people claim they were willing to shoot come in and suddenly break down. They needed help. They couldn't figure out the camera. The worst were eventually fired. But I would seethe at these people, because they gave all OMB's a bad name. Some of us were reliable shooters and reporters.

I don't believe OMB's are a bad thing, but I do think that fully staffing a newsroom with them is a mistake. If there hadn't been true shooters to learn from, I wouldn't have become a decent shooter myself. The same with reporters. The best OMB's will learn from both, while ultimately deciding which side they want to go towards.

Just my take.

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Gonzo 77:
Firstly, I want to thank Rosenblum for his postings. While I don't necessarily agree with some of his ideas, I am impressed with his determination in defending them.

I'm not going to weigh in on the whole VJ controversy, but I wanted to comment on OMB's. I was a OMB for about four years in three markets. It was how I got started in this business, as many others have before me.

I wasn't the best shooter out there, but I was pretty good. I had a wonderful chief who taught me a lot of tricks, and actually helped me shoot quality video. I also worked on my storytelling, and found some advantages to working alone. Typically I found that there were situations OMB's had problems with...(namely press conferences and breaking news.) When I had to do more conventional work, I did a fine job.

Another thing. No one hates inept OMB's like other OMB's. I watched a lot of people claim they were willing to shoot come in and suddenly break down. They needed help. They couldn't figure out the camera. The worst were eventually fired. But I would seethe at these people, because they gave all OMB's a bad name. Some of us were reliable shooters and reporters.

I don't believe OMB's are a bad thing, but I do think that fully staffing a newsroom with them is a mistake. If there hadn't been true shooters to learn from, I wouldn't have become a decent shooter myself. The same with reporters. The best OMB's will learn from both, while ultimately deciding which side they want to go towards.

Just my take.OMB'ing with professional grade gear is a great deal different than using a glorified handycam and shooting from the waist.

It still isn't ideal, though.

[News Is Broken]

Sorry folks. I'm taking this thread to Cuba.

http://www.kaitaia.com/funny/g2/d/12452-2/Hijack-OMFG.jpg

Originally posted by Spike:
They actually do exist:

http://www.cojoweb.com/skycar-i-1_Bx.jpg

The Moller Skycar (http://www.moller.com/)No, that's a prototype. And the guy is asking close to 1M for one. Screw that. I want something that costs maybe twice that of a normal car and can fly (safely). Hook me up.

Oh, and throw in a robotic vacuum for the wife.

[Gonzo 77]

Agreed. OMB work isn't ideal, but it can be well done. I also agree that true OMB work is done with professional cameras and gear, and that you learn how to use light kits, shoot live shots, and do all the other things that true shooters do.

[ontrackp]

Re: VJs in the newsroom

Who remembers the desktop publishing revolution? Suddenly everybody could produce finished print pieces -- camera ready art without layout artists, type houses, specialized facilities, etc.... In big time advertising,art directors went from being leaders of a team of specialists to having to handle their entire creative process. It was difficult for old timers that couldn't, or wouldn't adapt. But the business model changed, people learned the appropriate skills, and graphic design has thrived. Many talented people had to re-invent themselves, and they did it. The ones who refused to acknowledge the change fell by the wayside.

This is analagous to what's happening in video production. The new technology that so many of you are critical of is creating opportunity -- for creativity, fast turn-arounds and cost-efficiencies. And like it or not, it is causing a necessary re-invention of television journalism.

Stations no longer have a monopoly on broadcast news. The internet has already changed it, and is making it harder and harder for stations to compete every day. I don't think web designers have figured out how to really maximize the potential of the web as a news source yet, but it's getting closer and closer.

Rosenblum is a future thinker, and without future thinkers, this industry as we know it will have no future. You should be thankful that there are people out there looking ahead and insuring that there is a future for local television news.

Every aspect of production from commercials to programs have been deeply impacted by the new technology, but most importantly by people who can do more than one job. A major cable network is using the term "Preditor" - that's a producer/editor. And they're hiring more of these multi-taskers than traditional one-hat production staff.

Like it or not, stations will follow suit. They have to. Good, talented people will have to adapt or they will lose their jobs. But that's not Rosenblum's fault. If anything, his vision of the future should help talented professionals realize what they need to do to survive in the changing environment.

[NYC Street]

No, Rosenblum's not a future thinker. He's been accurately described as another consultant/parasite, feeding on the underbelly of the underperformers in the industry. And, on the off chance that you're more than just his latest identity, let's dissect your thesis.

Advertising isn't even close to an apt analogy to Rosenblum's theory of local news. Writing an ad isn't done on deadline. Writing an ad is something that requires nothing other than imagination. It's one central task, with an overlay. And the task is reviewed by mulititudes, including a client

Reporting a story takes a certain amount of time, and, at the same time the reporter's attention should be dedicated to gathering facts, Rosenblum proposes that it be diverted to focusing a camera and changing batteries. That's a recipe for disaster - a disaster in which the station ends up with neither the stories nor the pictures needed to tell them.

Might one man banding work in weak production scenarios? I think he's proven that it can. The audiences haven't bought the product, but if the marketplace is sufficiently fragmented, and the pricepoint is low enough, he can deliver something that keeps the needles bouncing.

In news, it isn't just the old timers who recognize that Rosenblum is a self-proclaimed emperor without any clothes. It's anyone who actually values the reporting side of the craft. If you think features and fluff are all you need for a show, then you can live with his one man band operations.

If you have an audience that expects a NEWScast, his method leads only to failure. Stations don't have to adopt it, and most will quickly see the principal reason not to: so far not one that has gone through the Rosenblum decimation has moved up from last place.

[Spike]

Damn, Street, it's about time you showed up.

[Rosenblum]

Originally posted by Spike:
Damn, Street, it's about time you showed up.Like a bad penny. What have you been up to Tim?

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by NYC Street:
so far not one that has gone through the Rosenblum decimation has moved up from last place.Yes, we've noticed that he keeps side-stepping that fact.

Actually, what's happened is, he's side-stepped ALL the facts we have pointed out and has turned to the "you don't get it" argument, not to mention the "I'm smarter than you" and "Oh, yeah, well no one's forcing management to listen to me" and "It'll happen anyway" chestnuts.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by ontrackp:
A major cable network is using the term "Preditor" - that's a producer/editor. And they're hiring more of these multi-taskers than traditional one-hat production staff.That doesn't make it a good idea.

But apparently, thanks to encouragement from folks like Rosenblum, management's been convinced that crap is fine, as long as it's cheap to produce.

There's a special place in the hot nether region for people who make it their goal to convince employers that they can get away with a lesser product, created by fewer staffers, and thus save money.

We can thank God Rosenblum doesn't consult for American automakers.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:

There's a special place in the hot nether region for people who make it their goal to convince employers that they can get away with a lesser product, created by fewer staffers, and thus save money.
so then where do the actual employers go?

[The Mockingbird]

They get reincarnated as VJ's and Preditors.

[SpxGrunt]

Rosenblum may be the devil, but we should put just as much blame on the managers who make the deals with him. And I'm still waiting to hear how the VJ model turned around a station's ratings and/or finances.

[Consider This]

Are VJ jobs better than no jobs?

I wonder that sometimes. If stations cash strapped enough to try the OMB experiment decide it's a failure, what will their next move be? Will Young-owned stations, for example, throw piles of money (that they don't have) to rebuild their news departments? Or will they dump news for Seinfeld re-runs?

If no one's watching anyway, which is the case for most of the stations adopting the OMB idea, a station can make the same money with many fewer headaches and even less cost.

If the alternative to news reported by OMBs was no news at all, would that be better?

[NYC Street]

Oh, I've been around. Everywhere I turn I see another few Rosenblum IDs offering the same old rhetoric.

I've lost a lot of interest in the repetitive back and forth, and instead have been watching for any sign that he might be right, either about the trend or the effectiveness of his technique.

It will come as no surprise that there has been none. His three operations in the U.S. are still mired in last place, offering a product that amply justifies their position.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Consider This:
If stations cash strapped enough to try the OMB experiment decide it's a failure, what will their next move be? Will Young-owned stations, for example, throw piles of money (that they don't have) to rebuild their news departments? Or will they dump news for Seinfeld re-runs?Neither.

Young is not in very good financial shape. They made some really risky business moves that didn't work out, and they found themselves holding a station (KRON) that they can't possibly get rid of without sustaining a substantial loss on the sale. Their stock price is in the toilet, something like 2% of its value a few years ago. I'm actually surprised their shareholders haven't filed a class action lawsuit against the people running the company for mismanagement.

What I think you're seeing here is a last ditch effort by Young to make these two stations (KRON and WKRN) look a little better on paper in preparation for a sale. If Rosenblum's system had done what he claimed, they would have put themselves in a much better situation. But even if it didn't, if they could pare down the staff to minimal levels, reduce costs and still maintain a certain level of advertising revenue, their balance sheet and income statement would start to look at little better to potential buyers. Their statement of cash flows would tell the real story, but it's surprising how many people in business can't read a statement of cash flows and understand what the numbers mean. All they'll see is profits, losses and percentages, which can all be spun to look promising.

If Young can sell off these two stations, the rest of the operation will be in better financial condition. Notice Young hasn't adopted Rosenblum's system at their other stations. That's because they still want to keep them and don't want to run them into the ground.

Timing is going to be their biggest challenge. If ratings begin to fall as a result of the quality problems they are experiencing, their advertising revenue could go down. Their challenge is to put the stations up for sale at the point at which the balance sheet and income statements are at their best. Their ineptitude at this kind of timing decision is what got them into this situation with KRON in the first place, so it will be interesting to see if they learned anything. Otherwise these two stations could start to bleed the company dry.

I don't know what McGraw Hill's motivation is. They may actually think this could be a cost-saving solution across the board.

[The Mockingbird]

Just an observation, but there's a reason why they call it One Man Banding: because you're doing a ridiculous number of things for one person simultaneously.

[Spike]

Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
Just an observation, but there's a reason why they call it One Man Banding: because you're doing a ridiculous number of things for one person simultaneously.http://www.artistidistrada.org/Img_0123%20OK%20Giorgio%20di%20fianco.jpg

[ontrackp]

TO NYC STREET:

First I am not Rosenblum. To answer your post:

“Writing an ad isn't done on deadline.”
--- My analogy was about desktop publishing and art directors, not writers. And just as an aside, if you think ads are not done on deadlines, you know nothing about advertising. Desktop publishing is an appropriate analogy – new technology came into an existing process, allowed for much more inexpensive production, and people had to learn how to use it or they lost their jobs. Companies had to embrace it or they went out of business. This is what is going to happen to broadcast journalism.

Here's another example of inexpensive technology changing an industry. Recording. There used to be hundreds of big commercial recording studios that artists had to use to make records. The record companies controlled budgets and distribution. The public at large only heard music the big record companies put out. Today, there are only a handful of big studios left -- NYC only has 3 or 4. But there is more music available than ever before. The record companies had to change their business model to selling songs one at a time, independent artists have an equal shot of success on iTunes. Great music is being created in basements and garages -- the quality is NOT as good as the old big studios, but it's good enough -- so who benefits? Everyone - recording artists and consumers.

“Reporting a story takes a certain amount of time, and, at the same time the reporter's attention should be dedicated to gathering facts, Rosenblum proposes that it be diverted to focusing a camera and changing batteries. That's a recipe for disaster - a disaster in which the station ends up with neither the stories nor the pictures needed to tell them.”
--- Sorry, I disagree. If focusing a camera and changing batteries are a deterrent to paying attention to the story, then you are a chimpanzee, capable at most of doing a single, simple task without having to think at the same time. Most humans can handle basic multi-tasking. Also, you’re denying the reality that if stations don’t adapt they won’t have news operations, which makes the entire discussion moot.

"Might one man banding work in weak production scenarios? I think he's proven that it can. The audiences haven't bought the product, but if the marketplace is sufficiently fragmented, and the pricepoint is low enough, he can deliver something that keeps the needles bouncing."
--- The market is already fragmented. Broadcasters are competing with the internet. Once a web based news service really gets their act together, and broadband puts internet content on a big TV, the stations will really have a problem. At least Rosenblum is thinking about that now.

"In news, it isn't just the old timers who recognize that Rosenblum is a self-proclaimed emperor without any clothes. It's anyone who actually values the reporting side of the craft. If you think features and fluff are all you need for a show, then you can live with his one man band operations."
--- There are thousands and thousands of college journalism students who are growing up with technical skills that will help them be the VJ reporters of tomorrow. They value good reporting, are working hard to learn their craft, and just as the print designers who create finished pieces using Photoshop, Illustrator and Quark Express, they will use small cameras and laptop editing systems to create great reporting.

"If you have an audience that expects a NEWScast, his method leads only to failure. Stations don't have to adopt it, and most will quickly see the principal reason not to: so far not one that has gone through the Rosenblum decimation has moved up from last place."
--- There are too many reasons that a station can be in last place to address this. How many stations have moved up by increasing spending in any way other than hiring away a more popular anchor or reporter? The days of letting the news operation be a loss leader because they are making so much money with their other programming are long gone. There are business realities that station owners and managers have to face. The new competitive environment (aka the internet) will require changes. Sorry you don’t like that, maybe you should start an internet news site using the old techniques – see how big an audience you get.

[NYC Street]

Sorry, Mikey, but you're transparent. And sorry if I wrote loosely, and from my perspective. But, as noted, I'm reasonably done with answering your rationalizations. However, let's go at it once more.

Creating, instead of writing, an advertisement, may be done on deadline. But it isn't done on a deadline even vaguely resembling those faced several times daily by most local television news reporters. I say this from considerable experience, having (with a partner) created, built up and sold an advertising agency before I graduated from college - and I did the creative.

Technology has changed every business. Lower Manhattan used to be filled with headquarters of insurance companies, each filling floor after floor of large office buildings with clerks. The PC ended that. But it doesn't mean that actuaries can or should sell policies door to door.

And while I'm happy to consider your perspective (you "disagree") relating to my suggestion that a reporter needs to concentrate on the story, not the camera, I somehow doubt that you've ever reported, much less reported in an era in which scripts are scrutinized not just by editors and producers, but by bloggers worldwide. Errors are magnified, and can destroy careers, if not entire news organizations. Just ask Dan Rather.

Your proposal would make more Rather-style incidents far more likely. And if a manager can't sell the thesis that the potential costs of such a disaster far outweigh the benefits of shaving head count, then it's the manager who needs to go, along with his or her bosses.

This isn't about having the requisite technical skills to get the video and edit it. Frankly, there are few of us who can't learn (or haven't already learned over the course of our careers) the basics of editing and shooting. But that doesn't mean that our efforts will ever come close to matching the professionals who win Emmys or NPPA awards. Nor will those excellent photographers and editors be as skilled as we are in writing and delivering a story.

And if you want to build viewers rather than manage their disappearance, it's better - at least in my view - to offer them something worthy of their attention, rather than the crap and fluff being offered by those poor souls forced into one man banding. They don't have the time or resources to produce anything else.

And in that I include your internet sites offering infotainment. ET and Extra already do quite well. News had best offer something not less, but more.

[ January 10, 2007, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: NYC Street ]

[Rosenblum]

Hey Timmy...
As a 'journalist' you should try and get at least one fact right. Unlike you, I always post under my own name.

[ January 10, 2007, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Rosenblum ]

[NYC Street]

Sure, OLDCBSGUY, or whatever...

Here's a hint: most consultants at least try to remember that they've already made admissions in public before trying the same misstatement (oh, what the heck, the same lie) again.

[ January 10, 2007, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: NYC Street ]

[Michigan J. Frog]

Hey, Rosenblum, how about some examples of stations that adopted your plan and have seen improved ratings as a result?

[ January 10, 2007, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Michigan J. Frog ]

[ontrackp]

Street - my name is not Mikey.

While I am new here, having read your posts, it's clear that you have some kind of personal issue with Rosenblum. It adds entertainment value to your posts.

I believe that quality is important, and it's crucial that there are voices out there calling for high quality product. This will balance any tendencies on the part of owners/managers to accept the lowest acceptable quality at the lowest cost. Of course, the final arbiter of success is the audience.

Your assumption that VJs are all low quality fluff producers is wrong. A friend of mine who is a gastroenterologist told me about learning laproscopic surgery. The surgeon teaching the course commented that young doctors coming up are more adept at controlling the robotic surgical tools because they had spent so much time as kids playing video games that required a similar type of meticulous control. Kids making edited home movies with HDV cameras and iMovie are experiencing similar benefits as they move into the professional broadcast journalism universe.

I have seen videos produced by highschool students that blew me away. The accessibility of good quality cameras and editing systems is creating a generation of future reporters who will not struggle with camera and editing skills, but will have these skills as second nature.

So keep calling for quality -- these kids, and VJs trained by Rosenblum need to know that they are expected to create quality work. However, your desire for quality reporting is not going to change the economic realities faced by broadcast stations.

As the kids say, "Peace out."

[Spike]

Originally posted by ontrackp:
Your assumption that VJs are all low quality fluff producers is wrong. Straw man. The reality is that there are some, a few, who do the job of a one man band well, while the majority do not. I don't think Street ever asserted that ALL VJs are "low quality fluff producers." But he, like I, recognize that the total quality drops off significantly, because there simply aren't enough of those rock stars out there to staff entire newsrooms.

You guys seem to think the rock stars are coming en masse, but it's not simply a matter of the technology being second nature. It's that they're having to pay attention to different activities that use different parts of the brain that compete with one another. You can pay full attention to the visual. You can pay full attention to the verbal. You can pay full attention to the motor skills necessary to operate the equipment.

But you can't pay full attention to all three at once. Human brains simply aren't wired that way.

What you can do is automate certain tasks in the brain, burning neural pathways to take care of repetitive tasks without full attention. That's what you think is going to save this system, as operating video cameras becomes "second nature." But that only works at a very basic level and only when the action being performed is the same every time. That's what kills the VJ, that it's not the same every time. Every story is different. In journalism, relying on auto pilot is a bad thing. A VERY bad thing that gets facts wrong and misses visuals.

See, your stupid analogy to surgeons doesn't apply. Surgeons are concentrating on one task. They aren't simultaneously operating on someone while also administering the anasthetic while also setting up the next day's operation while also updating the patient's chart, all at the same time. They know better, because they understand that the brain doesn't work that way.

You'll learn it eventually, as the quality of the stations you people are wrecking continues to drop and never recovers. I just hope the ownerships groups figure it out before it's too late.

[ January 10, 2007, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Spike ]

[Roy Hobbs]

Meanwhile new ads appeared this week in St. Louis and Minneapolis for backpack journalists.

Sometimes crap rolls uphill.

It's like each station having one anchor without a clothing allowance dress like Herb the sales guy at WKRP.

http://www.rockandrollreport.com/photos/uncategorized/herb_1.jpg

[writer2]

Herb--call "What Not to Wear!"

thanks for the laugh, Roy ;)

[NYC Street]

While I am new here, having read your posts, it's clear that you have some kind of personal issue with Rosenblum. It adds entertainment value to your posts. Sure, Mike. You're new here, but have read my posts? I haven't posted here in what, a couple of months at least, until this thread popped up. And I didn't post until *after* you did - starting on about page 5.

I have no personal issue with you - I've never met you. I just have a low tolerance for consultants pushing bad ideas.

This isn't even a pure "quality" debate. I do strive for quality in my pieces - and hope my colleagues do the same, because if we all do, we'll do well.

But there are many other reasons why the one man band model you push doesn't work. They've been explored and beaten to death on TVSpy, B-Roll.net and, now, here.

Here's the short summary: on the side of one man banding: cost. Against it: everything else.

You can argue that the market demands low cost producers. I'll stick with you get what you pay for.

[ontrackp]

Street - Once again, my name is not Mike. I am certainly not Rosenblum.

I agree with you that everybody should do the best job they can. Some VJs will do a great job, some will be mediocre -- just like traditional reporters.

[SpxGrunt]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
Hey, Rosenblum, how about some examples of stations that adopted your plan and have seen improved ratings as a result?Anyone? Anyone? How many times will this question be asked before we get a straight answer?

[Original Cynic]

I would like to know why, if the quality of these vj pieces are supposedly watchable.....why doesnt rosenblum have any stories from the US on his website? Where are the examples from KRON, WKRN, and KGTV?
Or are they too horrible to display?

[Roy Hobbs]

Originally posted by Original Cynic:
I would like to know why, if the quality of these vj pieces are supposedly watchable.....why doesnt rosenblum have any stories from the US on his website? Where are the examples from KRON, WKRN, and KGTV?
Or are they too horrible to display?http://www.saschtob.de/Bilder/batman%20&%20robin.gif

Holy Crux of the Issue Batman!!!

[ January 11, 2007, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: Roy Hobbs ]

[Roy Hobbs]

Okay I just looked at WKRN.

Just dreadful. Everything looks like either a Kiwanis noontime luncheon slide show or a video project at an unaccredited junior college.

Excellent elbow and shoulder shirks by the anchors running their own prompters, by the way.

Heaven help us.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Roy Hobbs:
Just dreadful. Everything looks like either a Kiwanis noontime luncheon slide show or a video project at an unaccredited junior college.Roy, I'd just like to say that you have an excellent way with words. I don't just mean that in reference to hitting the nail on the head with this description, but in general.

[SpxGrunt]

Well, if Mike Rosenblum won't answer, maybe we should ask Mike Rosenbaum.

http://www.poptower.com/images/db/124/420/300/michael-rosenbaum.jpg

[vuphinder]

Anderson Cooper without hair.

[ January 13, 2007, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: vuphinder ]

[beeb man]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
At the BBC, which is the largest place to have ever done this, we went from covering the entire UK with 84 beta crews to more than 900 cameras after a five year conversion. In the largest operations (ie, BBC Scotland or BBC Wales that translated to 50 VJs, sometimes more. .Let me shed some light on what really is happening in the BBC…

Hi all, I am a cameraman who has worked for the BBC and others for over 20 years. A few years ago, Rosenblum was going round the country selling his vision to BBC managers and staff. I was at one of the presentations. He seemed a natural communicator and quite funny. Things deteriorated soon though. He plonked a little domestic camcorder on the table and announced: “This is a broadcast camera”. Oh dear.
I stopped him (to the obvious annoyance of his minder, a BBC executive) and said this was not true, just ask Sony. His reply beggars belief. “The viewers can’t tell the difference, so this is a broadcast camera” And so the slippery slope to mediocrity started…

In the early days it was labelled PDP-Personal Digital Production, but it was obvious to the staff that this was just VJ through the back door. Rosenblum’s vision was for a newsroom full of PDP-ers that would operate like a print newsroom; stories would either “suck” or “blow” to use his vernacular. People were now free to fail.

Rosenblum reckons he has converted BBC newsroom across the UK to his utopia.
I am pleased to say that this is not the case. Whilst it is true that millions of tax-pounds have been spent “training” staff at his boot camp and purchasing hundreds of PDP kits (originally PD 150s, now upgraded at more expense to Z1s) most of the kits sit unused under desks in newsrooms or at home. A very few VJs have managed to achieve acceptable results, but for the majority it is has been an expensive waste of time, if the end product is how we judge this experiment.

No one can dispute that the technical quality of the output has declined; high-end domestic verses broadcast cameras. A no-brainer. What is more concerning is the nose-dive in craft skills. The BBC is meant to be the best in TV. Surely this should be in all areas? TV news journalism is about great writing AND great pictures.
What we have instead is rushed writing and wobbly, badly exposed, poorly famed pictures, and unimaginative editing.

Managers will say that we now have more cameras to cover the patch. The problem with that defence is that any business can produce more of what they do if the end product is of a lower quality. That is what has happened in BBC TV news.

Like I said, I am relieved that Rosenblum’s utopia has not materialised. Unfortunately, his smooth talking combined with managers’ ignorance and eagerness to cost–cut has left us in a half-way house. Staff and freelance crews are still employed in the same numbers, but the output is now shared with VJ material. In the same TV programme, quality lurches from the sometimes outstanding to the utterly dire unbroadcastable crap. How is this better? Rosenblum has made millions out of this, and continues to cite his work at the BBC as a success story. I can’t believe this guy has managed to convince the, supposedly, most respected broadcaster in the world that somehow we were getting it all wrong. You gotta give him that at least!

[ January 17, 2007, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: beeb man ]

[TV Dad]

I think you're selling digital camcorders short, beeb man. They're easily capable of turning out broadcast quality work. However, I DO agree with you about the VJ concept lowering overall quality. I think that when a person is asked to cover so many bases, everything gets watered down a little.

[beeb man]

It depends how you define broadcast quality..my definition is an engineering one, ie one that can be measured objectively. A broadcast spec has certain minimum values of luma and colour resolution. SD domestic (mini DV) cameras do not meet this spec. In certain conditions I agree, it may be hard to tell the difference on a TV set at home, but sooner or later it will show up.

[Consider This]

Originally posted by beeb man:

Staff and freelance crews are still employed in the same numbers, but the output is now shared with VJ material. In the same TV programme, quality lurches from the sometimes outstanding to the utterly dire unbroadcastable crap. It speaks rather highly of the VJ cameras that they can produce programming whilst sitting "unused under desks in newsrooms or at home." Robotic ENG cameras! Excellent! Eliminating people altogether would solve the VJ problem straight away.

Despite the nice British touches such as "materialised" and "programme," I smell a fake post.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Consider This:
It speaks rather highly of the VJ cameras that they can produce programming whilst sitting "unused under desks in newsrooms or at home." Robotic ENG cameras! Excellent! Eliminating people altogether would solve the VJ problem straight away.I wondered about that also. I think his point was that while Rosenblum likes to imply that he has converted the BBC completely over to the VJ model, it has in fact not done so, instead getting some low quality material from the VJs and shoring it up with traditional crews. Cameras that were purchased for people who were supposed to become VJs but didn't are the ones that are sitting idle.

At least, that's the impression of the situation I've gotten from other discussions about the BBC, like this very interesting thread on B-Roll (http://www.b-roll.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17067).

Originally posted by Consider This:
Despite the nice British touches such as "materialised" and "programme," I smell a fake post.I don't think so. What he wrote resonates too closely with the B-Roll discussions on the topic. He may in fact be one of the people who posted in the thread I linked above.

[Another side]

According to Beeb's initial post:

*No cuts in staff or free-lance folks, but VJs brought in to suppliment the staff;

*Beeb concedes that as a result they have more cameras "covering the patch" but argues quality has dropped.

*Beeb says some VJs do acceptable work; most do not.

*Beeb agrees audience cannot tell difference when small video cameras coming, but inists "it's coming."

I'm not sure how any of that contradicts what Rosenblum has been saying on three Medialine threads.

[beeb man]

It speaks rather highly of the VJ cameras that they can produce programming whilst sitting "unused under desks in newsrooms or at home." Robotic ENG cameras! Excellent! Eliminating people altogether would solve the VJ problem straight away.

Despite the nice British touches such as "materialised" and "programme," I smell a fake post.[/QB]Nice British touches hey? How I laughed at that. Go on, ask what the weather is like in the UK, or what is on BBC1 right now.

There most definatley are lots of PDP kits sitting under desks and at home. There are also a few VJs that shoot-edit.

You can cut this debate by looking at the end results of the PDP project; More "crews" to hand. Lower craft standards. It really is that simple. That's what is happening. I see it every night on the BBC.
Sometimes, PDP is used in a clever way. I saw a C4 doc the other night filmed by the reporter in a war zone (Afghanistan). Needless to say it was gripping stuff, and genuinly difficult to shoot conventionally. But these opportunities are rare. Most of the time, there is no accessibilty argument that can be used to defend PDP, though managers always cite this. On the same evening I saw a doc about the NHS. The team got close-up access to the protagonists. The kind of access that Rosenblum goes on about. It was shot conventionally by a two-man crew. It looked great.
In a few years time I bet another self-styled guru will come along and sell a revolutionary new approach in TV news..how about Specialised Crews? You could have a cameraman and reporter and maybe a soundman...
That way, reporters could do PTCs AND walk whilst talking. Then while the journo* goes back to edit his item, the crew could go on another story. Brilliant!

*that's another nice British touch.

[ January 17, 2007, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: beeb man ]

[beeb man]

Originally posted by Spike:
I wondered about that also. I think his point was that while Rosenblum likes to imply that he has converted the BBC completely over to the VJ model, it has in fact not done so, instead getting some low quality material from the VJs and shoring it up with traditional crews. Cameras that were purchased for people who were supposed to become VJs but didn't are the ones that are sitting idle.

[/QUOTE]

Yep, that is what I meant Spike, and no, I have not posted on B roll

[Spike]

Originally posted by Another side:
I'm not sure how any of that contradicts what Rosenblum has been saying on three Medialine threads.Then you haven't been paying attention again.

Originally posted by Another side:
*No cuts in staff or free-lance folks, but VJs brought in to suppliment the staff;Then how are they supposed to have accomplished a 60-70% reduction in costs Rosenblum claims his model with get, if they're paying more people? I would call that a contradiction.

Originally posted by Another side:
*Beeb concedes that as a result they have more cameras "covering the patch" but argues quality has dropped.According to Rosenblum, quality is not supposed to drop. It's supposed to improve. I would call that a contradiction.

Originally posted by Another side:
*Beeb says some VJs do acceptable work; most do not.Again, how is quality supposed to have improved under his system if most VJs are not doing acceptable work?

Originally posted by Another side:
*Beeb agrees audience cannot tell difference when small video cameras coming, but inists "it's coming."I don't see anywhere in his post where he says viewers can't tell a difference, nor do I see anything about insisting that it's coming.

What were you reading?

[Another side]

Spike: I'm going to answer your idiotic questions one last time because (a) I let you have your snippy attitude once, but now I'm done; and (2) You don't have much credibility left with me -- you're rude, counter-productive, selfish and nothing more, really, than a whiny little lightweight who believes all news directors are liars, all sales reps are leeches and, of course, Rosenblum is the devil incarnate. You got kicked out of here once before (as Shaky and Blue) for constantly, angrily, deriding someone who fired you -- disagreed with you, as it were -- and you wouldn't let it go. Doesn't look like you learned much.

Yet when he asks you to post some of your own work, no-no, not you. You're too good for that; you're the prosecutor, after all.

When he asks another poster to offer here the "new ideas" he claims to woo his newsroom managers with, you holler, no-no, not him.It's not about"him." And, anyway, Rosenblum would steal the ideas and just claim them as his own.

You're a moron, Spike.

And what you do, Spike, is drown people with bull**** ... you string together words like a banshee but under close examination, you really don't say anything. I'll admit I fell for it, but that's only because I'm dumb as a rock. I learn, eventually, though.

So here you go:

1.Originally posted by Another side:
*No cuts in staff or free-lance folks, but VJs brought in to suppliment the staff;Then how are they supposed to have accomplished a 60-70% reduction in costs Rosenblum claims his model with get, if they're paying more people? I would call that a contradiction.

Most of your whiny arguments have centered on the alleged deception of Rosenblum's main pitch: that veterans and thoroughly trained and competent reporters and photographers would be kicked to the curb by gleeful bean-counters and replaced by young, inexensive VJs doing twice the work for half the money. Beeb says that didn't happen in his shop -- that's the contradiction. Beeb didn't mention cost reductions, it wasn't part of the his post OR mine.

Originally posted by Another side:
*Beeb concedes that as a result they have more cameras "covering the patch" but argues quality has dropped.According to Rosenblum, quality is not supposed to drop. It's supposed to improve. I would call that a contradiction.

Not if you read what he wrote, which, of course, you don't. What he said numerous ways was that there would be struggles as people learn each other's craft,and that not everyone can, or should, function as competent VJs, that the deadwood would weed itself out. He also disagrees with your definition of "quality" -- as do I.Originally posted by Another side:
*Beeb agrees audience cannot tell difference when small video cameras coming, but inists "it's coming."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see anywhere in his post where he says viewers can't tell a difference, nor do I see anything about insisting that it's coming.

What were you reading?

[qb]I was reading this:[quote]beeb man
Junior Member
Member # 13215

posted January 17, 2007 10:05 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends how you define broadcast quality..my definition is an engineering one, ie one that can be measured objectively. A broadcast spec has certain minimum values of luma and colour resolution. SD domestic (mini DV) cameras do not meet this spec. In certain conditions I agree, it may be hard to tell the difference on a TV set at home, but sooner or later it will show up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 5 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007 | IP: Logged

[ontrackp]

Regarding broadcast quality and camcorders, Beeb said:

It depends how you define broadcast quality..my definition is an engineering one, ie one that can be measured objectively. A broadcast spec has certain minimum values of luma and colour resolution. SD domestic (mini DV) cameras do not meet this spec. In certain conditions I agree, it may be hard to tell the difference on a TV set at home, but sooner or later it will show up.

I produce documentary programs that are shot on HDV, edited in HDV and downconverted to SD Digibeta for national and international broadcast. These programs consistently pass network quality control for luma and chroma. Our workflow eliminates mini-dv compression. The additional technical step includes a Miranda Bridge and Leitch X-75 downcoverter -- not cheap, but it allows us to use SONY Z-1 cameras to produce national network programs.

[Roy Hobbs]

Originally posted by Consider This:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by beeb man:

Staff and freelance crews are still employed in the same numbers, but the output is now shared with VJ material. In the same TV programme, quality lurches from the sometimes outstanding to the utterly dire unbroadcastable crap. It speaks rather highly of the VJ cameras that they can produce programming whilst sitting "unused under desks in newsrooms or at home." Robotic ENG cameras! Excellent! Eliminating people altogether would solve the VJ problem straight away.

Despite the nice British touches such as "materialised" and "programme," I smell a fake post.</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah but you gotta love "colour" and "defence" as well. :)

[Spike]

Someone's been drinking.

[beeb man]

"Another Side", my dear chap (another Nice British touch)

you can argue the Rosenblum case till the cows come home. The fact remains that since the BBC adopted his methods, tho mercifully not the full vision, the technical and craft standards have dropped.
The BBC now routinely transmits technically incompetant material: wobbly, soft, badly composed etc. You can't even justify it on the grounds of exclusive access. Most of the time it's just your average news and features items that could and should have been shot by competant crews with the right gear.

If a new system makes the end product worse, then surely it is time to ditch that system.

BBC managers will not acknowlege this because they have placed far too much financial and political investment in the project to pull it now.

and really, there is no need to be so rude to Spike.

(When is someone going to ask me what the weather is like in the UK?)

[Another side]

Originally posted by beeb man:
"Another Side", my dear chap (another Nice British touch)

you can argue the Rosenblum case till the cows come home. The fact remains that since the BBC adopted his methods, tho mercifully not the full vision, the technical and craft standards have dropped.I believe you. And I'm not defending Rosenblum's case --he' much more articulate than I, and he's perfectly capable of defending himself. Further, I 'm not convinced his idea will work -- I only argue that it's something to look at in the face of declining interest in TV news AND that if you're going to judge it, then do it, first, as he suggested, and see if it works. If not, tinker with it,and see if that helps. Again, use as directed, or don't blame the manufacturer.

The BBC now routinely transmits technically incompetant material: wobbly, soft, badly composed etc. You can't even justify it on the grounds of exclusive access. Most of the time it's just your average news and features items that could and should have been shot by competant crews with the right gear.

If a new system makes the end product worse, then surely it is time to ditch that system.Agreed ... assuming you enacted the system fully and followed its directions and/or guidelines ... assuming you gave it a fair chance to perform as advertised.

BBC managers will not acknowlege this because they have placed far too much financial and political investment in the project to pull it now.Perhaps. But if that's true, it will change. If quality is the key to viewership and the viewer runs from mediocre work, then the stockholders will begin to speak. And thios is a money business -- ultimately, stockholders rule.

What's the weather is like in the UK

[beeb man]

[/QUOTE]
What's the weather is like in the UK[/QB][/QUOTE]

Windy.

[2:30]

Don't care about the weather in the U.K. - it's the current exchange rate that makes that irrelevant to me.

But the analysis of the VJ experience? That was excellent - thanks for posting it. Unlike the hype posted by Rosenblum, yours, beeb, has the instant ring of truth.

[Consider This]

Originally posted by beeb man:

Windy.Beeb, how did you stumble across this fair little site?

[beeb man]

Originally posted by Consider This:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by beeb man:

Windy.Beeb, how did you stumble across this fair little site?</font>[/QUOTE]Simple: during a lull back in the office, I typed "Rosenblum" and "crap" into Google.
I am not joking.

Little did I realise just how unpopular he is across the pond...we thought we were alone.
It really saddens me what he and our managers have done in the name of "progress". Now he is selling his ware off the back of the BBC.

[Rosenblum]

Well, I can see that you are as busy as usual over at the BBC, spending your time playing around on Google in the office. When you type Rosenblum and Crap you get 24,800 hits, and you have to wade through a fair number to get to the first Medialine entry. I see you are spending the license fee really well!

Of course, I was busy busy busy destroying the BBC during the five years I was with them; my contract renewed twice during that time. Greg Dyke, the Director General who hired me was either a) the biggest dope in the world not to realize how I was destroying the quality or b) in on the 'plot' with me. In either case, lucky for the viewers that you have uncovered the whole thing, (when you're not busy playing on the web).

Keep up the hard work!

[Spike]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
Greg Dyke, the Director General who hired me was either a) the biggest dope in the world not to realize how I was destroying the quality or b) in on the 'plot' with me. In either case, lucky for the viewers that you have uncovered the whole thing, (when you're not busy playing on the web).
You've tried this defense a few times now. The points you seem to be trying to make are since these people at the BBC and Young are actually in charge of companies: 1)they are unlikely to make mistakes, and 2)the rest of us are unqualified to express our opinions.

As for the first point, just because someone is an "experienced" businessman or has an MBA from a respected university does not mean that he won't make mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes are spectacular, like taking a guaranteed revenue stream like the one the BBC enjoys and somehow ending up with a huge budget shortfall that results in layoffs of thousands of people and significant budget cuts across the board; or perhaps like paying the highest price ever recorded to buy a television station in the US, as Young did, and through a series of unusual business decisions losing that station's network affiliation, thus putting your entire company in financial difficulty and watching your stock lose 97% of its value.

Is it any wonder that people who make these kinds of spectacular mistakes might continue to make them? Is it any wonder that these people might compound their problems by looking in vain for cheap and easy ways out of their financial problems?

As for the second point, we are all entitled to express our opinions. Some of us bring very little actual local newsroom experience to those opinions, while some of us bring quite a bit more. But to say that we don't have the right to criticize something we see happening if we've never tried to do the same thing ourselves is to say that people can't have opinions on politics if they haven't ever held office or on tax reform if they've never studied economics. In this kind of public forum, the arguments themselves are what carry weight, not necessarily the cv of the person making the argument. If you can't counter the arguments set against you, it doesn't matter if your opponent is a kid fresh out of high school. You still lose.

[ January 18, 2007, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Spike ]

[News Is Broken]

All this VJ talk is making me hungry.

I've decided I'm going to be like Mike and strike it rich. I plan to revolutionize the pizza business. Instead of expensive ovens, restaurants and warehouses, we'll have little ford escorts with microwaves and cell phones. It will be revolutionary. Instead of separate roles of pizza chef, order taker and delivery driver, I'm going to combine them into one position I plan to call the Pizza Jockey (or PJ for short, ooh, that's so catchy).

Here's the pitch:

"At best a traditional pizza joint can only field a handful of drivers at one time. Using my method however, that same pizza place can field 30 or more, with ease.

The PJ's will hit the streets armed with the latest microwave pizza technology: DiGiorno. You really should give these a try, they are really, really good. They will also be issued cell phones to take orders as they drive. When a customer calls in to order a pizza, the PJ will simply pop one of these DiGiorno pies into the nuker and by the time he or she arrives at the customer's house, voila! The pizza will be ready to serve. You can make them in 10 minutes or less.

This also allows the pizza place to take risks. It's OK if a PJ fails to deliver his pizza, because you'll have 29 others that can fill the void. Sure, some customers will not be happy about it, but you'll be serving so many more that it will still result in much higher revenues. In addition, a PJ can now enjoy the freedom of working whenever they like, even cooking pizzas at home in his/her underwear. Plus, by eliminating the need for an expensive storefront location, I can reduce overall costs by as much as 75%.

The beauty of this model is the pizzas themselves. They are cheap, readily available and damn near idiot proof. Anyone who can read a box can make one, even a child. And mmm, mmm are they yummy. You can hardly tell the difference. Besides, folks are not interested in quality so long as you get it to them in 15 minutes or less. Trust me, I have done scores of market research that backs this up."

Pretty good, huh?

Now while I've got Domino's and Pizza Hut corporate simply awestruck by this idea, unfortunately the drivers, cooks and ordertakers are not so keen on it. Here's where I'd like to say that experienced pizza drivers make the best PJ's:

"Who better to be on the cutting edge of this new revolution than the front line veterans who interact with these hungry customers every day? And it's really not so much work to take orders and make pizzas while driving. It's surprisingly easy. The good news is that anyone can do it thanks to my 2 week training course."

Ha ha ha ha...do you like that? I'm so brilliant, sometimes I amaze even myself.

Alright, now if you'll all excuse me, I'm off to troll all the pizza driver messageboards and tell them all this is coming and there's nothing they can do to stop me.

Muwahahahahahaaaaa!

[Marty McFly]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
Well, I can see that you are as busy as usual over at the BBC, spending your time playing around on Google in the office. When you type Rosenblum and Crap you get 24,800 hits, and you have to wade through a fair number to get to the first Medialine entry. I see you are spending the license fee really well!

Of course, I was busy busy busy destroying the BBC during the five years I was with them; my contract renewed twice during that time. Greg Dyke, the Director General who hired me was either a) the biggest dope in the world not to realize how I was destroying the quality or b) in on the 'plot' with me. In either case, lucky for the viewers that you have uncovered the whole thing, (when you're not busy playing on the web).

Keep up the hard work!Daaaaammmnn.... beeb has just been:
http://www.darkcalibur.com/shaftblake/Arstechnica/Owned.bmp

[Spike]

I think you got it a little backward there, Marty, considering that Beeb came in and disputed most of what Rosenblum said about the BBC, while Rosenblum couldn't actually answer the arguments and instead resorted to criticizing his surfing the web during down time, which had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the argument.

If you think that's owned, you have no idea what owned is.

[Rosenblum]

Originally posted by News Is Broken:
All this VJ talk is making me hungry.

I've decided I'm going to be like Mike and strike it rich. I plan to revolutionize the pizza business. Instead of expensive ovens, restaurants and warehouses, we'll have little ford escorts with microwaves and cell phones. It will be revolutionary. Instead of separate roles of pizza chef, order taker and delivery driver, I'm going to combine them into one position I plan to call the Pizza Jockey (or PJ for short, ooh, that's so catchy).

Here's the pitch:

"At best a traditional pizza joint can only field a handful of drivers at one time. Using my method however, that same pizza place can field 30 or more, with ease.

The PJ's will hit the streets armed with the latest microwave pizza technology: DiGiorno. You really should give these a try, they are really, really good. They will also be issued cell phones to take orders as they drive. When a customer calls in to order a pizza, the PJ will simply pop one of these DiGiorno pies into the nuker and by the time he or she arrives at the customer's house, voila! The pizza will be ready to serve. You can make them in 10 minutes or less.

This also allows the pizza place to take risks. It's OK if a PJ fails to deliver his pizza, because you'll have 29 others that can fill the void. Sure, some customers will not be happy about it, but you'll be serving so many more that it will still result in much higher revenues. In addition, a PJ can now enjoy the freedom of working whenever they like, even cooking pizzas at home in his/her underwear. Plus, by eliminating the need for an expensive storefront location, I can reduce overall costs by as much as 75%.

The beauty of this model is the pizzas themselves. They are cheap, readily available and damn near idiot proof. Anyone who can read a box can make one, even a child. And mmm, mmm are they yummy. You can hardly tell the difference. Besides, folks are not interested in quality so long as you get it to them in 15 minutes or less. Trust me, I have done scores of market research that backs this up."

Pretty good, huh?

Now while I've got Domino's and Pizza Hut corporate simply awestruck by this idea, unfortunately the drivers, cooks and ordertakers are not so keen on it. Here's where I'd like to say that experienced pizza drivers make the best PJ's:

"Who better to be on the cutting edge of this new revolution than the front line veterans who interact with these hungry customers every day? And it's really not so much work to take orders and make pizzas while driving. It's surprisingly easy. The good news is that anyone can do it thanks to my 2 week training course."

Ha ha ha ha...do you like that? I'm so brilliant, sometimes I amaze even myself.

Alright, now if you'll all excuse me, I'm off to troll all the pizza driver messageboards and tell them all this is coming and there's nothing they can do to stop me.

Muwahahahahahaaaaa!You know what? I think there is something in this. Ever hear of Fred Smith and Federal Express? A lot of successful businesses start as what seems like a crazy idea.

[ January 18, 2007, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Rosenblum ]