Every lead story must have a live shot-True or False?

[overthehill]

True or False, why or why not?

Every lead story in your local newscast must have a live shot--preferably from the scene.

[ August 16, 2007, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: overthehill ]

[FD2BLK]

The depends on which consultant you've last hired.

[CKMD]

False.
A live is necessary if it illustrates your story better; if the event is still happening, going to happen, just ended; if you couldn't get back to the station in time to put it together.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

False.
Sure, it shows you are there....but so does the video. If it adds something to the story, yes....if not....it's slowing down the start of the show...which would be no. Former ND of mine strongly disagreed...and said we had to be "live" for every story we did....and for DAMN sure the lead had to be "live".

[adam & doctor drew]

false.
standing in a dark parking lot 6 hours after the story ended does nothing to advance the story.

plus locking you into that meaningless live shot may affect the truck's ability to get to actual breaking news if any happens close to showtime.

[Produce man]

FALSE!!

[CKMD]

Of COurse, Produche doesn't know why or why not...he just parrots the real news producers here.

[Ranger Bob]

Originally posted by FD2BLK:
The depends on which consultant you've last hired.LMAO...SO FUNNY...SO TRUE!

[Roy Hobbs]

True....unless you've taken a time machine back to 1988 when people only went live when it was warranted.

[Jax]

True...

We have trucks. We have men. We must be live.

[Pinkie]

False. The live truck is broken. graemlins/eusa_shifty.gif

[McCovey Cove Returns]

FALSE!!!!

[FrontierMan]

I say FALSE, but the bosses in my shop love it live, even when it makes no sense and it takes the reporter 15 seconds to explain why they're in front of an empty building.

Who cares if you're in front of a dark building that's been closed for hours...and you have to ask the janitors to turn the freaking lights on. It's LIVE.

Viewers love it LIVE.

[CKMD]

Originally posted by McCovey Cove Returns:
FALSE!!!!How did you handle that with Live local LAte-breaking?

[Da Woodshed]

Originally posted by CKMD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by McCovey Cove Returns:
FALSE!!!!How did you handle that with Live local LAte-breaking?</font>[/QUOTE]Well, I did fall on the sword a couple of times...
However, considering the show I was producing, I looked at our decisions as setting the table for the day. We pushed for stories we believed would be big that day or stories that happened overnight. So I could help out the later shows by sending my reporter(s) to a place where we knew something was going to happen in the morning. I hated being live for live sake, but that was one of edicts of management. LIVE. I fought the war and lost early, so I viewed our live shots as the first move in the daily chess match with the other stations. But I hated it. That's probably why they brought in an EP, even though we ascended the mountain and were on top.

[NYC Street]

Only if the GM is watching.

[s'news]

False. At least not in a rational world. You tell each story the best way you can, and you use the live truck where you A) have a compelling live situation or B) need the truck for an important story due to time contraints.

I know. I said "in a rational world."

[The Fedora]

Originally posted by CKMD:
False.
A live is necessary if it illustrates your story better; if the event is still happening, going to happen, just ended; if you couldn't get back to the station in time to put it together.Amen...

[ewink]

True.

People will not believe you unless you front every story live. Research backs that up.

[Spike]

I am sad to say that having now distanced myself from local news, I have to vote "true." It doesn't make any sense on a rational level. If there's no compelling journalistic reason to be live, then you shouldn't need a live shot. And yet, because idiot managers have listened to idiot consultants for so long and insisted on dog lick live shots, the audience now expects a live shot off the top of the show. It's now a convention of television news. Without it, your newscast looks like you're running on a skeleton crew, and you lose production value.

Live shots on lead stories are now like ties on businessmen. They serve no real purpose. But you don't look as professional without them.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

Originally posted by Spike:
the audience now expects a live shot off the top of the show.
IMO, you're giving the local news viewer way too much credit.

[Spike]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Spike:
the audience now expects a live shot off the top of the show.
IMO, you're giving the local news viewer way too much credit.</font>[/QUOTE]Not at all. I don't mean they watch the show and say, "Hey, where was the live shot off the top?" I mean they watch the show and feel that they're watching a B-team effort without really realizing why. It makes it seem like they're watching a weekend newscast, when the crew is slimmed down so that they can't get all the regular bells and whistles on the air.

[markminn]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Spike:
the audience now expects a live shot off the top of the show.
IMO, you're giving the local news viewer way too much credit.</font>[/QUOTE]No kidding.
All of us have gotten the call in the newsroom,"Hello. I'd like to talk to Dan Rather please." They don't know he doesn't actually work here.

Or...

If you have a custom network live shot from, say, the Utah mine collapse, you actually hear from someone on the street,"Wow, you guys sent someone all the way to Utah for that story?!?"

Or...

When you are out doing a story, everyone asks about your beautiful anchor. Their first 3 questions are:
1) Are she single?
2) Are she nice?
3) Why did she change her hair?

Bottom line, if you have big boobs, it doesn't matter if you are live. :D

[McCovey Cove Returns]

Originally posted by CKMD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by McCovey Cove Returns:
FALSE!!!!How did you handle that with Live local LAte-breaking?</font>[/QUOTE]Hey Woodshed, get the hell out.. my question!

Yeah, we were live local and late-breaking weren't we in Brew City? I really had to bite my tongue on that one. I got overruled on more than one occasion and had a few trips to the principal's office. And with the ground we had to cover, trips to places like Racine and Waukesha County were tough in the morning to make the top of the show. It got to the point where I simply said, "ok, what's big today and what will we cover later? I'll put the reporter in position to get a head start on the story of the day." The joys of doing a morning show. News from overnight was easy, but you knew your live shot would be a vo, maybe a vosot in the evening shows.

[Another side]

I have to agree with Spike -- no live shot, no sizzle, at least to the viewer. It just doesn't look like TV news without it.

I agree it's often not germane to the story, but the live shot is what TV news is, what makes it sparkle (in those times TV news does, indeed, sparkle.)

[Da Woodshed]

Originally posted by McCovey Cove Returns:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CKMD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by McCovey Cove Returns:
FALSE!!!!How did you handle that with Live local LAte-breaking?</font>[/QUOTE]Hey Woodshed, get the hell out.. my question!

Yeah, we were live local and late-breaking weren't we in Brew City? I really had to bite my tongue on that one. I got overruled on more than one occasion and had a few trips to the principal's office. And with the ground we had to cover, trips to places like Racine and Waukesha County were tough in the morning to make the top of the show. It got to the point where I simply said, "ok, what's big today and what will we cover later? I'll put the reporter in position to get a head start on the story of the day." The joys of doing a morning show. News from overnight was easy, but you knew your live shot would be a vo, maybe a vosot in the evening shows.</font>[/QUOTE]You want a whoopin', BALCO boy?

[newz2me]

Originally posted by Another side:
I agree it's often not germane to the story, but the live shot is what TV news....http://www.corgifan.com/blogger/justice.JPG
The gall dang Germans have got nothing to do with this!

[kgsl]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Spike:
the audience now expects a live shot off the top of the show.
IMO, you're giving the local news viewer way too much credit.</font>[/QUOTE]100 percent agreement with this.
I have FAMILY members who think, because my story was only one minute and 30 seconds long, that's all I worked that day. They are serious when they ask "what did you do the REST of the day?"

[Spike]

Originally posted by kgsl:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Spike:
the audience now expects a live shot off the top of the show.
IMO, you're giving the local news viewer way too much credit.</font>[/QUOTE]100 percent agreement with this.
I have FAMILY members who think, because my story was only one minute and 30 seconds long, that's all I worked that day. They are serious when they ask "what did you do the REST of the day?"</font>[/QUOTE]There's a huge flaw in your thinking. Yes, viewers are stupid. You can come up with a million different examples of their stupidity. But that has nothing to do with whether they expect a live shot off the top.

Suppose you started the newscast off with NO open. No graphics, no music. Just the anchor appearing and starting to read.

Most of your viewers wouldn't consciously realize there hadn't been an open. But it would start your newscast off strangely, and they would feel as though it got started without them.

Suppose you didn't include any graphics in your newscast at all. Many of your viewers wouldn't realize what was missing, but they would feel that something was wrong.

These things are part of a newscast. A newscast without a music open doesn't feel right. A newscast without graphics doesn't feel right. If either one is missing, the viewers are left with the feeling that something was wrong, that something must have been broken.

And because they're so accustomed to seeing live shots off the top, they are now part of the newscast as well. When do you not see a live shot off the top? On the weekend shows, when it's obvious you have your B-team in play. Thus, the lack of a live shot in your weekday newscast is a subconscious cue to the viewer that he's not watching your best effort. It's a small cue and may not really be that big a deal in the bigger scheme of things, but the viewer DOES expect to see it whether he realizes it or not.

Yes, it sucks, but you ignore it at your own peril.

[CKMD]

Spike,
Good stuff...and I tend to agree only in this way: It depends on market.

The dominant number 1 in town here rarely goes live...only for the reasons I stated above.
We tried to do the opposite...live for the sake of live no matter what.
It didn't matter...and, we actually had people ask why we needed to be live for a story 5 hours old.

Some markets do have smart people in them.
What's weird is that the number 1 , suddenly, started doing more lives after we started it...then, the number 3 started doing BREAKING NEWS for AP stories that were 2 hours old to lead their newscasts. Seriously...BREAKING NEWS ON AP STORIES!!!!
So, the number one started doing BREAKING NEWS no matter what!!!!????

Is it consultant driven or just plain stupid?

I don't know. But, I do know that a clean newscast with good, thought-provoking, news you can use information with good production will wow viewers...and it has started working for us.

[ewink]

Ron, I think one of the biggest problems with news is that every station bases their newscasts off what the other stations are doing.

Every station. I've worked at one that didn't and that was only because we were the only station in town.

[McCovey Cove Returns]

ewink, that is definitely one of the big problems. Reaction to what the other guys are doing. It never occurs to managers that people watch you because of what you do. The minute you change and start doing what the other guys do is the minute you start losing your loyal viewers. Viewers are not a big fan of change. Once you have an identity, keep it.

The other big problem is consultants. If it works in Des Moines, Iowa, it must work in Boston! The best managers are the ones that run their station and can keep corporate and the consultants out of the newsroom. One of the best GMs I've heard of made it his top priority to keep consultants and corporate out of his newsroom. He was right. His station had the top rated local newscast in the country.

[upandown]

There are no hard and fast rules.

Live usually helps to sell it, but not in all cases.
It may be late or live video of a breaking event.

[tom servo]

Originally posted by Another side:
I have to agree with Spike -- no live shot, no sizzle, at least to the viewer. It just doesn't look like TV news without it.
Hmmm. Perhaps. But then considering viewers are abandoning us in droves, perhaps if we put something on the air that did NOT look like "TV news," we'd be watched again ;)

[PSUWx]

For some reason...at least my experience in different markets...

If you round up all the stations in the market, and on paper tally the number of different on-location live shots they do during news...without even watching the content you could correctly rank them 1,2,3 in the ratings just off those numbers.

[Obewon]

Whenever I hear a reporter/shooter whining about having to do a live shot four hours after the event what I'm really hearing is someone who doesn't understand the nature of the medium and can't think enough for himself in order to make the live shot good TV.

Good reporters take the challenge and build on it even if it appears to be BS.

The losers are the ones who whine.

Years ago the whiner losers used to whine about having to do standups. It never changes

[Clubbeat]

Do you figure out your lead is worth a live hit BEFORE or after the story is assigned, it develops and is written and put to bed?

Before is when you figure out if your lead is woth the effort to go live. It's up to the reporter (amd photog) to fill the live shot with elements that help tell the story, make it clearer for viewers etc.

Live for the sake of live is not always a good thing. Your lead needs to be as strong as possible before you determine if it warrants doing a live shot.

At least that's the way I figured it in newsrooms I've worked in.

[Roy Hobbs]

Originally posted by Obewon:
Whenever I hear a reporter/shooter whining about having to do a live shot four hours after the event what I'm really hearing is someone who doesn't understand the nature of the medium and can't think enough for himself in order to make the live shot good TV.

Good reporters take the challenge and build on it even if it appears to be BS.

The losers are the ones who whine.

Years ago the whiner losers used to whine about having to do standups. It never changesLosers whine about doing their best...winners pat themselves on the back over "LIVE" supered over the Prom Queen!
http://www.splicedonline.com/96reviews/connery.jpg

[Tripe Face]

Perhaps the question shouldn't be live or no live... perhaps it should be... why do we use a big expensive studio at all?

With microwave trucks, helicopters, sat trucks, portable microwave gear, broadband live capabilities... we could conceivably, with enough people and money, do EVERY story live. Start with Reporter #1 right out of the open, I'm live in Springfield, 3 hours ago the house behind me caught on fire, before it was over, three kids were dead. (roll pkg) at the end of the close he tosses live to reporter #2 at the school board meeting that just broke up... then reporter #3 does a quick live, no tape of flooding because of a broken water main that's gonna screw up traffic in the morning. The only guy who really NEEDS to be in the studio is the weather anchor.
Got a couple of VOs... put one of the anchors live at the scene of the first one, then have him read the rest without being on cam. Do the same with the other anchor, put her live in the Helicopter over the school bus garage where the lights are still on because they are making sure all the buses are ready for the start of school the next day.

Now, realistically this won't happen. Not because journalistically it doesn't make sense, but because ECONOMICALLY it doesn't make sense.

So back off a little bit. You can't send you truck EVERYWHERE... but you should send it somewhere... otherwise it's money being wasted... down the drain.

Now, journalistically you've picked story A is THE MOST IMPORTANT story of the night for your 11pm news. Why SHOULDN'T you have your reporter live. I'm not saying put him in front of a govt. office building that closed 5 hours ago. But don't tell me that a govt office building is the ONLY place you can cover a story live.
Is it a court case... is the suspect in jail for the night... Put reporter Joe in front of the jail.. Or live at the liquor store that is STILL closed on what would be a normally busy Friday night because the owner was just shot dead.

The secret is to think. Imagine. Brainstorm. Find a place that helps tell the story but DOESN'T make you look like the goober standing in front of the empty courthouse at 11pm.

When I got into this business, you didn't have laptops, cell phones, blackberries and wireless broadband internet access all over the place. When you wanted to get info, you radioed the desk to make calls for you. Or you found a pay phone. Then you hand wrote the script on notebook paper and called the producer (again on radio or a payphone) to get it approved.

Now you kids can email the script from the corner booth at the Starbucks near your live shot location while your shooter sits across the table eating a bagal and editing the beginning of the pkg. And after the producer sends you a text message that everything is fine but drop the last bite, because he's tight for time, you can use YOUR laptop to check the live local weather site to make sure no lightning is coming your way. Then you can google the number of the Jail PAO to make sure the suspect didn't make bail at 10:45 and is now on his way home.

We didn't have all those toys. And we liked it, we liked it fine.

So quit your whinin' you wet behind the ears punks and get to work.

But don't go over 1:30... I need time for the Lindsey Lohan pkg from the Network.

[overthehill]

Tripe:

I've seen one station in the Midwest experiment with an "anchor-less" 5pm newscast...tossing from reporter to reporter, live at the scene or live in the studio, to breaks, etc.

Interesting concept, to do so as news is still being prepared for the 6pm. Guess it wasn't all that big of a hit with the audience though.

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by overthehill:
Tripe:

I've seen one station in the Midwest experiment with an "anchor-less" 5pm newscast...tossing from reporter to reporter, live at the scene or live in the studio, to breaks, etc.

Interesting concept, to do so as news is still being prepared for the 6pm. Guess it wasn't all that big of a hit with the audience though.Audiences take a LONG TIME to adjust to change. Hence CBS having trouble convincing viewers to tune in to see a young woman do the news as opposed to an old man.

I ain't saying my scenerio is a ratings blockbuster... just something different to think about.

[The Fedora]

That's why CBS didn't want to wait for the audience to get behind the Price/Marin experiment at 'BBM. Too bad. It was a good idea.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Tripe Face:
Hence CBS having trouble convincing viewers to tune in to see a young woman do the news as opposed to an old man.She's 50. She's not a young woman.