Reporter Involvement

[overthehill]

What's the latest belief on reporter involvement in stories/pkgs?

One of the first consultants I worked with, acclaimed for his discovery of Geraldo (!), told us viewers wanted to see the reporter as part of the story--show yourself in cutaways, show yourself at the meeting, at the scene of the "event" and digging for information. Even use lines like--"told me" or "I asked the mayor" in your script.

Again, this reportedly was driven by viewers wanting to "connect" with the reporter, not necessarily the people in your story. Not necessarily first-person reporting, but close to it.

Is this now verboten, outlawed or frowned upon....or embraced in some places?

[that's life]

What's the latest belief on reporter involvement in stories/pkgs?

One of the first consultants I worked with, acclaimed for his discovery of Geraldo (!), told us viewers wanted to see the reporter as part of the story--show yourself in cutaways, show yourself at the meeting, at the scene of the "event" and digging for information. Even use lines like--"told me" or "I asked the mayor" in your script.

Again, this reportedly was driven by viewers wanting to "connect" with the reporter, not necessarily the people in your story. Not necessarily first-person reporting, but close to it.

Is this now verboten, outlawed or frowned upon....or embraced in some places?

I guess it depends on who you work for. Some people think it's cheezy. Others are set on the idea that it's boosting ratings. What do you think?


Yeah, I pulled a Dr. Melfi

[wx or not]

One of the first consultants I worked with, acclaimed for his discovery of Geraldo (!), told us viewers wanted to see the reporter as part of the story
There's your answer, based on which path you choose:
1. If you choose the path of journalistic integrity, never make yourself the story.
2. If you choose the path of "crowd pleaser," then the discovery of Geraldo says it all. Has he ever truly been considered a serious journalist?

[John M.]

The term "reporter involvement" does not have to mean "story is about the reporter." Certainly many take it that way and their stories are generally less informative and -- worse -- less interesting or entertaining than they would have been had they turned the focus away from themselves.

Better reporters know how to keep people's attention on the story even when they appear too frequently in them, either because of ego or management mandate.

Whichever form it takes, it's not going to disappear. As TV news increasingly must shout for attention from its ever more distracted audience, expect more emphasis on self-promotion rather than less.

People turned off by that have already turned to something else. For similar reasons, Fox network affiliates doing tie-in stories to American Idol or ABC affiliate reports on Grey's Anatomy cast members aren't going away, either. People who still watch TV news are the same ones who watch the shows preceding them.

And they may prefer a pseudo reality show of Jake Stick-Mic confronting someone on camera to real news reporting.

[The Mockingbird]

Like anything, it can be an effective storytelling technique, or an overused cliche. These days, it's usually the latter.

[Clever Login Name]

Just don't fake tears in a cutaway for a date rape story.

[s'news]

Like anything, it can be an effective storytelling technique, or an overused cliche. These days, it's usually the latter.

Ding!

[Clever Login Name]

(cranky old man voice) Would someone please answer the goddam door!

[rootboyslim]

Just don't fake tears in a cutaway for a date rape story.

I very much appreciate your line.

[jrat33]

Sorry, but whenever I hear a reporter say "Officials tell me that..." I want to wretch. To me, working for a station is about working for a team, and the team comes first. I would much rather hear a reporter say "Officials tell ABC4 that..." Anything else sound self serving.

Just my opinion though.

[Brain Cramp]

Sorry, but whenever I hear a reporter say "Officials tell me that..." I want to wretch.

No, you don't. You want to retch. "Wretch" is a noun and refers to "a deplorably unfortunate or unhappy person." You know, kinda like how you're feeling right now because you don't know the difference between "retch" and "wretch." Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

[News Is Broken]

No, you don't. You want to retch. "Wretch" is a noun and refers to "a deplorably unfortunate or unhappy person." You know, kinda like how you're feeling right now because you don't know the difference between "retch" and "wretch." Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

When did we start playing Monopoly?! I want to be the dog.

[Sparky]

The dog??? What are you, GAY? I haven't met a guy yet who didn't want to be the race car.

[adam & doctor drew]

I hate hate hate hate reporter involvement.
as soon as I see it start ("so I decided I had to try it out...."), I dive for the remote.

but hey that's me.
I could be wrong.

[The Mockingbird]

The dog??? What are you, GAY? I haven't met a guy yet who didn't want to be the race car.

Top hat was a close second to the race car, though.

[overthehill]

I was more of a cannon or battleship guy. Also loved being the "banker" but now I can't stand to balance my checkbook.

[Clever Login Name]

Top hat was a close second to the race car, though.

That's even gayer than the dog.

Race car, cannon, battleship ... in that order.

If you didn't get one of those three, it was time to see what was on t-v.

[jrat33]

No, you don't. You want to retch. "Wretch" is a noun and refers to "a deplorably unfortunate or unhappy person." You know, kinda like how you're feeling right now because you don't know the difference between "retch" and "wretch." Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

You're right, accept I dont fel lyke retching becuz I m normilly good at englahs. But at least you added something to the topic at hand. That's the important thing, is that we got your thoughts on the subject of reporter involvement in stories.

[Head Janitor]

Sorry, but whenever I hear a reporter say "Officials tell me that..." I want to wretch. To me, working for a station is about working for a team, and the team comes first. I would much rather hear a reporter say "Officials tell ABC4 that..." Anything else sound self serving.

Just my opinion though.

But did the 'official'(hate that word) tell the team or you? If you called, why not say, I called?

I am fine with that kind of writing because it is more conversational. When was the last time you said, 'The Smith family called the electric company to find out when the power would be back on.' Even though your family is a team, you would still probably say, I or My wife.

When it comes to bad reporter involvement, I picture reporters on elephants, eating fried snickers bars or chopping the heads off rattlesnakes.

Just my opinion.

[Another OMB]

We've got a reporter on one of the local stations where I live whose standups are so over the top they're ridiculous. He covers crime stories a lot, and I realize there's often not much video to go with the story. But he'll do standups where he actually acts out the crime, complete with his hand as a pistol (even turned to the side like a gangsta), or, when talking about a woman waving a knife around and then stabbing another woman in the shoulder, as he's saying that he's waving his hand around and then doing a stabbing motion several times to his own shoulder.

Whenever my and I see he's the one doing a story, one of us will say to the other, "I wonder what kind of stupid thing he's going to do tonight?" Or we'll change the channel because it's just too awful to watch.

I think a certain amount of reporter involvement is good, especially if you're asking a tough question to someone in a position of power and you keep that question in the story, rather than voicing over it and then just using the soundbite. "I spoke with..." or "I called..." don't bother me. They show the audience what you did on the story or how you tried to show another side.

But there's a lot of reporter involvement that's not only unnecessary, it makes the reporter, and the station, look bad, in my opinion.

[Sigonfile]

And don't forget the reporter "head nod and tilt" in those cutaways for goodness sake.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

We've got a reporter on one of the local stations where I live whose standups are so over the top they're ridiculous. He covers crime stories a lot, and I realize there's often not much video to go with the story. But he'll do standups where he actually acts out the crime, complete with his hand as a pistol (even turned to the side like a gangsta), or, when talking about a woman waving a knife around and then stabbing another woman in the shoulder, as he's saying that he's waving his hand around and then doing a stabbing motion several times to his own shoulder.

Whenever my and I see he's the one doing a story, one of us will say to the other, "I wonder what kind of stupid thing he's going to do tonight?" Or we'll change the channel because it's just too awful to watch.

I think a certain amount of reporter involvement is good, especially if you're asking a tough question to someone in a position of power and you keep that question in the story, rather than voicing over it and then just using the soundbite. "I spoke with..." or "I called..." don't bother me. They show the audience what you did on the story or how you tried to show another side.

But there's a lot of reporter involvement that's not only unnecessary, it makes the reporter, and the station, look bad, in my opinion.
I know of a similar reporter who found a wanted man at his last known address...and called the sexual assault victims family before calling police. End result? video of Mother showing up cussing and screaming at the man...police then show up and deal with it. Every time the station showed the video of the mother running up screaming at the man I kept thinking.."Wow, that reporter better be glad she didn't pull out a gun and blow the guys head off". Surely the Po-Po shine down on calling victim families before calling Po-Po.:frustrated: