Pitching stories: Reporters vs. The Desk

[FrontierMan]

Hi everyone,

I'm wondering what you guys think is better: Having reporters pitch most everything. You know, what reporters pitch is what they do, and if they don't bring something to the table that everyone likes, they get a leftover story or have to find something else to pitch.

OR....

The desk puts every press release on the table and does the legwork. They hold meetings without reporters present. If reporters have something to pitch, they can come to the meeting and help out but it's really not necessary. We give them assignments as they walk in or after we have meetings with producers.

I'm really curious about this. I've worked in both types of newsrooms and want to know what you people think.

Discuss.

[Spike]

Both systems you describe suck.

The best system for covering your community and beating the competition is for reporters to work beats and make their own decisions as to what to cover, irrespective of what "everyone likes." The guideline is for each reporter to come to work each day with two stories ready to turn. Then the desk assigns any "must cover" stories that nobody else has already picked up and fills in any gaps where a reporter might come up short on story ideas.

[adam & doctor drew]

sadly, most places I've been use system #2.
which leads to reporters walking up to the desk every day and asking "what am I doing today?"
then they get assigned something they hate.
then they gripe all day about how much the desk sucks.

why station management wouldn't WANT reporters involved in the process is beyond me.
but most of them don't.

[John M.]

At one place I worked, the EP and AE would meet before the morning meeting and list all the potential stories they had -- either stuff from the file, obvious follow-ups, news that had broken that morning and, yes, the newspaper -- and put it all on the dry erase board.

Then the morning meeting started with the dayside producers, reporters and assistant ND (rarely, I thought strangely, with the ND). If you had something not already on the board, you could pitch it. It cut the meeting length way down.

[TVNewsSpy]

I'm a reporter who was trained to pitch his own stories. And if you didn't pitch a good story you weren't handed something... no, you get back on the phone until you find a story. Even if it takes until noon. The result? I always turn my own stories and usually lead a show a few times a week.

A reporter shouldn't be handed a story... unless he works nightside and there is something already brewing when the shift starts.

[s'news]

There's just no escaping the common sense of having reporters pitch stories that they want to do. It's that simple.

[Sir Dropham Pants]

There's also the scenario of reporters being told to come each day with 2-3 doable stories, only to have them shot down by the decision makers.
Take a moment to think what happens next.


That's right, reporters stop bringing ideas to editorial meetings. Quality and attn. to detail slides as reporters and photographers feel less 'ownership' on the stories they cover.

[Another side]

Both systems you describe suck.

The best system for covering your community and beating the competition is for reporters to work beats and make their own decisions as to what to cover, irrespective of what "everyone likes." The guideline is for each reporter to come to work each day with two stories ready to turn. Then the desk assigns any "must cover" stories that nobody else has already picked up and fills in any gaps where a reporter might come up short on story ideas.
I'd agree, with one slight variation: I don't like the guidlines of turning two stories a day. I think it can interfere with the reporter's time to develop good stories AND the reporter's ability to routinely turn in good work -- reporters are egotists (or should be) and want to be proud of what they do, and they should be given that chance.

I understand there are holes in the rundowns that producers need filled. That's when you turn to the desk or the press releases or the follow-ups from the morning papers, and they go to a non-beat reporter who was hired for that purpose.

I never understood the logic (in print or electronic) that said people who are never out in the field, knew best what reporters should bring in from the field. Makes no sense to me.

[Another side]

There's also the scenario of reporters being told to come each day with 2-3 doable stories, only to have them shot down by the decision makers.
Take a moment to think what happens next.


That's right, reporters stop bringing ideas to editorial meetings. Quality and attn. to detail slides as reporters and photographers feel less 'ownership' on the stories they cover.

Absolutely true. Newsroom managers have to pick their spots very carefully (and that's what they're hired to do) when it comes to rejecting a reporter's story idea. My own view is it is far better to work with the reporter on a (perhaps) different angle on a poorly thought-out story idea than to reject it outright.

[dkh9831]

At my first job, I was a bureau reporter, so the desk (short of internet newspapers) really had no clue what was going on 2 hours away from them in my area. I liked that. It gave me ownership - plus we were always beating the other guys becuse I was from the area and knew what people in the area wanted to see and wanted to know about.

At my new job (which I hate) - my hours are such (nightside/weekend) that I cannot get involved in the community the way I was at my old job. Therefore, I find it a little more difficult to make the contacts and dig up the stories like I used to. Unfortunately, I've become a bitter jaded reporter who walks into the desk each day and says, "what kind of crap am I doing today?" And proceed to have a bad attitude about it the whole night.

I don't like being this way. I've asked for a better shift, not out of selfishness and wanting to "go out" at night, but because I want to involve myself in some of the things in my community. I'm one of only two reporters who actually LIVE in the area our station covers - yet we're both stuck on shifts that are prohibitive of doing some of the things that can help build reliable sources. Nobody else at our station has any reliable sources either, partly, in my opinion, because the place is a revolving door.

That's also why I'm leaving soon.

[Another side]

Good Lord.

You're about to get hammered (justifiably so) on many, many different levels.

I'll leave it to the pros.

[dkh9831]

Well, seeing as I never EVER post on here, I guess I deserve it. Bring it on.

[Backup QB]

Hi everyone,

I'm wondering what you guys think is better: Having reporters pitch most everything. You know, what reporters pitch is what they do, and if they don't bring something to the table that everyone likes, they get a leftover story or have to find something else to pitch.

OR....

The desk puts every press release on the table and does the legwork. They hold meetings without reporters present. If reporters have something to pitch, they can come to the meeting and help out but it's really not necessary. We give them assignments as they walk in or after we have meetings with producers.

I'm really curious about this. I've worked in both types of newsrooms and want to know what you people think.

Discuss.


One of my former news directors used option 1. We had great award-winning newscasts. Even though she was a b---- and I personally hated her, this system led to reporters actually enterprising stories. We had stuff that would constantly leave the competition scratching their heads and playing catch-up.

Her successor used option 2. The result was an assignment desk driven by press releases and stupid ideas mandated by the GM and sales staff. The newscast lacked innovation. The operation was basically: come in at 9 a.m., get your assignments, get the f--- out, then come back once you're done. I don't remember any ideas getting pitched by reporters. I guess they figured out that it wasn't worth enterprising anything, because the ideas would get shot down.

[Spike]

I'd agree, with one slight variation: I don't like the guidlines of turning two stories a day. I think it can interfere with the reporter's time to develop good stories AND the reporter's ability to routinely turn in good work -- reporters are egotists (or should be) and want to be proud of what they do, and they should be given that chance.

If you're expecting reporters to enterprise with no framework under which to operate, then two stories a day is a burden and too many corners get cut. But if you're working a beat system, the reporters are actually working on those stories days in advance. Instead of having to scrounge for sound on the day of the story, waiting for people to get back to them and pursuing dead ends, reporters can plan ahead. A half hour of phone calls on Tuesday can save two hours on Thursday when the person at the center of your Thursday story is expecting you at 10am. And, after they get established in a beat, they spend a lot less time trying to find stories in the first place, because the stories start coming to them and much of the legwork simply disappears.

When we did it, each reporter turned a package and a VOSOT on separate stories each day (plus a few additional VOs and VOSOTs out of those stories). And yet the newsroom was less stressful and had higher morale than at any other station for which I've worked. At the same time, we consistently beat the newspaper, to the point that the paper approached us looking for an agreement to share assignment desk info so that they would only be a day behind and wouldn't be trying to play catch-up after 6pm when everyone they needed to talk to for the morning edition had gone home.

[adam & doctor drew]

Good Lord.

You're about to get hammered (justifiably so) on many, many different levels.


I see nothing to "hammer" the person about.
he/she admits the current system isn't preferable, admits it leads to unhappiness and is resolving the problem by leaving.

[Jerry Mandering]

This is the way you do it:

Meeting begins.

Each reporter pitches a story that is not only a good story...but a story that can be set up and will be turned in time for the next newscast.

Photogs (usually there's one standing in the doorway...but there should be more in the room) give their ideas.

Assignment editor goes through a list that has been compiled that morning. The list has breaking news from the morning, topical court hearings, meetings (ya probably won't show a frame of video from the meeting, but use that as the basis for a story) news releases that may result in a story, freebie sat feeds, followups on previous stories. Some of these topics should have already been pitched by the reporters, if they are doing their job. This list is not what's going to be on the news....it's what is happening so far.

Finally, the Assistant News Director, the EP and the producers chime in, dismiss all of the above and make you cover stories that are in the newspaper (ones you pitched yesterday).

[Another side]

Okey-doke. I've been wrong before.

(This was in response to Adam/Drew)

[Spike]

Finally, the Assistant News Director, the EP and the producers chime in, dismiss all of the above and make you cover stories that are in the newspaper (ones you pitched yesterday).

Which is why the producers shouldn't even be there. OMG RADICAL!!!!!

When we used the beat system, our morning meeting started at 9am and usually lasted no more than about 20 minutes. The reporters, photogs and assignment editor were the only ones involved. Sometimes the ND was present, but he only intervened when there was a problem.

In our meeting, the reporters took turns telling the AE what stories they would turn that day. Occasionally the AE would overrule someone and assign a "must cover" story that nobody had, but usually everyone did what they showed up thinking they were going to do. That allowed the reporters to set up their interviews ahead of time, usually the day before, often several days earlier. It also helped the interviews and contacts have confidence and trust in the reporters, since they appeared to be entirely in control of what they were doing.

As the stories were relayed, the AE would assign a photog to each reporter and put the stories in an assignment rundown. Then everyone would leave and get to work. It was rare that anybody was still in house by 10am.

We had 5pm, 5:30pm and 6pm newscasts, plus an 11pm newscast produced by the 6pm producer. The producers would have their meeting around 2pm for the afternoon shows, at which time they would select their stories from the assignment rundown in round robin fashion, each getting a pick each round. Important stories would go in all three shows. (Yes, the producers got their work done in three to four hours. Since seeing that, I've never understood why it takes producers in other shops so long to get a show on the air. What the hell do you people do all day, post on Medialine?)

You might ask, "What about spot news?" First, we often had an extra photog on the street who could respond to spot news quickly. We usually beat our competition to the punch.

Second, for spot news that required a reporter, the AE would look at the assignment rundown, see whose story could be held a day and send that team. If it were a really big story that needed the satellite truck, it wasn't unusual for the ND to coordinate from the field while operating the truck himself. Sometimes we would end up turning the story we had already been working on AND the spot news. There was time for it, because we had gotten an early enough start that we had our first story in the can before lunchtime.

Third, we had a night crew or two that could pick up spot news in the afternoon. The night crews didn't have as much freedom as the day crews as a result, but they still had more freedom than at most other stations.

Fourth, we didn't chase a lot of irrelevant spot news. We didn't do car wrecks or convenient store robberies unless there was a fatality, and even then it was usually no more than a VOSOT. We didn't go live for every crime we heard on the scanner. What was going on at the school board was much more important than a kitchen fire.

It wasn't a utopia. We had our problems, and not everybody was happy. But of five different stations at which I worked, that station covered the community better than any other I've seen.

[adam & doctor drew]

If it were a really big story that needed the satellite truck, it wasn't unusual for the ND to coordinate from the field while operating the truck himself.


the ND ran the truck?
never seen that before.

[Another side]

Me neither.

And I think the producers should be in the room. They're an important part of the telecast.

[Spike]

the ND ran the truck?
never seen that before.

Not always, but sometimes. There were four people there trained on the sat truck: the ND, one of the producers (who was the de facto assistant ND), the chief photog and the senior photog on staff. Normally the photogs would run the truck for spot news, and the senior photog was in charge of routine maintenance.

One afternoon a gas plant in our DMA was struck by lightning and exploded in a monstrous fireball. We sent multiple crews, including one of the photogs who could run the truck, but the ND insisted on letting the photog shoot while he ran the truck and coordinated our coverage from the field. He left the station in the capable hands of our AE and the aforementioned producer/assistant ND.

The ND said later that he could have stayed back in the newsroom, but he felt it was necessary for management to get out in the field occasionally and get their hands dirty. He didn't have a lot of love for housecats, even though he came up through the ranks as a line producer and EP, not as a photog or reporter.

And I think the producers should be in the room. They're an important part of the telecast.

They are not important to story selection. They typically have relatively little knowledge of the community compared to reporters and usually contribute little more than getting in the way. When you set up a beat system where the reporters know what's going on out in the real world and cover it, the role of the producer is what it should be: to stack the show, write transitions, fill in the holes and make sure it all times out.

They are important to the telecast, but not in coverage decisions.

[ewink]

What was going on at the school board was much more important than a kitchen fire.
I have never understood why more places don't understand this.

Most stations would pull their crew from the school board meeting to send them to a shooting in the most crime infested apartment complex in the DMA.

Which one affects more people and which one *should* people care about more?

Quite frankly, as a citizen, I could care less about gang bangers blasting each other.

[s'news]

And yet that's just how it is. The decision making at most stations is remarkably dumb.

[Jax]

At my new job (which I hate) - my hours are such (nightside/weekend) that I cannot get involved in the community the way I was at my old job. Therefore, I find it a little more difficult to make the contacts and dig up the stories like I used to. Unfortunately, I've become a bitter jaded reporter who walks into the desk each day and says, "what kind of crap am I doing today?" And proceed to have a bad attitude about it the whole night.

As a former nightside and weekend AE, you're exactly the kind of reporter I hate to work with -- where I relish seeing that "wish her well in her future endeavors" email.

I think I come up with great story ideas with ease. It's never been a problem for me. Sometimes I steal from the paper or other stations, but most of the time I read local blogs, talk to local movers/shakers, etc... And I'd do this all in the 30 minutes before the afternoon editorial meeting. Why can't everyone else?

You're out in the field three business days a week. I'm guessing in those three days, you've met most of the major officials (police & fire PIO, city spokesperson, state & county folks, etc) in your community. Why can't you call them every day and see what's going on in their world? That's what everyone else does.

But no, being lazy then *****ing about assignments is so much more easy. Since I'm a former AE, you don't have to worry about it, but when reporters would pull that crap with me, they'd only get more bullsh!t stories.

Laziness and bad attitudes = crappy story assignments

Why can't you think, "What would I like to do a story on?" and then find a hook? It's that easy...

[tvnewsguy111]

I agree with Jax. We are a producer driven shop, but that doesn't mean reporters can't pitch their own stories. In fact, we like when reporters pitch their stories because then you know they'll put care into them.

[Produce man]

They are not important to story selection. They typically have relatively little knowledge of the community compared to reporters and usually contribute little more than getting in the way. When you set up a beat system where the reporters know what's going on out in the real world and cover it, the role of the producer is what it should be: to stack the show, write transitions, fill in the holes and make sure it all times out.

They are important to the telecast, but not in coverage decisions.
Wrong. They are critical to the meeting. Now, that being said, I was in the field as both a photog and reporter five years before I started producing, so I was more aware of the community than the newbie reporter fresh out of college.

Funny, if we are involved in the meetings, we're called "control freaks" If we're not, we're called "stackers".

Seems we just can't get a break...:frustrated:

[Spike]

They are critical to the meeting.

That's funny, because the station I mentioned where they use the beat system has been going strong for about 20 years now without producers at the meetings. They are and have been a strong #1 throughout all that time.

What we got instead:

More stories.

Better coverage of stories.

More efficient newsroom operations.

Better relationships with contacts and public.

Producers should be stackers. That's their function.

[Jax]

That's funny, because the station I mentioned where they use the beat system has been going strong for about 20 years now without producers at the meetings. They are and have been a strong #1 throughout all that time.

What we got instead:

More stories.

Better coverage of stories.

More efficient newsroom operations.

Better relationships with contacts and public.

Producers should be stackers. That's their function.

I'm at a strong #1 too, and producers contribute heavily to content decisions. Everyone in editorial is involved in the process of pitching stories and deciding what's going to go in the newscast.

We also have better coverage of stories, more efficient newsroom operations and a better relationships with contacts and public. I'd say we have the best newsroom in town.

Not saying your model is wrong, I just can't imagine producers not being involved in the decision making process.

[The Mockingbird]

As a general rule of thumb, you don't want the people who never leave the building giving the story ideas. What that gets you is contrived and recycled stories. A producer will (occasionally) bring in a good story, but, given the schedules of journalists, this probably won't be that common.

The producer is responsible for overall style, flow of the show, production elements, writing, and a gatekeeper for mistakes. The producer makes the calls in the booth.

Anything else gets you "DANGER IN YOUR LAUNDRY ROOM... TONIGHT AT ELEVEN".

Which, incidentally, is why many TV stations are in trouble in the first place.

[OntheRebound]

At my last shop, the main show producers had between 6-10 years experience. They had all previously worked as producers in smaller markets in the surrounding area. In addition, most were long time residents of the city/state where our station was located and had been educated there or at least in the region.

These were not producers unfamiliar with the major players in the city/state government or local court system, etc. They remembered cases and events from years back and most of the significant details. As a result, they tended to be an asset to the morning meeting and I would say to our newsroom overall.

That shop was a dominant number one in the market and had been so for years. While reporters were encouraged to enterprise; typically many of the story assignments were decided by the time they walked in the door, unless it was a slow news day. A morning meeting was just to make sure no one had a better story than what was going on that day and to flesh out who was covering what.

On slow days they would just turn the reporters loose and let them work on stories we'd been wanting to do or had been working on continuosly. The producers were often helpful in fleshing out story ideas and had some perspective and could put coverage in context. We covered our share of crime; but it did not dominate the newscast. In addition, these folks were sharp. They understood politics and had a grasp on history. They could pinpoint factual errors, were good spellers and knew correct grammar in addition to knowing how to stack a show.

Now in my new shop--another mid-sized market. The MAJORITY of the producing staff just graduated college in the past two years. They came from schools all over the country and none have any ties to this area-- nor did they have any previous knowledge of the market. None of them have any prior small market experience and two came from LARGER markets where they did short stints.

Our more experienced producers came from somewhere else and have less than 10 years experience. Even though our computer system has spell check, our producer written copy is riddled with spelling errors. Our anchors frequently complain to the news director about atrocious grammar. And frankly, if the anchors don't read a script before hand, such as in breaking news situations; it is likely what has been written does not make sense or is potentially libelous.

In the morning meetings the producers typically pitch story ideas that would be great--for a campus newspaper or young adult alternative weekly or blog site, but nothing relevant to the majority of our news audience. They seem to have no understanding how local or state government works or the judicial system. Their ideas are usually laughable because they pitch stories that have been done in the past as NEW ideas because IT IS new to THEM. If it happened before 1986 then they can't fathom why it could relate to anything going on today. I am beginning to wonder if schools no longer teach history or civics these days and I'm only 30.

However, most of the time they have nothing to contribute. They don't go to church or have kids in school or participate in community activities, so they have no idea what goes on outside of the newsroom unless it's posted on Facebook or YouTube.

However, they get run of the newsroom. The news director asks THEM what they want in the newscast and that's it. Seasoned reporter's ideas are tossed aside for team coverage on bank robberies and entire packages on blood drives. Did I mention we are dead last in the market? In our case, I think taking producers out of the mix would be a great idea!

[Spike]

At my last shop, the main show producers had between 6-10 years experience. They had all previously worked as producers in smaller markets in the surrounding area. In addition, most were long time residents of the city/state where our station was located and had been educated there or at least in the region.

These were not producers unfamiliar with the major players in the city/state government or local court system, etc. They remembered cases and events from years back and most of the significant details. As a result, they tended to be an asset to the morning meeting and I would say to our newsroom overall.

Whether a producer has lived in an area for a while doesn't really matter. The producer's job does not put him in direct contact with the community and the newsmakers. I am currently living in the town where I grew up and know many of the players in local government, but not being on the street every day I have very little idea of what's going on or what's on the horizon. A computer and a phone is NOT a sufficient or appropriate substitute for working a beat and getting out in the community on a daily basis.

Think your producer-driven shop was good? It could have been sooooo much better.

While reporters were encouraged to enterprise; typically many of the story assignments were decided by the time they walked in the door, unless it was a slow news day. A morning meeting was just to make sure no one had a better story than what was going on that day and to flesh out who was covering what.

That is completely ass backward. The reporters should be telling the producers what's going on in the community, since they're out in it on a daily basis. Not the other way around.

[Focker]

At my last shop, the main show producers had between 6-10 years experience. They had all previously worked as producers in smaller markets in the surrounding area. In addition, most were long time residents of the city/state where our station was located and had been educated there or at least in the region.

I agree these are really important traits to have in a producer. The experience and knowledge is much needed.

That said, producers have no business pitching stories or have any say in how a story is worked on until they do a mandatory week-long ride-along with reporters. If anything, it'll change the conversation when a reporter calls back from the field and says, "XXX won't talk," or "XXX isn't available," or "There's no time to do xxx," the reply won't be "It's not that hard...just get it." :frustrated:

[Spike]

That said, producers have no business pitching stories or have any say in how a story is worked on until they do a mandatory week-long ride-along with reporters. If anything, it'll change the conversation when a reporter calls back from the field and says, "XXX won't talk," or "XXX isn't available," or "There's no time to do xxx," the reply won't be "It's not that hard...just get it." :frustrated:

But in many cases that would backfire on you. When the reporter calls and says there's a problem, the producer will say, "I've been out in the field, so I KNOW I'm not asking too much. Just do what you have to do to get it."

[Focker]

But in many cases that would backfire on you. When the reporter calls and says there's a problem, the producer will say, "I've been out in the field..."

"Oh, so you know why/that I'm having so much trouble."

Eh, it works both ways, but I see your Catch-22. If anything, it could get the reporter to say, "Ok, so what would you suggest," and get an answer that's halfway possible to accomplish (rather than "Just walk into his/her office with the camera rolling." Cuz that always works. :rolleyes:)

[Produce man]

But in many cases that would backfire on you. When the reporter calls and says there's a problem, the producer will say, "I've been out in the field, so I KNOW I'm not asking too much. Just do what you have to do to get it."No, see, that's where you blow it. A GOOD producer, who has not just "been out in the field", but worked as a reporter and photog for years before producing, would never say such a thing.

A good producer just doesn't become one out of college. A GOOD producer has done EVERY F^CKING OTHER JOB IN THE NEWSROOM, and production. That way, they know why it's taking so long to get a graphic done. Or, they know what the limitations are for crews in the field. They recognize deadlines, they know contacts, they have a back-up plan in case things go south.

They do all this, AND "stack" the show.

Wait. I need a raise.

Who needs a REAL producer?

[Focker]

No, see, that's where you blow it. A GOOD producer, who has not just "been out in the field", but worked as a reporter and photog for years before producing, would never say such a thing.

A good producer just doesn't become one out of college. A GOOD producer has done EVERY F^CKING OTHER JOB IN THE NEWSROOM, and production. That way, they know why it's taking so long to get a graphic done. Or, they know what the limitations are for crews in the field. They recognize deadlines, they know contacts, they have a back-up plan in case things go south.

They do all this, AND "stack" the show.

Wait. I need a raise.

Yeah, we've gone through this before:

A good reporter just doesn't become one out of college. A GOOD reporter has done EVERY F^CKING OTHER JOB IN THE NEWSROOM, and production. That way, they know if the graphics folks can do that full-screen graphic with dozens of layers and typed word-for-word transcriptions in time. Or, they know the limitations of the newsroom. They recognize deadlines, know contacts, they have a back-up plan in case things go south.

They do all this, AND provide the local content for the producers to "stack" the show and make the station money.

Wait. I need a raise.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

They do all this, AND "stack" the show.

You just concentrate on "stacking" the garbage bags in the dumpster. We'll call you if we need you.

[Produce man]

Yeah, we've gone through this before:

A good reporter just doesn't become one out of college. A GOOD reporter has done EVERY F^CKING OTHER JOB IN THE NEWSROOM, and production. That way, they know if the graphics folks can do that full-screen graphic with dozens of layers and typed word-for-word transcriptions in time. Or, they know the limitations of the newsroom. They recognize deadlines, know contacts, they have a back-up plan in case things go south.

They do all this, AND provide the local content for the producers to "stack" the show and make the station money.

Wait. I need a raise.Congratulations, you've learned the art of editing someone else's original quote....

You truly represent the modern-day reporter.

I'm sure your peers are proud of you.

Best Regards...

[overthehill]

An assignment desk or producer run shop is fine and will fill the newscast(s), but you probably aren't breaking stories or covering your community quite as well.

It's vital that reporters not only bring stories but actually cover the stories they suggest. Those are the stories they're likely to be most passionate about, claim ownership of and want to see done well. Stories doled out by the desk, well...

Beat systems are great, IF your already-overworked reporters can find time to actually cover their beat. Seems like every time a story breaks on a particular beat, that reporter has the day off.

Ideal: Strong blend of reporter-driven stories, some "gotta covers" from the desk and producers and certainly some beat originated stories that the competition won't have.

[Focker]

Congratulations, you've learned the art of editing someone else's original quote....

You truly represent the modern-day reporter.

I'm sure your peers are proud of you.

Best Regards...

All the producers that I've known do the same thing with AP stories that go in their newscast. Cut and paste. Cut and paste. Cut and paste. I guess that's why your job doesn't require you to leave your desk all day. At least us reporters actually come up with our own words.

Regardless, my previous post still holds true. And I've already gotten PMs from my peers thanking me.

[Produce man]

At least us reporters actually come up with our own words.
Really? Read post #36, "reporter".

Feel free to keep going...

[Produce man]

All the producers that I've known do the same thing with AP stories that go in their newscast. Cut and paste. Cut and paste. Cut and paste.Sorry, I can't help it if you work in a sh!tty shop.

[Spike]

Beat systems are great, IF your already-overworked reporters can find time to actually cover their beat.

Except that in a beat system, the reporters are making so much more efficient use of their time that they actually can cover their beats. When you can set up your stories in advance, all that time and effort wasted each day on running around trying to find someone to talk to goes away. On stories that break unexpectedly, often times it's because the contact came to you rather than you trying to chase the source. And even in the relatively rare occasions you have to track down a source on short notice, it's easier to get them to talk to you because you have a running relationship with the person through your regular beat calls.

It's much less stressful to work in a reporter-driven newsroom with a beat system. It may look like more work from the outside, but in reality reporting becomes much, much easier, to the point where eventually the stories just come to you without much legwork on your part at all.

[s'news]

Ideal: Strong blend of reporter-driven stories, some "gotta covers" from the desk and producers and certainly some beat originated stories that the competition won't have.

Yep. I agree.

And Spike is also saying many things I agree with.

[TX WX guy]

Lots of good ideas being thrown here...and really, different cities/markets can justify some different approaches.

I will say this...the reporters that have been allowed to really cover a beat, and get experience there, have turned the best stories at our station. And I'm talking small-market, young reporters.

We've never received big complements on covering all the wrecks or all the crime. But there's lots of talk, E-mails and calls when our beat reporter breaks something on the city, a big law suit, or something prominent in our community.

Of course, any quality approach takes time, which may not be the most efficient use of a warm body. It is quicker to get out there and cover all the cold bodies rather than form beats.

[Focker]

Really? Read post #36, "reporter".

Feel free to keep going...

Thanks. I will. #36 is a perfect example of how producers work. Get out from behind the safety of your desk once in a while and you'll get an idea of what sarcasm is.

[The Mockingbird]

Really? Read post #36, "reporter".

Feel free to keep going...

Genius, he was ripping on you with that post.

Where do you get most good story ideas? By talking to people. Reporters are in the field more, so they're going to encounter real people more. Therefore, statistically speaking, they should be bringing in more stories. It's that simple.

That's not to say a producer isn't going to have the occasional good story idea. The system shouldn't be designed on relying on that to happen, though.

[Produce man]

Genius, he was ripping on you with that post.

Where do you get most good story ideas? By talking to people. Reporters are in the field more, so they're going to encounter real people more. Therefore, statistically speaking, they should be bringing in more stories. It's that simple.

That's not to say a producer isn't going to have the occasional good story idea. The system shouldn't be designed on relying on that to happen, though.I never said it should. It's a collaborative effort. Focker sounds like one of these snot-nosed newbie reporters who thinks they're the sh!t.

[Focker]

On the contrary, Produce, I've been in the biz over a decade as a reporter/photog/editor/producer (but mostly reporter).

I agree it should be a collaborative effort as well, as alluded to in Spike and my posts. But on the whole, it would be nice if the egotistical producers who sit behind their desks all day, think that they're the reason the station is (trying to) make money and only communicate with the outside world by phone or email should trust that the reporter has done what they could to get a story and not suggest idiotic, newbie ways of trying to get something. If there's a dead end, there's a dead end. If someone's going to talk to the competition and not to you...there's usually nothing you can do about it.

[Produce man]

On the contrary, Produce, I've been in the biz over a decade as a reporter/photog/editor/producer (but mostly reporter).

I agree it should be a collaborative effort as well, as alluded to in Spike and my posts. But on the whole, it would be nice if the egotistical producers who sit behind their desks all day, think that they're the reason the station is (trying to) make money and only communicate with the outside world by phone or email should trust that the reporter has done what they could to get a story and not suggest idiotic, newbie ways of trying to get something. If there's a dead end, there's a dead end. If someone's going to talk to the competition and not to you...there's usually nothing you can do about it.Well, I don't know you personally, but I can tell you I've been producing for 13 years, and was "everything else" for five years before that. I've never worked with a producer who acted as you describe.

Maybe I'm just lucky...

[Spike]

Well, I don't know you personally, but I can tell you I've been producing for 13 years, and was "everything else" for five years before that.

And somehow I'm guessing you lord it over everybody.

[SamG]

God forgive me, but I'm going to stick up for Produce.

A GOOD producer, while maybe sticking to the newsroom during the day, is attentive enough when OUTSIDE of the newsroom to be able to pitch good stories. Producers (along with Sales, Traffic, Production, and Engineering) ALL relate to the community around them. They pay taxes, they travel the roads, they shop in the grocery stores and malls. They talk to their friends and neighbors.

Granted, reporters are "out" for most of the day, but for many of them, they're only talking to people regarding their story for that day. I agree a beat system is probably the best, but that doesn't happen in every shop. There are also reporters who wouldn't know a story if it fell off a roof and hit them in the head.

As soon as you start saying "Producers don't have anything to add to the morning meeting" you're no better than producers who say "reporters are lazy and don't want to do their jobs."

[Produce man]

And somehow I'm guessing you lord it over everybody.And you would be wrong.

[Diggin' Bear]

One of my former news directors used option 1. We had great award-winning newscasts. Even though she was a b---- and I personally hated her, this system led to reporters actually enterprising stories. We had stuff that would constantly leave the competition scratching their heads and playing catch-up.

Her successor used option 2. The result was an assignment desk driven by press releases and stupid ideas mandated by the GM and sales staff. The newscast lacked innovation. The operation was basically: come in at 9 a.m., get your assignments, get the f--- out, then come back once you're done. I don't remember any ideas getting pitched by reporters. I guess they figured out that it wasn't worth enterprising anything, because the ideas would get shot down.

Wow. Did we work at the same station recently?

I have a great appreciation for the news director (who, incidentally, I doubt is the same person) you describe above. She grated on my (and everyone else's) nerves, but after she moved on, we discovered something the hard way.

She was friggin' BRILLIANT.

Best, smartest news director I ever worked for. Knew logistics. Knew how to produce. Worked like a dog in the newsroom. Organizationally superior to anyone I've ever seen in or out of the business. Did she make us mad? Hell, yes, but after she left, I realized why. It was because she expected us to live up to her high standards and all too often, we didn't. And, worst of all, we knew it.

As for the second part....did we work in the same newsroom????

[Galaxian]

Wow, this thread has turned into a glorified pissing match between the reporter and producer factions.

At my station, reporters and producers sit together in the editorial meetings to pitch and discuss stories. Sometimes, the morning meteorologist will join in. Why? Because we're looking for ideas that will turn into great stories. We don't care who pitches it, and in the end, neither do the viewers. The reporters generate the most story ideas at my station, though the producers and assignment editors have also come up with great story ideas.

All this talk of including/excluding reporters/producers from the editorial meetings makes the newsroom sound like a freaking VIP club. Who gives a damn? Pay more attention to generating ideas that turn into the stories that get your viewers and your competition talking.

[Backup QB]

Wow. Did we work at the same station recently?

I have a great appreciation for the news director (who, incidentally, I doubt is the same person) you describe above. She grated on my (and everyone else's) nerves, but after she moved on, we discovered something the hard way.

She was friggin' BRILLIANT.

Best, smartest news director I ever worked for. Knew logistics. Knew how to produce. Worked like a dog in the newsroom. Organizationally superior to anyone I've ever seen in or out of the business. Did she make us mad? Hell, yes, but after she left, I realized why. It was because she expected us to live up to her high standards and all too often, we didn't. And, worst of all, we knew it.

As for the second part....did we work in the same newsroom????


Sounds like we may have crossed paths. The newsroom I was addressing was in a small market in the Northeast.