One-man bands save TV stations

[Paper Trail]

Jacks-of-all-trades blend four salaries into one
By David F. Diamond
Special to The Commercial Appeal (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/27/one-man-bands-save-tv-stations/)

As the economic squeeze hammers media companies like WMC-TV Channel 5 -- which recently cut 15 jobs -- stations are taking steps to control expenses.

One step toward controlling costs is to combine the efforts of a reporter, videographer, editor and sound man. Result: one salary instead of four.

There are two "one-man bands" at Action News 5, news director Tracey Rogers said.

"Justin Hanson is a one-man band reporter/photographer/editor who covers West Tennessee, and Chip Washington is also a one-man band who covers North Mississippi," Rogers said.

She said it's not new in this market, but it is only just beginning in Washington, D.C., where labor unions are expected to be on board by early next year and WUSA will be the first station in the nation's capitol to begin its one-person "multimedia journalists" effort.

"All journalists need to have multiple skills in order to do their jobs," Rogers said.

She said that not all situations work for a one-man band.

"It really depends on the story and what we are trying to accomplish."

Video equipment is lighter and easier to manage today and there is software that allows field crews to send their work back to the station, Rogers said, so a journalist can be self-contained and not need a live vehicle to get a story in.

Another Memphis TV station has only one staff member who is a valuable part of its news-gathering operation and fits the definition of a one-man band. But that station has no plans to change its business model with respect to other personnel.

Joe Hayden, assistant professor in the journalism department at the University of Memphis, said there are two issues: multimedia "convergence" and newsroom economics.

"I welcome the first but worry about the latter, said Hayden, whose background included TV news production in other markets. "We need to make students as versatile as possible to continue to make them marketable. And with more technological interchangeability, this is the direction we're moving in."

But Hayden was critical of the idea of reducing personnel.

"I dread the quality of newscasts cobbled together by skeleton crews," he said. "Forcing fewer people to do more work is always a disastrous recipe for journalism."

His conclusion: "I think the market will eventually compel newsrooms to either emphasize quality or disappear. The phase we're going through now isn't a pretty one."

[adam & doctor drew]

this post should attract Rosenblum, which will then attract the Rosenblum haters, and well you all know where that'll wind up.

[Consider This]

Which doesn't remotely connect to the article's content.

[Another side]

Yep. So let me get my thought in early and get the hell out of the way.

There's an assumption -- completely understandable -- among TV journalists that the audience cares as much about the finer points of "quality" in a newscast as the journalists do. I'm not sure that's true.

(OK ... I just erased 6 paragraphs of high-quality elaboration because I just realized they would be lost in the inevitable compelling argument that Rosenblum is the devil and photogs are blind to the future.)

I probably shouldn't even have posted.

[Another side]

Which doesn't remotely connect to the article's content.

Good point. Sounds like the headline writer just wants to fight.

[The Fedora]

Why do people who have no background in Broadcast TV News feel the need to screw with our business.

About Me

David F. Diamond is a TV and radio commercial spokesman, an actor, a freelance broadcast spots producer, and a marketing and public relations consultant. Following four years of service (1953-1957) as a Russian language technician in the U.S. Air Force, Diamond studied foreign affairs at George Washington University in the late 1950’s. He then accepted a number of assignments working for Maryland state senator Newton I. Steers, Jr: as congressional and state senatorial campaign manager; as executive assistant and deputy commissioner in the Maryland Insurance Department; and as legislative assistant in the state capitol in Annapolis. Diamond ran for Congress in Baltimore in 1970 and subsequently spent a year there as office manager for U.S Senator Charles McC. Mathias. Moving to Pittsburgh, PA in 1972, Diamond served as news anchor for WTAE radio; radio/TV news director for the 1973 National Boy Scout Jamboree; and managed a successful congressional primary campaign for Robert Casey. From Pittsburgh, Mr. Diamond came to Memphis. Phone: *redacted* Email: *redacted*

[Another side]

Why do people who have no background in Broadcast TV News feel the need to screw with our business.

Yeah, that's the problem ... the writer.

[The Fedora]

Yeah, that's the problem ... the writer.

Oh come off it.

The writer clearly has an agenda, it's plain in his writing.

When is the last time you've seen a local crew using anything more than a 2 person crew? Seriously? 1983?

This person has not been in a newsroom on a daily basis since the early 80's.

Please leave the TV News business to professionals.

[Spike]

When is the last time you've seen a local crew using anything more than a 2 person crew? Seriously? 1983?

This person has not been in a newsroom on a daily basis since the early 80's.


Not only that, he thinks they're using four man crews in Memphis. The guy's a retard.

[Hard_reign2004]

I also worry when you get into larger markets about these one man bands safety. Don't get me wrong I used to always be "the designated one man bander" of reporters but there were times where I did not feel completely safe. There are crazies out there and putting a 5 ft 2 female reporter who is on air out in the projects are out in the country is just asking for a problem. But on the other hand is it fair or even lawful to only require men to do this job?.......I rolled my eyes when he said "sound man"

[Clever Login Name]

Except for the obviously dated concept of four-man crews in the field, the rest of the article is fairly informative to the average reader about changes in the industry. Everything he cites as reasons for the transition to OMBs is accurate ... I see the reference to four-man crews as being used more to illustrate the point of cost-savings. He could have written it better by saying "Years ago, you might have had as much as a four-man crew in the field ... ", and avoided the glaring, dated inaccuracy.

[Roy Hobbs]

Yeah why didn't Captain Comtemporary throw in the station film developer guy while he was at it, and say the work of 5 was being done?

[News Is Broken]

Yeah why didn't Captain Comtemporary throw in the station film developer guy while he was at it, and say the work of 5 was being done?

What about a cue card guy? That'd be 6. We could do the work of 6.

[Chicago Dog]

Mommy! Mommy! What's a sound man!?

By the way: thanks for the ride in your sig line, Fedora.

[Produce man]

I'm shocked. Not one mention of the film chain operator.

[NYC Street]

Cameras don't produce stories.

Journalists do.

[WOS]

Yeah a little dated, but the premise is very accurate. The OMB can very well combine the jobs of the reporter, the camera person, editor and nowdays, one of your webmasters as they can upload the stories to the web. They'll eventually take the place of the live truck operator and sat truck operator because they can upload stories from the field to a server. The best part, from management's point of view, is that the OMB can be paid the same as the editor or webmaster. Have any of you ever been to a radio station lately and seen how many people it takes to program the entire day? One. That's where local TV is heading too. Maybe not just one person, but a helluva lot less than there are now. Because of technology, they're not needed. Even now, the station from which I retired has about half the employees they had 10 years ago.

Will the quality of the newscasts suffer? Most definitely! Will the majority of the viewers care? For the most part, most definitely not, sadly. That's because everybody will be doing it, because everybody will be more worried about profit margin than rating points.

Let's just hope they also find a way to combine management jobs, and get rid of about two thirds of those worthless bozos.

[Chicago Dog]

Leave it to one jackass to ruin the fun with something stupid.

Way to go, WOS. Got beat up on the playground a lot, did ya?

[wx or not]

There is something missing here. Let's see, over here is Chicago Dog in a thread about OMBs. For the life of me, I cannot recall who it is that would make this thread truly enjoyable....:rolleyes:

[Kace]

With all the slashing going on at various radio entities, having one person deal with the on-air stuff and production and so on'll probably become more common, especially at the Corporate level (the, "big time," operations).

[WOS]

Leave it to one jackass to ruin the fun with something stupid.

Way to go, WOS. Got beat up on the playground a lot, did ya?

Oh I think I'm not the only jackass with a stupid opinion.

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/index.cfm?fa=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=97024

http://rosenblumtv.wordpress.com/2007/06/27/the-future-of-local-tv-news/

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081119/1742272891.shtml

Sadly, I think there's a good chance the ones who will ultimately "ruin the fun" will be your superiors, under orders from corporate. A lot of journalists, photogs, producers better get versatile and prepare to do even more with and for less, or get "beat up" yourselves. Some of you are friends of mine, and I feel for you. I'm afraid even tougher times are ahead. I hope I'm wrong.

[s'news]

Oh I think I'm not the only jackass with a stupid opinion.

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/index.cfm?fa=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=97024

http://rosenblumtv.wordpress.com/2007/06/27/the-future-of-local-tv-news/

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081119/1742272891.shtml

Sadly, I think there's a good chance the ones who will ultimately "ruin the fun" will be your superiors, under orders from corporate. A lot of journalists, photogs, producers better get versatile and prepare to do even more with and for less, or get "beat up" yourselves. Some of you are friends of mine, and I feel for you. I'm afraid even tougher times are ahead. I hope I'm wrong.

I doubt you're wrong. In broadcast and print journalism, the trends are worrisome. I figure this has to shake out somehow, but I don't see how.

[Sigonfile]

Here's an example of a mid 80's ENG crew in a Union market in a top 25 market covering a "Breaking news" story.
(1) The photographer
(2) The tape deck guy
(3) the sound guy
(4) the boom mic guy
(5) the field producer
(6) the reporter
(7) the battery holder/changer
(8) the ENG truck operator
(9) the field video tape editor

[cameragod]

Here's an example of a mid 80's ENG crew in a Union market in a top 25 market covering a "Breaking news" story.
(1) The photographer
(2) The tape deck guy
(3) the sound guy
(4) the boom mic guy
(5) the field producer
(6) the reporter
(7) the battery holder/changer
(8) the ENG truck operator
(9) the field video tape editor


What you forget is the photographer and the sound guy shot 4 to 6 quality stories that day.
The boom mic guy is also the battery holder/changer and an intern working for gumballs.
The field producer spent that day helping 5 or 6 reporters arranging location’s, talent and a multitude of other bits and pieces.
The tape deck guy or sat-control has been receiving and sending feeds all day and the field video tape editor has cut 3 to 4 stories.
The ENG truck operator did the breakfast hit, midday and drove at high speed across the country to get to the story that they should have been sent to two hours earlier if there was anyone in the newsroom capable of making a decision.
And the reporter, well they have had time to investigate the story properly, write some art and make calls on some other stories they have been following.

Gee I wonder why the news suddenly sucks and viewers are unsatisfied?

Will OMB’s and the watered down quality they produce really save TV stations?
More importantly will the sh!t they shovel out actually be worth saving?

p.s. back in the day London you would need to include the Lighting Electrician on any field shoot, which sounds ridiculous until you spent two hours waiting for the building electrician because the first lamp you plugged in took out power to the whole building by setting fire to the 1900’s wiring.

[Produce man]

Rosenblum?......

[Watchin' News]

What you forget is the photographer and the sound guy shot 4 to 6 quality stories that day.
The boom mic guy is also the battery holder/changer and an intern working for gumballs.
The field producer spent that day helping 5 or 6 reporters arranging location’s, talent and a multitude of other bits and pieces.
The tape deck guy or sat-control has been receiving and sending feeds all day and the field video tape editor has cut 3 to 4 stories.
The ENG truck operator did the breakfast hit, midday and drove at high speed across the country to get to the story that they should have been sent to two hours earlier if there was anyone in the newsroom capable of making a decision.
And the reporter, well they have had time to investigate the story properly, write some art and make calls on some other stories they have been following.

Gee I wonder why the news suddenly sucks and viewers are unsatisfied?

Will OMB’s and the watered down quality they produce really save TV stations?
More importantly will the sh!t they shovel out actually be worth saving?

p.s. back in the day London you would need to include the Lighting Electrician on any field shoot, which sounds ridiculous until you spent two hours waiting for the building electrician because the first lamp you plugged in took out power to the whole building by setting fire to the 1900’s wiring.

Puh-leeze. The number of people working on the story is not directly proportional to the quality of the work. Lots of multi-person crews excel at producing crap. And lots of VJs excel at producing exceptional news.

Fewer and fewer people are watching news because the choices availabe to them have sky-rocketed and most stations have failed to stay ahead of the changes.

[Rosenblum]

When I was at PBS we were signatories to the DGA. This meant that when we went into the field, we took not only a crew but a Director. As the producer I was not allowed to talk to the cameraman. Instead, I had to give my directions to the Director who then repeated them to the cameraman. When we got into the edit, again, I was not allowed to talk to the editor, but instead had to say each 'cut here' to the director, who then repeated it verbatim to the editor. If the director left the room, all editing stopped until he returned. Tell me this made sense.

At CBS News, if I wanted to screen the Umatic tapes we had shot, I had to book an engineer to sit in my office and hit the 'play' or 'pause' buttons on the 3/4" deck. If I touched the buttons, they filed a grievence. When I asked why the engineer was necessary, they told me that producers left on their own jammed the tapes and ruined the machines.

uh huh....

[Chicago Dog]

And that was how long ago, Mike? Something like, what -- 25 years ago, right? Such archaic knowledge of the local newsroom. No wonder your consultancy on our side of the pond is drying up.

[Nino Giannotti]

When I was at PBS we were signatories to the DGA. This meant that when we went into the field, we took not only a crew but a Director. As the producer I was not allowed to talk to the cameraman. Instead, I had to give my directions to the Director who then repeated them to the cameraman. When we got into the edit, again, I was not allowed to talk to the editor, but instead had to say each 'cut here' to the director, who then repeated it verbatim to the editor. If the director left the room, all editing stopped until he returned. Tell me this made sense.

At CBS News, if I wanted to screen the Umatic tapes we had shot, I had to book an engineer to sit in my office and hit the 'play' or 'pause' buttons on the 3/4" deck. If I touched the buttons, they filed a grievence. When I asked why the engineer was necessary, they told me that producers left on their own jammed the tapes and ruined the machines.

uh huh....

I wish I could shut up and walk away, but I can’t let you get away with this crap.

Michael, in all honesty, after you said on your blog that you used a densitometer to check the video signal, unions or not I wouldn’t let you anywhere close to one of my machines either.

Michael, times are constantly changing everywhere and in every business. The picture below is one of my productions 15 years ago, not even 25 years ago. Count how many people, 9 just in the picture plus 5 more in the background. I used to go to work driving a 2 doors coupe with my BVW600 in the back seat and a tripod and batteries in the trunk. On location we had a grip truck, a generator, a tent for the catering and my official title was director of photography, I used to tell other what to do. Today I still service the same client only most of that stuff is gone, it’s just my soundman and me, and I drive a very large van full of gears and shout orders to myself. Times are changing so why you keep bringing up the past I'll never know except to give yourself some importance as you really know the business. But there’s one thing that hasn't changed, regardless if the size of the crews and the budgets are getting smaller, the quality and skills was never compromised, if anything it's been getting progressively better year after year. You on the other hand are the very first in television history that have used new technology to diminish the overall quality of production, because you don't know any better. You love history and you’ll be forever remembered as the man who made bad and unintelligent work a household name.

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/Nino-g/imggolfintruct121.jpg

[Rosenblum]

what in the world are you talking about?
I used a densitomiter in my photography classes at Williams College.
Beyond that piece of misinformation, what point exactly are you trying to make here?

[Nino Giannotti]

what in the world are you talking about?
I used a densitomiter in my photography classes at Williams College.
Beyond that piece of misinformation, what point exactly are you trying to make here?

So Mike, let me ask you the same question, what point are you exactly try to make by bringing up something that was done 20 plus years ago and have been out of existence for 20 years. What all that has to do with today's business.

You've been using the same crap to sale your manure since you appeared on these boards. To make yourself look competent you've been comparing today's services and technologies to what was being done 20 plus years ago. Of course things are better today, even my 75 Delta 98 did not get as good as a mileage as my Nissan Altima does today. Anytime that you mention a crew you for your convenience you bring up five or more people when in reality it's just one or two of us for 90 percent of all the assignments, but that never comes out of your mouth, unions are no longer a factor, but you keep bringing it up, of course reality would not look good for your cause, lies and misinformation work much better.

The real point is that regardless of what are trying to make people believe, budgets have been reduced for years, it has been a full cooperation between management and technical staff, good brains working together have been able to accomplish that, all this has been done without ever effecting the quality of the productions, as far as the viewers are concerned, the changes were transparent, until you came along. Not only you have reduced the quality of production down to amateur's level, you have created hostility and an environment of noncooperation, you put workers against management and that's the most unhealthy and fatal method of running a business.

With all your big names dropping, let's compare my camera work versus your own camera work and let see what happen.

PS. You know what a densitometer is because I told you what it was on your blog. Would you like me to embarrass you further and post our conversation? You know that I have a record of all yous BS, I might turn it into a paperback one of these days.

[Rosenblum]

First, I hardly need you to tell me what a densitometer is. I studied photography at Williams College for four years. I think they gave me a pretty good education.

Beyond that, your insulting post does not deserve an answer. Manure? "Would you like me to embarrass you further and post our conversation?"
Fin

[Nino Giannotti]

your insulting post does not deserve an answer
Man it's really painful when you are on the receiving end, isn't it? Now you know how we've been feeling for years when you are the one dishing it out. We learn from the best, you.

I guess we all have our talents. I take my hat off to you Michael, you do have some incredible skills. You should write a book on the many ways and excuses necessary in order to avoid answering questions.

First, I hardly need you to tell me what a densitometer is. I studied photography at Williams College for four years. I think they gave me a pretty good education.
And BTW, that's still photography and not video technology, I thought you should know the difference. I would really like to see some of your work that we've hearing so much about it, mainly from you. This is a visual business not a talk show.

[SamG]

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/argue.gif

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

[Produce man]

Cue Kace.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

I studied photography at Williams College for four years.

Williams College??! Wow, I'm impressed! I hear they just upgraded their cameras!

http://www.rewindmuseum.com/images3/sonydxc1200.jpg

[Rosenblum]

Williams College??! Wow, I'm impressed! I hear they just upgraded their cameras!

http://www.rewindmuseum.com/images3/sonydxc1200.jpg

Dear "Mighty",
Williams College
Why don't you look it up.

[adam & doctor drew]

just checked in to see if the penis-measuring had stopped.

no, it hasn't.

sorry to interrupt.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Dear "Mighty",
Williams College
Why don't you look it up.

I don't need to. I already have a job in an industry that isn't being destroyed by you.

[Roy Hobbs]

20 years ago we had two...count 'em two men in the field.

And we learned fast to travel light
Our arms were heavy but our bellies were tight

We had no cameras to shoot the landscape
We passed the hash pipe and played our Doors tapes
And it was dark, so dark at night
And we held on to each other
Like brother to brother
We promised our mothers we'd write:rockon:

And we would all go down together
We said we'd all go down together
Yes we would all go down together

Remember Charlie, remember Baker
They left their childhood on every acre
And who was wrong? And who was right?
It didn't matter in the thick of the fight

[Chicago Dog]

I studied photography at Williams College for four years. I think they gave me a pretty good education.

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee197/chicago_dog/four-years-at-picture-college.jpg

You're so full of shіt, Mike.

Edit: Thanks for the new signature line.

[Spike]

I love that video. It really is worth a thousand words summarizing what's wrong with Rosenblum's approach to television.

[Roy Hobbs]

...and decorating.

[Rosenblum]

I love that video. It really is worth a thousand words summarizing what's wrong with Rosenblum's approach to television.

I love that video too.
Thanks so much for posting the link.
That concept, 'citizen journalism' has been very very successful for me in so many ways.
And the JK Rowling story always makes the point.
Thanks again.

[Chicago Dog]

What video? That's a JPG.

I'm not surprised I had to explain that to you.

[SamG]

I love that video too.
Thanks so much for posting the link.
That concept, 'citizen journalism' has been very very successful for me in so many ways.
And the JK Rowling story always makes the point.
Thanks again.
I usually stay out of this fight, but I like how you say it's been successful for YOU. Apparently you don't care about the companies (or the people who work for them) you peddle your "plan" to.

[Rosenblum]

I usually stay out of this fight, but I like how you say it's been successful for YOU. Apparently you don't care about the companies (or the people who work for them) you peddle your "plan" to.

Now, this takes far longer than I have the space here (or the patience), but let me give you the short version. The whole business is changing. Collapsing and being reinvented might be a better way of looking at it. And we are only at the beginning of the transformation. In ten years nothing will be as it is now. Nothing. And this is not the result of anyone's 'plan', this is a function of the collision of cheap technology, open platforms hungry for content and the impact of the web on just about everything from advertising to distribution. Think of this a a perfect storm. Got that so far? No one is going to be working the way that they are now, and the ones who are, are hanging on by the skin of their teeth. And no one really knows where this is going to end up, but if you are smart, you can look at the technology, the platforms and the fractionalization of viewership and ad dollars. There is nothing hidden here. If you can look at this equation objectively, (and few can because they don't want to see it for a variety of reasons), you can see where things are generally headed. Those who survive will be the ones who look at it coldly and objectively. This is not a nurturing business.

[Chicago Dog]

Of course, all of that "advice" is from a man with no local newsroom experience and a consistent history of lying.

Case and point: look at that image above. Does that look like the work of a guy who studied photography at a college for four years?

[SamG]

Now, this takes far longer than I have the space here (or the patience), but let me give you the short version. The whole business is changing. Collapsing and being reinvented might be a better way of looking at it. And we are only at the beginning of the transformation. In ten years nothing will be as it is now. Nothing. And this is not the result of anyone's 'plan', this is a function of the collision of cheap technology, open platforms hungry for content and the impact of the web on just about everything from advertising to distribution. Think of this a a perfect storm. Got that so far? No one is going to be working the way that they are now, and the ones who are, are hanging on by the skin of their teeth. And no one really knows where this is going to end up, but if you are smart, you can look at the technology, the platforms and the fractionalization of viewership and ad dollars. There is nothing hidden here. If you can look at this equation objectively, (and few can because they don't want to see it for a variety of reasons), you can see where things are generally headed. Those who survive will be the ones who look at it coldly and objectively. This is not a nurturing business.
Nice non-answer. Are people working the same as 10 years before? What about people in 1998 working the same way as those in 88? Hmmm, see a trend? Is that "perfect storm" lasting for decades?

But again, you don't deny you don't care about the companies, you're worried about your bottom line. Got it.

[Emily Latella]

I love how MR biases his perspective of today's local news crewing from his limited domestic local news experience over the last two DECADES.

Let's just say his analogy of a "five man crew" hasn't existed since the early 70's. Those inflated crew sizes and featherbedding ended more than 30 years ago with the transition to video and the development of the Betacam. Even the network news crews are mostly functioning on a daily basis with only a cameraman (no soundman) and a field producer or a correspondent.

Your flash in the pan resume at W57th St that you flaunt so much online was like many other short lived field producers of that era. I think it doesn't make you something more special than the dozens of producers that went through CBS News' revolving door during that era. Your narrow perspective seems skewed by your having worked there during the 5 year transition from newsfilm to Betacam camcorder. So when you write of having to speak to a news cameraman or editor through a director or having a lighting or soundman to drag along as if this practice continues today, we all know that hasn't happened in close to thirty years.

These days at ABC, NBC & CBS producers are cutting their own stories on non-linear systems. No producer or non-union type has had to have someone operate a "viewing deck" since the 3/4" u-matic tape days. Your example of a multi-manned crew you so handily trot out flatly doesn't exist anywhere in U.S. TV news operations today and hasn't in 20-30 years. Certainly not at the O&Os and local affiliates news operations. Stop trying to sell the myth that a 5 man ENG crew continues to be a modern day reality, or even recently anywhere in the USA. Your perspective seems so skewed by the dinosaurs you actually worked with thirty years ago and you express so stifled your ability to do your producer's job, that unfortunately, you weren't there nearly long enough to see that those dinosaurs (union work rules) were driven to extinction many, many years ago. Talk about living in the past to others? Stop wearing your time at CBS & PBS as if its a shelf full of national EMMYs. There are plenty of us who have worked in the network facilities in Manhattan longer than you that are not trying to obfuscate the economic realities of local news gathering with a smokescreen gimick. The "Jedi mind trick" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_mind_trick)only works on the naive.

[Rosenblum]

I love how MR biases his perspective of today's local news crewing from his limited domestic local news experience over the last two DECADES.

Let's just say his analogy of a "five man crew" hasn't existed since the early 70's. Those inflated crew sizes and featherbedding ended more than 30 years ago with the transition to video and the development of the Betacam. Even the network news crews are mostly functioning on a daily basis with only a cameraman (no soundman) and a field producer or a correspondent.

Your flash in the pan resume at W57th St that you flaunt so much online was like many other short lived field producers of that era. I think it doesn't make you something more special than the dozens of producers that went through CBS News' revolving door during that era. Your narrow perspective seems skewed by your having worked there during the 5 year transition from newsfilm to Betacam camcorder. So when you write of having to speak to a news cameraman or editor through a director or having a lighting or soundman to drag along as if this practice continues today, we all know that hasn't happened in close to thirty years.

These days at ABC, NBC & CBS producers are cutting their own stories on non-linear systems. No producer or non-union type has had to have someone operate a "viewing deck" since the 3/4" u-matic tape days. Your example of a multi-manned crew you so handily trot out flatly doesn't exist anywhere in U.S. TV news operations today and hasn't in 20-30 years. Certainly not at the O&Os and local affiliates news operations. Stop trying to sell the myth that a 5 man ENG crew continues to be a modern day reality, or even recently anywhere in the USA. Your perspective seems so skewed by the dinosaurs you actually worked with thirty years ago and you express so stifled your ability to do your producer's job, that unfortunately, you weren't there nearly long enough to see that those dinosaurs (union work rules) were driven to extinction many, many years ago. Talk about living in the past to others? Stop wearing your time at CBS & PBS as if its a shelf full of national EMMYs. There are plenty of us who have worked in the network facilities in Manhattan longer than you that are not trying to obfuscate the economic realities of local news gathering with a smokescreen gimick.



Dear Emily
You make my point better than I could have.
Indeed, 'these days NBC, CBS and ABC producers are cutting their own stories on non-linear systems"
Yes they are. And in the not too distant future they will also be shooting their own stories.

I did indeed leave CBS 20 years ago, but I went to start building local tv news stations in Europe in which the producers cut their own stories (but on RM450s) as non linear did not exist, and shoot their own stories with Hi8 cameras.

I agree that the networks are now slowly, but finally, catching up to what technology offers, but they still have a considerable distance to travel.

It was my frustration with a system that I think we can all agree was counterproductive that led me to try something different. That was a long time ago, but it doesn't mean we are anywhere near done.

[Emily Latella]

Local newsrooms in Europe bare little resemblance to affiliate newsrooms in the U.S. Most in Europe are subsidized by the taxpayer. American stations are supported by ad revenue. Today's economic realities have forced VJ into existence not the smokescreen of "improving journalism". Its the smokescreen I so heartedly object to. For once Michael, just blurt out what a local tv VJ really is in the USA....a method for station owners to dramatically cut costs and jobs and you are the packager of this device. Then we can all go about our adjustments in our lives knowing what the truth is.

[Rosenblum]

Local newsrooms in Europe bare little resemblance to affiliate newsrooms in the U.S. Most in Europe are subsidized by the taxpayer. American stations are supported by ad revenue. Today's economic realities have forced VJ into existence not the smokescreen of "improving journalism". Its the smokescreen I so heartedly object to. For once Michael, just blurt out what a local tv VJ really is in the USA....a method for station owners to dramatically cut costs and jobs and you are the packager of this device. Then we can all go about our adjustments in our lives knowing what the truth is.

Dear Emily
Now it is you who are living in the past.
Most local television newsrooms in Europe are commercial ventures.
It is true that 30 years ago European television was dominated by state subsidies, but those days are long gone. While the BBC and ARD or ZDF still exist, the vast majority of broadcasters across Europe are commercial, and driven by the same motivations as their analogs in the US.

As to your question about cost cutting, of course it is about cost cutting. And you know what, there is nothing wrong with cost cutting. Every successful competitive industry in the world cuts their cost of manufacturing to the bare minimum necessary to produce a quality product. Now, does VJ deliver a quality product, or what I would call, "good enough"? That remains to be seen. Does a producer at NBC news cutting a feed on their desktop deliver a quality product, or is it simply 'good enough'? That also remains to be seen.

[Emily Latella]

As to your question about cost cutting, of course it is about cost cutting.

Ahhh yes, alas "The Emperor's New Clothes"

Its good to be the King's facilitator?

[Rosenblum]

Ahhh yes, alas "The Emperor's New Clothes"

Its good to be the King's facilitator?

Dear Emily,
First, let me say that its a pleasure to have an intelligent conversation here for a change.
Second, this is not a case of Emperor's New Clothes. I don't think anyone makes a secret of cost cutting, and as I said before, cost cutting is no crime. This is a business. It is a manufacturing business. We are constantly manufacturing a product, and one with a very limited shelf life. Of course you always want to cut costs as much as you can. That is where the profits come from.
Look at it this way: If you hired a painter to paint your house and he showed up with a small 1" brush, he might say 'I will do the most careful and beautiful paint job you have ever seen', and it might be true, but it would take three years. If you're doing the Sistine Chapel ceiling, you might want to take years, but if you're doing your garage, you're more than happy with the roller and two coats.
We might like to think in local news we are painting the Last Supper, but most of the time, we are only painting the garage. Get it done fast, right and as cheaply as possible.
Is it good to be the King's facilitator? What do you think.

[NewsguyMark]

While software and lighter equipment make things more versatile, I don't believe the quality remains. It's more chop-chop shooting and editing. Looks cheap. Is cheap.

[Bureau Chief]

IMO, its not VJs that the world should fear..its news reporting like this from Johnson City Tn. I appologise to the reporter in this video. Its not my intention to embarrass you or ridicule...but lady, you ain't ready for prime time yet. Your ND should have known that before putting you on air.

http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/massive_house_fire_on_boone_lake/18671/

Reporting like this makes the audience groan. When the report was over, I had to ask...what happened? I was so intent on how BAD the reporting was that I missed the actual story. It was all about her, not the story.

For better or worse, VJs are here. We could argue until the next innovation arrives in newsrooms sometime next century but it wont change the facts. The greedy owners want to keep their 40-50 % profit margins so we the newsies take it on the chin.

YOU WILL NOT CHANGE THINGS.

We employees are powerless. The owners, GMs and NDs are the bad guys in this slow slide to news hell.

It you can't bring yourself to face the coming train of change.....then get off the station platform and find something else to do for a living cause 10 years from now, we will all be VJs with tiny v-cams the size of cellphones that will have broadband connections and editing interfaces.

I see a future where EVERYONE is a VJ and there will be a 24 hour news channel where all content is user shot, edited and contributed. A couple of people to sit in a control room somewhere to over see things and thats it. NO newsies, no editors, just live news brought to you from the streets as it happens by Joe Sixpack and his pocket cam.....and none of them get paid for contributing. Think Im crazy? Look at the citizen channels on youtube. Its already happening in a limited way.

The question now is, how do we maintain some level of quality in the gutted newsrooms? I see in-depth stories being the savior of newspapers..while the rapid fire tv newscast will tend towards more of the crap we are already seeing....and THAT has been going on for a decade or more. It has nothing to do with who shoots what, on what and edits it where. This problem comes not from VJs but from dollar driven news directors and GMs who dont really care about journalism, but rather feeding the beast and how many commecial breaks they can fit into the show.

[newz2me]

... of course it is about cost cutting. And you know what, there is nothing wrong with cost cutting. Every successful competitive industry in the world cuts their cost of manufacturing to the bare minimum necessary to produce a quality product....
Yeah, that's worked well for the American auto industry. The bottom line that I've always seen in this business is cheapness, greed and stupidity. There's a lot of companies that are interested in saving a buck not as a survival tool but as a means to pad their bonuses and justify their existance.
There's a fine line between cost efficency and trash and complex equiptment that requires skilled labor has always been the one thing that kept these cheapskates from going over the abyss, not quality. Now with cheaper gear these said cheapskates presume you can just point and shoot with no regard for quality of footage shot, content or ability to compile a story.
Time will tell if what they sow now will come back and bite them in the future. But neither they or you will care by then because all of you will be retired and counting your money while the industry that you set on this course will be burning to the ground.
I see you in the most basic form as a shark. You sense blood in the water and you're out for your share of the feast.

[Rosenblum]

Yeah, that's worked well for the American auto industry. The bottom line that I've always seen in this business is cheapness, greed and stupidity. There's a lot of companies that are interested in saving a buck not as a survival tool but as a means to pad their bonuses and justify their existance.
There's a fine line between cost efficency and trash and complex equiptment that requires skilled labor has always been the one thing that kept these cheapskates from going over the abyss, not quality. Now with cheaper gear these said cheapskates presume you can just point and shoot with no regard for quality of footage shot, content or ability to compile a story.
Time will tell if what they sow now will come back and bite them in the future. But neither they or you will care by then because all of you will be retired and counting your money while the industry that you set on this course will be burning to the ground.
I see you in the most basic form as a shark. You sense blood in the water and you're out for your share of the feast.

Your reference to the American auto industry is interesting, but please bear in mind that the cost of manufacturing a car at Ford, GM or Chrysler is $72 and hour and the cost at Toyota and Honda is $45 an hour. Those costs are related to health care and legacy costs, but on a per hour basis, Toyota and Honda have indeed cut their cost of production far below US auto makers.

[adam & doctor drew]

IMO, its not VJs that the world should fear..its news reporting like this from Johnson City Tn. I appologise to the reporter in this video. Its not my intention to embarrass you or ridicule...but lady, you ain't ready for prime time yet.

"there were fire trucks spraying water"......um, what else would they do?
she WAS awful.... and I'd never heard a reporter use the word "I" that much, if ever.
but when did Johnson City, TN, become "prime time"??

Now, does VJ deliver a quality product, or what I would call, "good enough"?
now THERE'S what most TV news managers want: "good enough."
which really says it all.

[Rosenblum]

"there were fire trucks spraying water"......um, what else would they do?
she WAS awful.... and I'd never heard a reporter use the word "I" that much, if ever.
but when did Johnson City, TN, become "prime time"??


now THERE'S what most TV news managers want: "good enough."
which really says it all.

"good enough" is not a crime
It is in fact the way most businesses are run and the way most of us run our own lives.

Unless you are having your suits made by hand on Saville Row, I would guess that the clothes you buy are 'good enough'.

Unless you are having dinner every night at The French Laundry, I would guess that when you go out for dinner you go to some place that is good enough. Not terrible, but not the world's best either. Good enough.

You can buy a mattress from Schiffman for $10,000, but I bet you don't. It doesn't mean you have to go to dial-a-mattress either. You want one that is good enough.

It's the same with the television business. We want to produce a product that is 'good enough'. We don't have to spend 3 weeks in an edit agonizing over a 1:20 local news story, but we don't want to put up crap either. Just something good enough.

[adam & doctor drew]

that'd be a great slogan for a station (or your company):

"Good Enough!"

[Rosenblum]

that'd be a great slogan for a station (or your company):

"Good Enough!"

Ever go to Walmart?

What do you think it is besides Good Enough?

I would not mind owning Walmart, personally.

[adam & doctor drew]

would it be fair then to describe your company as the Walmart of TV news?

[Rosenblum]

would it be fair then to describe your company as the Walmart of TV news?

I should only be so fortunate.

[Jax]

I should only be so fortunate.

Spoken like someone who's never shopped at a Walmart...

[Rosenblum]

Spoken like someone who's never shopped at a Walmart...

they said own it, not shop at it. there is a difference.

[Roy Hobbs]

that'd be a great slogan for a station (or your company):

"Good Enough!"

I kinda like Michael's we don't want to put up crap either

[Mighty Dyckerson]

they said own it, not shop at it. there is a difference.

So you're saying you wouldn't watch your own newscasts?

If you ever decide to get that brain transplant, I hope you find a doctor that's "good enough."

[Rosenblum]

So you're saying you wouldn't watch your own newscasts?

If you ever decide to get that brain transplant, I hope you find a doctor that's "good enough."

Fortunately for all of us, television is not brain surgery.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Fortunately for all of us, television is not brain surgery.

Yes, because you would have filled up a few cemeteries by now.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

'GOOD ENOUGH'....
...that's the problem with OMB'ing. I have no problem with the whole idea as I spent a few years doing so....but any job(even the fry guy)that is content with 'good enough' will get reports like the one from Johnson City on the house fire. Sure, it had video/script/reporter....so I guess it's 'good enough' for the principle of being 'on-air'....but as some posters have already said, "ouch" to that 'good enough' reporting.

[Rosenblum]

Well this is an interesting conversation because it many ways it gets to the heart of the business.

There is nothing wrong with 'good enough'. It is, in fact, the basis of almost every business. You may ask yourself 'how good is good enough', and that is a variable based on how much you are willing to spend. But it is always a direct relationship.

If you go to MacDonald's there is a parameter to 'good enough'. They don't serve ground porterhouse but they don't server ground cat either. It is what it is based on price.

At local TV stations it is the same. There is a price point and this is a product. This is not a feature film by Steven Spielberg and it is not Youtube either. The product the station delivers, like any business, is good enough. That is what it is suppose to be.

If you think this is any different because somehow television or news is 'special' you are kidding yourself.

This is a business like any other. Sometimes people in the business like to delude their employees that they are doing 'God's work' or something 'special and important' so they don't have to be paid as well as others might, or receive an equity position based on years worked. It's just not the case.

[adam & doctor drew]

There is nothing wrong with 'good enough'. It is, in fact, the basis of almost every business.
what do you think the reaction would be if a local news employee, in his/her annual review, told the boss "I did good enough."

and when stations post openings, why does it never say they're looking for someone who can just do "good enough"?

[Chicago Dog]

There is nothing wrong with 'good enough'.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with "good enough," especially when sexed-up terms like "hyperlocal," "digital revolution," and "messiah" are no longer making money for you.

[Chicago Dog]

what do you think the reaction would be if a local news employee, in his/her annual review, told the boss "I did good enough."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bXHPqj3NcI

[Rosenblum]

what do you think the reaction would be if a local news employee, in his/her annual review, told the boss "I did good enough."

and when stations post openings, why does it never say they're looking for someone who can just do "good enough"?

Now boys, I don't know you, but my guess is you don't own the station you work for.

So my guess is that you are employees...

And my guess is that while you put in the requisite hours, you aren't working say 120 hours a week with no overtime. Is that right?

You're not coming in on saturdays and sundays to make sure everything is great. You're not spending your own money to recarpet the newsroom or to paint the outside of the building. Right?

In other words, your work is 'good enough'.

Not bad. Not terrible. Maybe even good. Good enough.

But not the most your could possibly do.

Or am I wrong?

[Emily Latella]

I think there's something sadly wrong with this country when Wal-Mart is "good enough" ...someone tell that to Target. Maybe Wal-Mart will learn soon what "good enough" did to K Mart & Sears.

I think there's something sadly wrong with GM when "good enough" is currently a Buick or a Chevy.... someone tell that to Toyota.

I think there's something sadly wrong with this business when VJ is "good enough" ...someone tell that to KGO, KPIX, KFMB, WJLA & WRC.

To some, "better" still brings financial reward, not the lowest common denominator.

I think there's something sadly wrong when using the phrase "good enough" to facilitate lining one's pockets at the expense of others trying to earn an honest living in tough times. While being pious about the methodology working to dispose them.

What happened to forthrightness as opposed to greed? Haven't we all seen enough lately to say that "good enough" ain't really so great.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

You're not coming in on saturdays and sundays to make sure everything is great. You're not spending your own money to recarpet the newsroom or to paint the outside of the building. Right?

Maybe we would if we made the overinflated salaries GMs make.

:rolleyes:

[adam & doctor drew]

Now boys, I don't know you, but my guess is you don't own the station you work for.

So my guess is that you are employees...

And my guess is that while you put in the requisite hours, you aren't working say 120 hours a week with no overtime. Is that right?

You're not coming in on saturdays and sundays to make sure everything is great. You're not spending your own money to recarpet the newsroom or to paint the outside of the building. Right?

In other words, your work is 'good enough'.

Not bad. Not terrible. Maybe even good. Good enough.

But not the most your could possibly do.

Or am I wrong?

so apparently you won't be answering the questions?

[Chicago Dog]

so apparently you won't be answering the questions?

Rosenblum doesn't answer questions that can be avoided with the help of smoke and mirrors or some good ol' fashioned double-talk.

Seriously. The guy's a candyass when it comes to straight talk. He's already lost much of his business stateside. He's not going to dig himself into a deeper hole.

[NYC Street]

Sure, there's nothing wrong with "good enough," especially when sexed-up terms like "hyperlocal," "digital revolution," and "messiah" are no longer making money for you.

As Rosenblum has proved over and over again, he can't fool any of the people any of the time. Except for bean counters.

[newz2me]

Now boys, I don't know you, but my guess is you don't own the station you work for.

So my guess is that you are employees...

And my guess is that while you put in the requisite hours, you aren't working say 120 hours a week with no overtime. Is that right?

You're not coming in on saturdays and sundays to make sure everything is great. You're not spending your own money to recarpet the newsroom or to paint the outside of the building. Right?

In other words, your work is 'good enough'.

Not bad. Not terrible. Maybe even good. Good enough.

But not the most your could possibly do.

Or am I wrong?
On the contrary. I put in 110 percent every time I go out. Time constraints, weather such as extreme cold, the necessity to run and gun and so on all factor in but I do the best I can with my given conditions. It's never just "good enough". That's what makes me a professional.
I don't recarpet the newsroom because it's not my job or my speciality. But even with limited knowledge in carpet laying, you can bet I would do the best job possible not just "good enough".

[newz2me]

Your reference to the American auto industry is interesting, but please bear in mind that the cost of manufacturing a car at Ford, GM or Chrysler is $72 and hour and the cost at Toyota and Honda is $45 an hour. Those costs are related to health care and legacy costs, but on a per hour basis, Toyota and Honda have indeed cut their cost of production far below US auto makers.
The analogy isn't how much GM makes vs Toyota. It's about quality vs lack thereof. American manufacturers once cared about quality. Somewhere along the way executives came to the decision that they could raise profit margins (sound familiar?) save a few bucks and use cheaper materials and take shortcuts to build quicker thinking nobody would really notice or care. That was fine until the Japanese started building with quality and care. While Toyota and the like do it cheaper they manage to do it with better quality. They didn't take the "good enough" route like the Big 3 or the comparable VJ model that you claim to be just "good enough"....
The big 3 now cry credibility but nobody's listening. The damage is done, the executives are counting their millions and the companies are on the verge of collapse.

[mothball]

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/10/al_franken.gif

[Rosenblum]

so apparently you won't be answering the questions?

Ah, but I did answer the question.

Good enough is what everyone does.

Good enough is not a crime. Good enough is how a business works.
You either don't understand what I am saying or you don't want to.
Good enough is not bad. Good enough is not minimal. Good enough is delivering the quality needed. I don't know how else to explain this to you.
A Toyota Camry is good enough. It is not a Mercedes. It is not a Porsche. It does not have to be, and in fact would be counter productive because it would cost too much to make.

A sandwich from Subway is not a lunch at the 21. That does not make Subway bad. It makes it what it is to survive in its niche.

The television that you make is (I assume) good enough for your market. It is not Gone With The Wind. It just isn't. It is what it is and that is enough. that is not a bad thing.

Do you understand what I am saying or do you always want everyone to be considered 'above average' to make them feel better about themselves?

[adam & doctor drew]

I asked how an employee would be received if in his annual review he told the boss he had done "good enough."

and why job postings don't say the station is looking for someone who will do "good enough."

you still haven't answered either one.

[Rosenblum]

I asked how an employee would be received if in his annual review he told the boss he had done "good enough."

and why job postings don't say the station is looking for someone who will do "good enough."

you still haven't answered either one.

But that is what job postings say all the time. They say looking for a reporter and paying $45K a year. That is what they want. Another person says, looking for a reporter and paying $350K a year. Do they get different people? Of course they do. And hopefully each is good enough at their job. But they are different. They fill different niches in each market. All job postings are effectively looking for 'good enough'. You confuse this with lazy. It is not the same. Good enough is a manufacturing term. It is the level of quality commensurate with what is demanded in any given situation.

In a job review or grades in school, you also receive 'good enough'. You are doing a 'good job', do you like that better? Good job! Good job!

We have created a kind of mythology in the workplace and in school where everyone gets an A+. Great job!

It's a lie. It you continue to give 110 percent all the time, then you are being underpaid.

Did you ever read The Peter Principle?

All an employer expects is that you do a good job. Not that you kill yourself every day. What a good job is is relative of course, but yes, to draw this syntactical discussion to some kind of conclusion, good enough is good job.

Does THAT answer your question?

[adam & doctor drew]

but yes, to draw this syntactical discussion to some kind of conclusion, good enough is good job.

to you, apparently.
to me, and every boss I've ever worked for, not to mention almost everyone else here, those 2 aren't the same thing.

[Chicago Dog]

It's a lie. It you continue to give 110 percent all the time, then you are being underpaid.

What about a OMB/VJ who makes -- oh, I don't know -- $30,000 in Washington DC?

[SamG]

But that is what job postings say all the time. They say looking for a reporter and paying $45K a year. That is what they want. Another person says, looking for a reporter and paying $350K a year. Can you find ONE example of a job posting that actually lists a salary?

[Mighty Dyckerson]

[quote=Rosenblum;514927]Good enough is not a crime. Good enough is how a business works.
You either don't understand what I am saying or you don't want to./quote]

I guess you're a socialist who doesn't understand the concept of competition. If your newscast is simply passable, what happens when the station down the street produces a better show? Do you think the viewers might actually notice that??

Oh, that's right...you think viewers are complete morons.

[Nino Giannotti]

[quote=Rosenblum;514927]Good enough is not a crime. Good enough is how a business works.
You either don't understand what I am saying or you don't want to./quote]

I guess you're a socialist who doesn't understand the concept of competition. If your newscast is simply passable, what happens when the station down the street produces a better show? Do you think the viewers might actually notice that??

Oh, that's right...you think viewers are complete morons.

Don't expect an answer from Rosenblum anytime soon, we've been asking the same question for six years and no answer. Probably now that I dare him he is surely trying to make one up.

Once again, back to you Michael.

[Spike]

Good enough is how a business works.


You've said some pretty stupid things in your time, but this one takes the cake.

[Diggin' Bear]

I've read the entire discussion, and what Rosey's point boils down to is this: if you get ANYTHING on the air, that....'good enough.'

So, Mikey, let's apply that to any different industry you wish to pick. Since you mentioned brain surgery, we'll go with that one.

Sure, you could pick ANY brain surgeon to work on you and excise a tumor. I mean, it's only taking a knife and cutting some meat out, right?

Anybody could do it with a minimum of training.

But why would you place yourself at risk of 'good enough' if you realized that there are risks associated with cutting that meat out, such as losing your speech and control centers, your logic abilities.

If you realized there was a risk, you'd probably want the better surgeon to minimize the possibility you'd lose something.

Now, let's transplant that idea to TeeVee nooz. Sure, you could get our Johnson City, Tennessee reporter to cover Obama's transition, complete with camcorder, laptop and cellphone.

She might even get some of the facts right.

But would she have the ability to grasp WHAT that collection of facts mean? Could she interpret WHY, for instance, Bill Richardson chose not to accept the Commerce Secretary's position?

Hell, the girl couldn't even work her way around a simple house fire.

But...in your world, just getting the fact there was a fire (or a Commerce Secretary) would be...good enough. Right?

You can call it a manufacturing process all you want, but we all know it's not true. Sure, everybody has to shoot, write and edit. But the local Chevy dealer's house fire isn't equivalent to a presidential appointment.

Same process, sure.

But your analogy falls incredibly flat when it comes to the important things like - ability to dig facts out, get the video, and produce an important story on the fly.

By the way...NOBODY labors three weeks on a 1:20 pack. Nobody.

[Nino Giannotti]

Good enough is what everyone does.

Good enough is what losers, lazy and ignorants do.

In the early 1970 when I first started as a freelance photographer, thru some powerful friends in the business I was fortunate enough to be invited at one of the very rare Ansel Adams lectures. Among the many things that stuck in my mind and helped my careers was a simple thing that Ansel Adams said.

"The moment that you think that your work is good enough is the time to go do something else. In photography or for that matter in every professions you should look at your work and always tell yourself that is NOT good enough and you have to do better. This is how you get better."

As I've been saying, is NOT in Rosenblum best interest to have intelligent people follow his VJ doctrine, that's why he goes around saying that's "good enough". Intelligent people will improve and when they do they'll ask for more money or better opportunities, and this is totally against the cheap pool of slave labor that he is trying to create.

[Kace]

Cue Kace.

"I am mainly a mortician, but mostly a mild mannered man."

[TAFKA wacowx]

You've said some pretty stupid things in your time, but this one takes the cake.

I don't know Spike...look at that 'Good Enough' line specifically from a business standpoint:

Is there any reason to overspend on materials or personnel in a business? The goal is to make money and you don't make money by spending more than you have to. You buy what is necessary to get the job done at the lowest cost, but providing a minimum level of reliability.

In my business (energy), we have power lines that come down in storms/hurricanes. There is a way to bury all transmission lines to eliminate that posibility from ever happening again, but you know what? That isn't going to be done because it's not cost-effective. All the power and transmission companies would go out of business or at the very least there will be a revolt against the 10000% increase in consumer power costs. So, power companies...heck every type of company...do the best they can with the amount of money they are willing to spend. You just don't overspend, Spike...it doesn't make economic sense.

Sure, the argument can be made that local news NEEDS to spend more to keep/attract viewers because the lack of quality is affecting the bottom line as viewership wanes. It's a necessary expenditure in order to maintain a TV station's 'clients' (viewers). They won't accept anything less.

But Spike, you especially should see that Rosie's quote, in and of itself was absolutely positively true in the business world. The actual argument here is that we are not even at the 'good enough' point in TV at present, and any drop in quality will be another blow to the bottom line.

[Rosenblum]

I am starting to think this is a waste of time, but I will try this once more and that is it:

I am not making a case for saying putting anything on the air that moves is fine. Good enough means that there are also many things that are not good enough. But it also means that there is a limit to how much time, effort and money you will spend to create a product.

Most mornings I drink fresh squeezed orange juice at home. I have a squeezer and I buy fresh oranges and make it myself. It's good. Really good. But those oranges are expensive.

This morning, as I had to be at work by 9am, I bought a container of Tropicana with pulp. It was good. Not as good as what I have at home, but good enough.


It doesn't mean it was Tang in a box. It wasn't fresh squeezed, but for the Tropicana company, I am sure it was good enough. It was good enough for me and for probably another million people this morning.

Does this at along last explain what I mean by 'good enough'?

If, after this, you are still inclined to read more, you can here:
http://rosenblumtv.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/good-enough/

[Mighty Dyckerson]

It doesn't mean it was Tang in a box.

Is that the female equivalent to **** in a box???

[SamG]

I'm guessing everyone here has been part of something that was "good enough" to make air... think about a marginal (analog) live shot. You might get some sparkle in the video or the audio might "sputter and spit". Depending on the importance of the story, that might be "good enough".

[Rosenblum]

I'm guessing everyone here has been part of something that was "good enough" to make air... think about a marginal (analog) live shot. You might get some sparkle in the video or the audio might "sputter and spit". Depending on the importance of the story, that might be "good enough".

No Sam.
Good enough is when nothing goes wrong.
It is fine.
Not genius. Just fine.
Good enough.

Good enough does not mean anything bad.

[Diggin' Bear]

Here's the biggest flaw in your entire argument:

But it also means that there is a limit to how much time, effort and money you will spend to create a product.

You keep referring to news as a 'product.'

Ok, if you're talking about a one-size fits all device, like a car or a plane or that juice-maker you use every morning, of course you can quantify what it costs to make a product and have a pretty strong argument.
It's an equation that works: so many raw materials times so many production cycles times distribution times human cost.

I have NO problem with that. That's a pretty straight-line equation.

Now, if you TRY to make that same equation work for news, you have to ignore certain assumptions:

One reporter times one camera puts out so many pieces per week: that's your argument. Supposedly, quality never suffers because you allow so much time to shoot, write and edit a piece.

But, when you had that straight line equation over to bean counters, they (and YOU) ignore the intangible that defines humanity: some humans are better at shooting, writing and editing.

Sure, we can teach them to do each of those jobs.

But can we reasonably expect them to turn out as good a quality product per day if they're combining all those elements at the same time? Logic tells us it's just not possible.

So...you devolve to your 'good enough' argument.

See my discussion about brain surgery. Sure you want the most common denominator to become the determining factor if something is 'good enough?'

Let me introduce one other element to the discussion:

Have you considered the possibility of a lawsuit if your 'do it all' digital reporter finds themselves in a difficult to manage situation where a two person team would handle much better because there's less to think about?

Example: I was covering a court story where a guy was brought into the room wearing handcuffs. His defense attorney tried repeatedly to block my partner's lens from shooting the scene, despite the fact we had permission to work inside the room.

I confronted the lawyer ON CAMERA while my shooter continued to get the shot we wanted. Do you think that might have happened nearly as effectively if I was the person holding the camera?

There's a lot of ways that could have played out. I can't imagine one where I could have handled the situation nearly as well if I were by myself.

That's one reason why OMBs/VJ's will never turn out an equal to or better 'product' than a two person team will.

But...maybe that's just 'good enough' for our dying industry.

[Clever Login Name]

So ... THIS is the thread where we resolve the VJ question once and for all, and to everyone's satisfaction?

[Diggin' Bear]

Good enough is when nothing goes wrong.


Second biggest flaw in your argument: what happens if something DOES go wrong? I shot a story by myself a few years back - we were short on photographers.

I did the best I could, but because I wasn't familiar with a new camera we had, I completely missed the shot because I was trying to do two jobs at once. Had I been able to concentrate on either of those at one time, I would have gathered my facts while someone else realized there was a problem with the shutter.

Oh, darn. Something went wrong. What should we tell the audience? Our video is CRAPPY because....because...because...

Guess what? Viewers don't care.

Quality control should be job one.

[Rosenblum]

Here's the biggest flaw in your entire argument:

You keep referring to news as a 'product.'

Ok, if you're talking about a one-size fits all device, like a car or a plane or that juice-maker you use every morning, of course you can quantify what it costs to make a product and have a pretty strong argument.
It's an equation that works: so many raw materials times so many production cycles times distribution times human cost.

I have NO problem with that. That's a pretty straight-line equation.

Now, if you TRY to make that same equation work for news, you have to ignore certain assumptions:

One reporter times one camera puts out so many pieces per week: that's your argument. Supposedly, quality never suffers because you allow so much time to shoot, write and edit a piece.

But, when you had that straight line equation over to bean counters, they (and YOU) ignore the intangible that defines humanity: some humans are better at shooting, writing and editing.

Sure, we can teach them to do each of those jobs.

But can we reasonably expect them to turn out as good a quality product per day if they're combining all those elements at the same time? Logic tells us it's just not possible.

So...you devolve to your 'good enough' argument.

See my discussion about brain surgery. Sure you want the most common denominator to become the determining factor if something is 'good enough?'

Let me introduce one other element to the discussion:

Have you considered the possibility of a lawsuit if your 'do it all' digital reporter finds themselves in a difficult to manage situation where a two person team would handle much better because there's less to think about?

Example: I was covering a court story where a guy was brought into the room wearing handcuffs. His defense attorney tried repeatedly to block my partner's lens from shooting the scene, despite the fact we had permission to work inside the room.

I confronted the lawyer ON CAMERA while my shooter continued to get the shot we wanted. Do you think that might have happened nearly as effectively if I was the person holding the camera?

There's a lot of ways that could have played out. I can't imagine one where I could have handled the situation nearly as well if I were by myself.

That's one reason why OMBs/VJ's will never turn out an equal to or better 'product' than a two person team will.

But...maybe that's just 'good enough' for our dying industry.


But this is a product and it is indeed a manufacturing process. You are daily manufacturing news to put on the air.

It may have a few variables as you discuss, but frankly, you get these in every business. The cost of steel goes up and so on.

But the cost of manufacture averages out over a year.

Your news dept has a budget. This is the cost of manufacture of the product.

For x dollars spent you expect to produce Y hours of television news in a year. Divide the two and you get your break even for ad sales (in a very very rough way).

NBC is probably in the best shape of all the nets because it is run by GE and GE knows how to manage costs and manufacturing a product.

You want to manufacture a product that the consumer wants, but you also want to manufacture it at a cost point that makes sense. News I am sorry to say, as said at the beginning, is not a special case.

[Nino Giannotti]

I wonder how viewers would react if the station's slogan would be

"News good enough for you"

[SamG]

No Sam.
Good enough is when nothing goes wrong.
It is fine.
Not genius. Just fine.
Good enough.

Good enough does not mean anything bad.
Yes it does, you even admitted it in your orange juice story. "Good enough" is at least one step down from "Ideal". In your story, something went wrong (you didn't have time). Therefore you had to settle for something less than ideal. One way I describe this is to look at "quality scale" of 1-10 with 10 being "PERFECT". Now if your quality is 8 or 9, consumers may or may not notice. THAT'S "Good Enough". I think we can also agree a "quality" of 1-3 is unacceptable. So the question is whether 4-7 is "good enough". Depends on what the product is.

Bottom line, anything that's "good enough" is less than "idea" (or "perfect").

[Rosenblum]

I wonder how viewers would react if the station's slogan would be

"News good enough for you"

It would probably be far more honest than "The Very Best Political News Team on the Planet".

[Diggin' Bear]

Ok, let's accept the 'good enough' argument for a second.

Mikey, do you advocate your VJ's carrying HD cameras?

If so, why???? Why not just let them use SD cameras?

Do you advocate them carrying commercial or industrial cameras? Why?

Why not allow them to shoot with Canon FS100's, which are absolutly tiny and shoot to card?

Let's take the 'good enough' argument all the way down the chain.

Do you advocate a TV station going with just a desk and some kind of curtain in the background?

If not, why not? Wouldn't that be...good enough?

So, it's a value judgement all along, which plays right into my hand and NOT into yours. If you want to argue qualitatively, you'd better set a benchmark.

If that benchmark is, as you CLAIM, that your VJ's could turn out JUST as good a product as a two person team, then you're plainly out of our gourd, and you've basically admitted that won't happen. If you didn't, you wouldn't be arguing 'good enough.'

So, now, please tell us where the benchmark falls to call something 'good enough.' I'd be willing to bet you'll choose an extremely low level of quality in order to make your self-admitted 'price point,' and I'm not sure that's going to serve the viewer, the advertiser, and ultimately, the TV station that well.

People won't tune in to see their neighbor talking over badly shot camcorder images.

Proof? How about that Johnson City reporter someone posted earlier? Anybody here want to watch that train wreck...again?

[22]

Diggin' Bear has this one nailed. TV news (and many other buisnesses) cannot be treated as a "product" in the typical buisness school model. If you do, quality will suffer and thus, your buisness will suffer.

MAny of you may not remember the day when TV news was not EXPECTED to make a profit. It was not a product. It was a public service. One could argue that when news started to make a profit, was the same moment it became a product. And that was the beginning of the end.

Diggin' bear is wise.

And he will never be in management for that reason.

[Rosenblum]

Ok, let's accept the 'good enough' argument for a second.

Mikey, do you advocate your VJ's carrying HD cameras?

If so, why???? Why not just let them use SD cameras?

Do you advocate them carrying commercial or industrial cameras? Why?

Why not allow them to shoot with Canon FS100's, which are absolutly tiny and shoot to card?

Let's take the 'good enough' argument all the way down the chain.

Do you advocate a TV station going with just a desk and some kind of curtain in the background?

If not, why not? Wouldn't that be...good enough?

So, it's a value judgement all along, which plays right into my hand and NOT into yours. If you want to argue qualitatively, you'd better set a benchmark.

If that benchmark is, as you CLAIM, that your VJ's could turn out JUST as good a product as a two person team, then you're plainly out of our gourd, and you've basically admitted that won't happen. If you didn't, you wouldn't be arguing 'good enough.'

So, now, please tell us where the benchmark falls to call something 'good enough.' I'd be willing to bet you'll choose an extremely low level of quality in order to make your self-admitted 'price point,' and I'm not sure that's going to serve the viewer, the advertiser, and ultimately, the TV station that well.

People won't tune in to see their neighbor talking over badly shot camcorder images.

Proof? How about that Johnson City reporter someone posted earlier? Anybody here want to watch that train wreck...again?

Dear Bear
You have the equation backwards.
It is not I, nor you, who set the standard of 'good enough'.
That is set by what the market will bear.
In other words, what is the projected income from the newscast.
When you know that, you can then decide how much you want to spend on the set, the content, the gear and so on.
Not the other way around.
Of course, these are estimates, but that's what budgeting is all about.
60 Minutes spends more on its programming because it generates more revenue and so can afford to do so.
A little local TV news station in a 150 market spends what they believe their revenue will be, or close to that, to get the best product they can at their cost point - hence, 'good enough'.
You could, of course, spend $100 million a year in market 150 and produce an outstanding product - way above 'good enough', but you would also soon be out of business.

It's true that for much of the history of TV News, as 22 notes, news divisions were expected to lose money. (read Ken Auletta's Three Blind Mice for a great history of this). But those days are long over. And they are not coming back.

[adam & doctor drew]

what happened to "I am starting to think this is a waste of time, but I will try this once more and that is it:"

[22]

Dear Bear

It's true that for much of the history of TV News, as 22 notes, news divisions were expected to lose money. (read Ken Auletta's Three Blind Mice for a great history of this). But those days are long over. And they are not coming back.

Don't be so sure. I am not saying that stations will intentionally expect the news division to lose money, but many stations are losiing or on the verge of losing money with the news division right now.

The current solution is to cut news. But the FCC may not find this an acceptable solution when it comes to a license renewal. And so it follows that a station may have to do news at a lose.

[SamG]

It is not I, nor you, who set the standard of 'good enough'.
That is set by what the market will bear.
But you can't know what the market will bear until after the fact. So stations make a guess on how "good" "good enough" needs to be. OK. Got an example in the US where "good enough" a) made money for the station and b) didn't result in layoffs?

[Bureau Chief]

Diggin' Bear has this one nailed. TV news (and many other buisnesses) cannot be treated as a "product" in the typical buisness school model. If you do, quality will suffer and thus, your buisness will suffer.

MAny of you may not remember the day when TV news was not EXPECTED to make a profit. It was not a product. It was a public service. One could argue that when news started to make a profit, was the same moment it became a product. And that was the beginning of the end.

Diggin' bear is wise.

And he will never be in management for that reason.

The problem with this argument is that the "public service " is now being rendered by the internet...at a much faster clip than tv can offer.

[Rosenblum]

But you can't know what the market will bear until after the fact. So stations make a guess on how "good" "good enough" needs to be. OK. Got an example in the US where "good enough" a) made money for the station and b) didn't result in layoffs?

Every station in the country, every station in the world budgets for the coming year. They project revenues and plan their expenses accordingly. Based on their projected revenue, they calculate what 'good enough' is. Good enough, to take us back to where this all started, is the basis of every business decision, in broadcasting and otherwise.

When a producer pitches a show to a cable network, for example, the network and the producer agree on a budget. That budget is based on the network's projection of what they think the show will earn. Discovery pays more than OLN. HBO pays more than Discovery per hour. Once the producer knows the budget, they then project their expenditure of that money to get the best possible product on screen for the price they have. Not to beat a dead horse but that's Good Enough. Here is what you get for $150k per hour. Here is what you get for $1.5 mil per hour. They are, believe me, different. But you don't spend more than you get.

To answer your question, stations that guessed well on projected revenue and spent well and made a profit survived another year. They can be big or small. So long as they are profitable. There are also those who projected wrong and took a loss. They might not have gone out of business, but you can bet they suffered layoffs, probably starting at the top. (But not always).

[SamG]

I'd hope you'd read between the lines, but let me put this simply...

Name ONE US station who bought into the VJ model you market and a) made at least the same amount of money if not more and b) didn't lay anyone off.

[22]

The problem with this argument is that the "public service " is now being rendered by the internet...at a much faster clip than tv can offer.

True. But that won't matter to the FCC. The will still insist that a station provide "news and public service programming" to the local community.

[Rosenblum]

I'd hope you'd read between the lines, but let me put this simply...

Name ONE US station who bought into the VJ model you market and a) made at least the same amount of money if not more and b) didn't lay anyone off.

I am not privy to their numbers, but can you name one US station that has not laid anyone off? NBC, it is no secret, is rapidly adapting the model. They are also shedding people as fast as they can. Are the two related?

[SamG]

I am not privy to their numbers, but can you name one US station that has not laid anyone off? NBC, it is no secret, is rapidly adapting the model. They are also shedding people as fast as they can. Are the two related?
Yes. WLEX in Lexington, KY. (knock-on-wood).

So in other words, you can't name a station that went VJ and didn't end up laying people off?

[Diggin' Bear]

It is not I, nor you, who set the standard of 'good enough'.
In that case, it might be reasonable to call your VJ experiment at KRON a miserable failure, right? The station has lost value, and its current owners cannot sell it for even what they invested in it.

Ergo, the market did not bear what you said it would and the cost savings you promised were not realized. I'd be willing to bet the same 'experiment' in Nashville and DC will see similar results.


In other words, what is the projected income from the newscast.
When you know that, you can then decide how much you want to spend on the set, the content, the gear and so on.
Not the other way around.
Straw man, easily knocked down. We all know that there are historic perspectives on income and revenue for each station. What YOU'RE selling is that you can produce the same ....er....product...for less money and not lose revenue.

Your track record would contradict that. So, successful news operations would do well to take note that yes, you cut costs, but your model did not lead to either financial success or greater budgeting.


60 Minutes spends more on its programming because it generates more revenue and so can afford to do so.
Funny that you'd hold up as an example of success and higher revenues one of the more costly news programs to produce. As I understand it - and TVMatt may have to confirm for me - they still use the AP/Prod/Field Producer/Photograher/Sound/Correspondent model to turn out their stories.

I don't think YOU can provide one 60 Minutes, Dateline or 20/20 example in which the story was shot, written, produced, edited and presented by a VJ.

A little local TV news station in a 150 market spends what they believe their revenue will be, or close to that, to get the best product they can at their cost point - hence, 'good enough'.
Hey, we have a WINNER here!. Oh, no we don't.

You do realize that 150 market TV stations were using OMBs before you came up with your scheme? Nothing new there - and that's why you see Johnson City, TN reporting has the quality it does.

You could, of course, spend $100 million a year in market 150 and produce an outstanding product - way above 'good enough', but you would also soon be out of business.
But that's not what you're proposing. You're proposing it's wise and profitable to use something like the Johnson City model in Washington, DC. Your earlier 'experiments' in trying to make this a 'manufactured' product without an eye to quality seem to disprove your hypothesis. You can't transplant Market 150 quality and product to a higher market and expect to win an audience. If you pay for market 150 talent and process, you'll get...that's right!...market 150 quality, and the audience in bigger markets will notice it.

Oh...but that brings us back to what the market will support.

So the question becomes...do we enter a downward spiral of quality and expect to hold the line on costs while generating revenue - a model that just doesn't seem to work, or do we realize that while TV News was a profit center for the past 20 years but may not be that way for awhile?

If you try to turn it into a manufactured process, you're going to inherently choose the downward spiral.

If I'm your competitor? I maintain quality, modify my newsgathering to cut costs elsewhere, and take posession of every rating point I can keep.

You...lose.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

If someone's work ethic falls under 'good enough' and they keep their job because that's what the ND/GM is looking for....then let's just go ahead and shut the system down now. As in RIGHT NOW!:mad: :(

[csusandman]

I'm guessing everyone here has been part of something that was "good enough" to make air... think about a marginal (analog) live shot. You might get some sparkle in the video or the audio might "sputter and spit". Depending on the importance of the story, that might be "good enough".

But not the best that we can do. Certainly not the best that we're used to doing, day in and day out. So why do we settle for "good enough"? Most likely, some outside circumstance prevented the quality of work that we're used to.

What seperates us from Num-Nuts (not you SamG! The Num-Nuts) is that if we have to settle for "good enough" at the time, we're not happy with it and are constantly trying to improve. We know that "good enough" isn't up to our standards, our quality of work. Those who are passionate about this bidness want to improve it, make it better and NOT settle for "good enough". And that's why we're successful at what we do and he isn't.

[Roy Hobbs]

You do realize that 150 market TV stations were using OMBs before you came up with your scheme?

You can't transplant Market 150 quality and product to a higher market and expect to win an audience. If you pay for market 150 talent and process, you'll get...that's right!...market 150 quality, and the audience in bigger markets will notice it.


Anchorage is Market 150 and they don't use one-man bands.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

Anchorage is Market 150 and they don't use one-man bands.
My 150 station back in 2000 was ALL OMB. The competition was half and half.

[Another OMB]

My 150 station back in 2000 was ALL OMB. The competition was half and half.

Did you cream them or did they cream you? (where's that rimshot Smilie?)

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

Did you cream them or did they cream you? (where's that rimshot Smilie?)
:worship:
Ha! Actually, we were just a cube of sugar compared to the competition.
Folgers vs. Starbucks
Spoiled Latte vs. Caramel Machiatto.

[Diggin' Bear]

Anchorage is Market 150 and they don't use one-man bands.

Anchorage is a market 150 anomaly on a couple of fronts:

It's the largest market in the state; the vast majority of the state's population is in the Anchorage DMA; the average income of an Anchorage resident far outstrips any other market 150 average citizen; and the simple requirments of working in Alaska almost means it's mandatory for you to have two crew members.

You could conceivably use VJ's in Anchorage, but not on every day shoots, and certainly not when you're flying out to, say, Kodiak to cover heavy rain and landslides that threaten to send houses out into the bay.

Not advisable, either, when covering the Iditarod or the Iron Dog.

Really difficult to do when flying to Denali to cover climbers missing on the hill.

So, while Anchorage is listed as market, what...154?...it's not really market 154.

[Roy Hobbs]

Anchorage is a market 150 anomaly on a couple of fronts:

It's the largest market in the state; the vast majority of the state's population is in the Anchorage DMA; the average income of an Anchorage resident far outstrips any other market 150 average citizen; and the simple requirments of working in Alaska almost means it's mandatory for you to have two crew members.

You could conceivably use VJ's in Anchorage, but not on every day shoots, and certainly not when you're flying out to, say, Kodiak to cover heavy rain and landslides that threaten to send houses out into the bay.

Not advisable, either, when covering the Iditarod or the Iron Dog.

Really difficult to do when flying to Denali to cover climbers missing on the hill.

So, while Anchorage is listed as market, what...154?...it's not really market 154.

Market 150.

[Spike]

But Spike, you especially should see that Rosie's quote, in and of itself was absolutely positively true in the business world.

No, it's not. It's really quite a stupid thing to say.

Years ago I worked in a factory that made steel cans, from half gallon spike buckets to 55 gallon drums. We had a big banner hanging in one part of the factor that proclaimed:

"OUR GOAL: ZERO DEFECTS"

Thing is, we could easily absorb a certain percentage of defective products, and the company budgeted for it. We could even sell some of our defective cans if we wanted. They were functional, just not cosmetically perfect. Still, we strove not to have any defective cans at all.

Slightly imperfect cans and a small percentage of waste off the production line were "good enough" to reach the company's financial projections. So why did our managers espouse the Zero Defects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_defects) quality control philosophy? Because considerable research had shown that when you aim for mediocre, you never get a superior product. To have a superior product, you have to aim for perfection.

That doesn't mean that you bankrupt your company to attain perfection. It means that you aim for perfection within the limits of your business model. "Good enough" has no place there.

Very few companies operate on a philosophy of "good enough." WalMart and McDonalds have been mentioned, but neither of them are operating that way. I actually know some auditors from WalMart. WalMart is operating on a philosophy of increasing sales volume by keeping prices as low as possible. But they still try to provide the best customer service they can under those limits. If there is a cost-effective way to improve service, they don't just say, "No, we don't need that, what we're doing already is 'good enough'."

Likewise with McDonalds. Why did McDonalds change its Quarter Pounder? Why did they improve their McNuggets? Why did they start serving "premium" salads and chicken products? They had already grown to a worldwide power on the basis of their existing products. The Big Mac and the old Quarter Pounder were certainly "good enough."

Why does a company need a superior product? Because it has to compete to survive. A company that strives for "good enough" is going to be beaten (or at least threatened) by the company that strives for excellence. The superior product that better meets the customer's needs will attract sales. I've now been through business school, and not once did I ever hear of an instructor teaching "good enough" as a management philosophy.

No, businesses don't work that way at all. So why would Rosenblum say such a stupid thing? Because he knows that the only way he'll ever sell his inferior product is if television stations lower their standards to his level.

[Spike]

While I'm thinking about it, I can give you a perfect example of what "good enough" really means. We look again at this picture, courtesy of Chicago Dog:

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee197/chicago_dog/four-years-at-picture-college.jpg

When Rosie set this up, he was thinking in terms of what was "good enough." He wasn't considering excellence at all. "I'll just set it up over there by the window. That's good enough."

The result was backlit garbage. A beginner's mistake.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's suppose that there was no time to light this. Let's suppose that there was no lighting available, not even a toplight on the camera.

Even in that situation, someone not willing to settle for "good enough" would have turned that camera in a different direction, so that it wasn't backlit. No time lost. No extra money spent.

You might say, "Well, Rosie just doesn't know to do that."

But that's the whole point. Someone willing to settle for "good enough" is never going to learn to do that. Then his lack of skill will reinforce the tendency to settle for what he does know and consider it "good enough." It's a feedback loop of mediocrity.

It's a mindset. "Good enough" will never get any better.

This is why companies rarely aim for mediocrity, even when they can't afford excellence. They still try to do the best they can within their limits. Rosenblum doesn't even try to do the best he can. He just does what he thinks is enough.

And fails.

[interloper]

Very well said Spike!

[Nino Giannotti]

We are talking about two different "good enough" scenarios.

When we work under the "good enough" principle it means that for whatever reason, could be budgetary or time restriction, we might not be allowed to give that job 100 percent of what we are capable of doing. When Rosenblum talks about " good enough" it means that him and his VJs have given all they have to give, the limit of their skills is what he considers good enough. Even if they had a regular budget and a lot of extra time they would not know what to do with it, their work would look exactly the same.

The problem is that either he nor his VJ can recognize quality beyond what they are capable of doing, that's referred to as "video blind". Time after time Rosenblum has shown with pride pieces of VJ work that he considered outstanding, including last year $10,000 Concentra award. In reality they were all awful pieces of work. Time and money had nothing to do with the result, it would have taken the maker just as much time to do it right as it took to do it wrong, the problem is the the lack of knowledge, the good enough type of brains.

Although he likes to takes credit anytime a station even mention VJ, OMB or backpack Journalist, he is for all practical purposes out of the game. His interpretation of good enough just wasn't good enough.

[The Thrill]

Did you cream them or did they cream you? (where's that rimshot Smilie?)

http://www.philwoods.com/forums/images/smilies/rimshot.gif

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

Time and money had nothing to do with the result, it would have taken the maker just as much time to do it right as it took to do it wrong, the problem is the the lack of knowledge, the good enough type of brains.

:thumbsup:

[TAFKA wacowx]

Spike,

Every example you gave was a 'good enough' one:

The cans...well they could have been made of a thicker material or sealed even better but the quality of the can was 'good enough'. Much more money could have been spent on can quality, but your company found it was 'good enough' to provide a consistent product with it's goal of zero defects.

Wal Mart has 'good enough' customer service. Sure, they could spend a lot more and provide personal shoppers to help with your needs, but what they offer are low prices and 'good enough' customer service.

McDonalds wanted to increase sales, so improving it's products to a level where they were 'good enough' to attract customers was the goal. They didn't seek our Asiago cheese infused buns for the Quarter Pounder, the standard sesame seed buns were good enough, but money was spent on other aspects of the McDonalds menu experience.

You even say so yourself: "That doesn't mean that you bankrupt your company to attain perfection. It means that you aim for perfection within the limits of your business model."

That is the definition of 'good enough'. Doing enough to meet your business's goals. You don't overspend.

I am not saying the VJ model will meet these goals, but there is a limit to what any company is willing to spend to be successful and profitable. In my opinion, the VJ model takes away from the experience of watching a professional newscast so in that way, it is not 'good enough' for the broadcast in my opinion. But there will always be stations...more and more in this economy, that see merit in spending in other facets of the station while cutting back and going VJ in others.

[adam & doctor drew]

But there will always be stations...more and more in this economy, that see merit in spending in other facets of the station while cutting back and going VJ in others.

I don't think anyone's disputing that.
they're disputing the notion put forth by some that VJ is a better way of covering the news and will lead to better quality.
it won't.
it's a money-saving move, period.

[Spike]

Every example you gave was a 'good enough' one:

Sorry, but no. Companies aren't generally run that way. When they are, you get Young Broadcasting.

[TAFKA wacowx]

I don't think anyone's disputing that.
they're disputing the notion put forth by some that VJ is a better way of covering the news and will lead to better quality.
it won't.
it's a money-saving move, period.

I agree...I was just saying that by sticking up for Rosie's comment, I was in no way saying that his way was the preferable one.

[TAFKA wacowx]

Sorry, but no. Companies aren't generally run that way. When they are, you get Young Broadcasting.

Well then what term/phrase would you use?

"Striving for excellence that won't leave us unprofitable"?

It seems like you are opposed to the 'good enough' term...but the above is essentially the same thing.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

Wal Mart has 'good enough' customer service. Sure, they could spend a lot more and provide personal shoppers to help with your needs, but what they offer are low prices and 'good enough' customer service.

You know though, if another store offered the same low prices with 'more than enough' customer service....I'd shop there instead.
Just sayin'.

[Diggin' Bear]

You know though, if another store offered the same low prices with 'more than enough' customer service....I'd shop there instead.
Just sayin'.

Amazingly enough, Target and Costco are trying to use that exact philosophy but their prices are slightly higher. Guess what? In a tough economy, most consumers, including me, will go for whatever's cheapest, so Wal-mart is still thriving.

Now, does that mean the consumer will go for 'good enough' when it comes to TV news?

Not in my experience. Consumers consider TV news a 'free lunch.' They don't believe for a minute they're paying for it, even if they subscribe to cable.

When the consumer doesn't see themselves paying for something they want the best.

That's the problem with the 'good enough' concept for TV. It just doesn't translate like other industries may or may not - because it's a completely different model. The long term evidence indicates viewers won't choose what they think is inferior.

That's why Brian Williams wins viewers while Katie Couric doesn't. It's that danged credibility and believeability thing again.

Dang.

[Spike]

Well then what term/phrase would you use?

"Striving for excellence that won't leave us unprofitable"?

It seems like you are opposed to the 'good enough' term...but the above is essentially the same thing.

No, it's not the same thing at all.

"Good enough" is an expression of a minimum or a quota. The manager of Restaurant A calculates that he needs to sell 100 hamburgers per day to stay in business. Selling 100 hamburgers is "good enough," regardless of quality and customer service.

"Excellence" is an expression of a goal. It's not a minimum. The manager of Restaurant B decides he wants to do more than just sell enough hamburgers to stay in business. He wants to make good hamburgers that people will remember, and he wants to provide good service to go along with it.

In which restaurant would you want to eat?

Striving for "good enough" rarely results in anything more than mediocrity. If you decide that running three miles is "good enough," you're not likely to ever train for a marathon.

[Nino Giannotti]

A Toyota Camry is good enough. It is not a Mercedes. It is not a Porsche. It does not have to be, and in fact would be counter productive because it would cost too much to make.

A sandwich from Subway is not a lunch at the 21. That does not make Subway bad. It makes it what it is to survive in its niche.

Another of Rosenblum screwy analogies.

Mike, a Camry, a Mercedes, a Porsche, a Subway sandwich and a lunch a 21 have all different values and priced accordingly. But viewers are paying exactly the same regardless if the programming are good or good enough, so with over 200 options why on earth would they watch something that's just good enough when with a click of their remote they can watch something good. Would you buy a Camry if it was priced the same as a Porsche? Or would you buy a Subway sandwich if it was priced the same as a lunch at 21? I bet you wouldn't so why do you think that viewers will accept that.

Let's not forget that VJ implementation is a direct consequence of poor sales and bad management. Implementing some VJ within the organization to carry out assignments requiring lesser skills would be acceptable, actually it could be a wise management decision in order to free up the good crews for more demanding assignments, but converting the entire newsroom exclusively to VJ with the intention of rescuing the business would be like using a bucket line to rescue the Titanic, all they'll accomplish is to slow down the inevitable, the correct thing would had been to avoid the iceberg in the first place, too late now. Every action taken now to cut costs will only delay the inevitable, the downward trend for these stations is continuing, it did not and will not stop. This means that in another year more cuts will be needed, so what's next, ask citizen journalist to give the stations their video for free in exchange for credits and a McDonald meal?

Viewers have a choice, if they don't like what they see they'll click away to something else and the best way to drive viewers away is with a bad product. Advertisers still need to advertise so what will happen is that they'll shift their money to the more successful stations or the ones with a better product and a higher audience. Let’s not forget the reason why many of these stations are having serious financial; the quality of their work just wasn’t good enough to maintain the number of viewers necessary to generate the needed revenue, so what's management doing? Instead of fixing the problem they are creating even a worse product, so now they can drive even more viewers away, this is what in business school we referred to as "The Business Prevention Department"

[SamG]

No, it's not the same thing at all.

"Good enough" is an expression of a minimum or a quota. The manager of Restaurant A calculates that he needs to sell 100 hamburgers per day to stay in business. Selling 100 hamburgers is "good enough," regardless of quality and customer service.

"Excellence" is an expression of a goal. It's not a minimum. The manager of Restaurant B decides he wants to do more than just sell enough hamburgers to stay in business. He wants to make good hamburgers that people will remember, and he wants to provide good service to go along with it.

In which restaurant would you want to eat?

Striving for "good enough" rarely results in anything more than mediocrity. If you decide that running three miles is "good enough," you're not likely to ever train for a marathon.
But Spike, while we may want to eat at Restaurant B, what if their prices are double Restaurant A? Sure, B may have better food, but if the price keeps people away what good is it?

[Nino Giannotti]

But Spike, while we may want to eat at Restaurant B, what if their prices are double Restaurant A? Sure, B may have better food, but if the price keeps people away what good is it?

But what if they were both priced the same, would you go to to restaurant A?

Viewers on TV don't get a surcharge on their cable bill if they watch quality programs and don't get a discount if they watch "good enough" programs.

[SamG]

But what if they were both priced the same, would you go to to restaurant A?

Viewers on TV don't get a surcharge on their cable bill if they watch quality programs and don't get a discount if they watch "good enough" programs.
The short answer is still "maybe". What if it's a two hour wait for a table at B, but you can sit right down at A?

The long answer is you can't compare television news to other industries. There are times "good enough" makes air... generally because of outside influences... a marginal live shot is the prime example. Another example is a photog/editor only having 10 minutes to put a story together. While it might make air, it won't be as good as when the editor has 30 minutes (or an hour) to edit. So saying "good enough" ISN'T good enough is false.

But as someone mentioned, while "good enough" can make air, doesn't mean we need to be happy with it. "Good enough" shouldn't be the goal, but you can't tell me it's not acceptable.

[Nino Giannotti]

The short answer is still "maybe". What if it's a two hour wait for a table at B, but you can sit right down at A?

The long answer is you can't compare television news to other industries.

Right you are, so why are we talking about it?

There are times "good enough" makes air... generally because of outside influences... a marginal live shot is the prime example. Another example is a photog/editor only having 10 minutes to put a story together. While it might make air, it won't be as good as when the editor has 30 minutes (or an hour) to edit. So saying "good enough" ISN'T good enough is false.

But as someone mentioned, while "good enough" can make air, doesn't mean we need to be happy with it. "Good enough" shouldn't be the goal, but you can't tell me it's not acceptable.

No arguments here, so let me repeat what I said above

We are talking about two different "good enough" scenarios.

When we work under the "good enough" principle it means that for whatever reason, could be budgetary or time restriction, we might not be allowed to give that job 100 percent of what we are capable of doing. When Rosenblum talks about " good enough" it means that him and his VJs have given all they have to give, the limit of their skills is what he considers good enough. Even if they had a regular budget and a lot of extra time they would not know what to do with it, their work would look exactly the same.

The problem is that either he nor his VJ can recognize quality beyond what they are capable of doing, that's referred to as "video blind". Time after time Rosenblum has shown with pride pieces of VJ work that he considered outstanding, including last year $10,000 Concentra award. In reality they were all awful pieces of work. Time and money had nothing to do with the result, it would have taken the maker just as much time to do it right as it took to do it wrong, the problem is the the lack of knowledge, the good enough type of brains.There's a big difference between doing occasional "good enough" work because of reasons beyond your control versus lowering the standards because "good enough" is the best and the only thing one can do. What Rosenblum is saying is that you no longer need the skills to make good quality work, mediocrity or "good enough" is the high goal...... otherwise known as poverty. What Rosenblum has been avoiding is the reality of how many people are capable of making a decent living with his theory of "good enough" skills, this is the real question everyone should be asking.

There's an entire army of photographers out there who for years have been waiting for the industry to lower the standards of quality down to their level because these people are too lazy and too stupid to undertake the sacrifices and discipline of learning. Michael capitalized big time on this human deficiency, apparently there's a fortune to be made out of laziness and ignorance.

[22]

The long answer is you can't compare television news to other industries.



Actually, that is the short answer. And the best one here. You are dead on, Sam.

There are some other buisnesses where a classic buisness model will not fit. (bookstores for example)

TV is a unique buisness... and TV news shouldn't be a buisness at all.

[Spike]

But Spike, while we may want to eat at Restaurant B, what if their prices are double Restaurant A? Sure, B may have better food, but if the price keeps people away what good is it?

And what if Restaurant A mixes manure into its patties? And what if Restaurant B offers a prostitution service using its waitresses?

What if? WHAT IF??????

I was trying to explain to wacowx the difference between mediocrity and excellence. But just for you, let's put the whole example in one restaurant. The manager at A calculates that he needs to sell 100 hamburgers, regardless of quality and customer service. 100 hamburgers is "good enough." But then THE SAME manager decides that he wants to make sure those 100 hamburgers and his customer service are as good as possible under his existing cost structure. That's striving for excellence.

Is that difference so hard to understand?

Maybe it's nothing more than the difference made by the cashier smiling at the customers. Maybe it's a little more attention to when traffic is at its peak, so that he can tweak when the burgers are made, so that they're served fresh and hot without sitting around too long but also quickly when customers come in. Oh, he could just not worry about any of that stuff as long as he sold 100 burgers. That would be "good enough." But he wants more than mediocrity, and as a result he probably sells more burgers.

Happy now? Or do you have more silly what ifs?

[SamG]

No Spike, he's not striving for excellence. "Excellence" would require him to use the best meat, the best buns, and the best personnel money can buy. But that is cost prohibitive. So he must sacrifice. Maybe he uses meat with a little more fat. Maybe he doesn't pay his employees as well as he could. Does his quality suffer? Yes. Does that mean customers stay away? Some, probably. But he might gain other customers who are more interested in the speed and/or cost of the burger than they are the taste.

My point is SOME TIMES "good enough" IS good enough. As Nino points out, Mike is trying to pass "good enough" as good enough ALL the time. That I agree is wrong. Don't tell me you've NEVER settled for good enough. All I'm trying to say is it has its place.

[Nino Giannotti]

Please allow me to clarify something that I said earlier. It's a know fact that when a producer is faced with a limited budget he will hire the best crew he can, not the cheapest, remember that a producer is only as good as his crew. Given the same amount of time, a skilled crew can get twice as much done and substantially better work as a lesser skilled crew can. It all comes down to value and value doesn't mean cheap.

What this all mean is that as far as the client goes that might be good enough but a good photographer will always give it his best. As I always said, the number one quality of a skilled professional is his (her) ability in problem solving. There are always problems on any production, shortage of time and low budgets is just one of the problems. A good photographer will not throw his arms up in the air and complain that he should have more time and money, he will always give 110 percent under any situation and never settle for good enough; that was the BEST that could be done under those circumstances. This is why a good photographer can get as much as $2500 per day with a HD package, while a VJ on Rosenblum payroll at his Hyperlocal station in Washington must work one full month to make that.

And while we are on the subject, Michael, how's your "good enough" Verizon Hyperlocal doing in Washington? The last I've heard not very good.

[Spike]

"Excellence" would require him to use the best meat, the best buns, and the best personnel money can buy.

Striving for excellence wouldn't.

[Diggin' Bear]

Has anyone noticed something? As soon as we changed the terms of the discussion about 'good enough' to point out how TV news isn't a manufactured process.....

....Mikey disappeared.

Just an observation.

[Roy Hobbs]

And what if Restaurant B offers a prostitution service using its waitresses?


At that point you then focus more on the quality of the buns.
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii261/funkbutter/graphics/Sexy_Flirty/sexy_buns.gif

[Rosenblum]

Has anyone noticed something? As soon as we changed the terms of the discussion about 'good enough' to point out how TV news isn't a manufactured process.....

....Mikey disappeared.

Just an observation.

Dear Bear
I have not disappeared.
I am just tired of going around and around and around and around....
and around...
and around....
....
and around...

and around...

........
and around....



and around







and around








and around....

[SamG]

something
So why won't you answer my question? I answered yours. Can you name ONE station that used the VJ model that you promote that a) equaled or surpassed their income AND b) didn't have to layoff personnel.

That's a simple question and not open to opinion. Either the station made more money, less money, or the same money, and either laid people off or didn't.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

Striving for excellence wouldn't.
This is a good point.
The term 'good enough' doesn't require such 'striving'.
Once 'good enough' is the understood bottomline....who in the hell will try to go out of their way for better....'striving for excellence'.
I know TV is different from other businesses...but good lord, the phrase "Good Enough" should be stricken from any form of communication.
Cutting cost? Fine. But one shouldn't ever use such wordage(good enough) because there is ALWAYS someone who is willing to 'strive for excellence' in any business model, industry, whatever.

[Nino Giannotti]

Dear Bear
I have not disappeared.
I am just tired of going around and around and around and around....
and around...
and around....
....
and around...

and around...

........
and around....



and around







and around








and around....

Stop playing victim Mike, you are the one who created you own merry go round. When you make a statement you are expected to back it up with facts and no fantasies. You've been running away and hiding from your own statements for over six years hoping that people forget, and you act offended when people actually have the balls to ask you the same questions again, over and over, well, start answering or stop making statements that you can't back up.

For some strange reason you think that you are some sort of superior being and everybody should take what you say without questioning, I got a surprise for you, you are nowhere near superior and we ask questions.

[Rosenblum]

Stop playing victim Mike, you are the one who created you own merry go round. When you make a statement you are expected to back it up with facts and no fantasies. You've been running away and hiding from your own statements for over six years hoping that people forget, and you act offended when people actually have the balls to ask you the same questions again, over and over, well, start answering or stop making statements that you can't back up.

For some strange reason you think that you are some sort of superior being and everybody should take what you say without questioning, I got a surprise for you, you are nowhere near superior and we ask questions.

Dear Nino
I know I shouldn't do this but I just cannot resist.
My clients ask many questions, and I answer all of them.
But you are not paying me anything, and after a while, I grow tired of answering all your questions. (You raised children. You know how annoying a 5 year old can be when they keep asking questions).
So here's what I propose.
Why don't you contract with me and pay me.
Then I will be more than happy to answer all of your questions for as long as I can stand it (or return the money).
Until then, I am afraid you are at the mercy of my good will and limited patience.
Got it?

[News Is Broken]

Dear Nino
I know I shouldn't do this but I just cannot resist.
My clients ask many questions, and I answer all of them.
But you are not paying me anything, and after a while, I grow tired of answering all your questions. (You raised children. You know how annoying a 5 year old can be when they keep asking questions).
So here's what I propose.
Why don't you contract with me and pay me.
Then I will be more than happy to answer all of your questions for as long as I can stand it (or return the money).
Until then, I am afraid you are at the mercy of my good will and limited patience.
Got it?

And how much would THAT cost?
http://pandasthumb.org/Dr.%20Evil%20copy.JPG
One MEEELLION DOLLARS?

[Clever Login Name]

In the time it took you to create that post, you probably could have answered a question or two.

Sounds like you just don't want to.

[News Is Broken]

In the time it took you to create that post, you probably could have answered a question or two.

Sounds like you just don't want to.

http://www.reelmovienews.com/images/gallery/the-joker-picture.jpg

"If you're good at something, never do it for free."

[Nino Giannotti]

Dear Nino
I know I shouldn't do this but I just cannot resist.
My clients ask many questions, and I answer all of them.
But you are not paying me anything, and after a while, I grow tired of answering all your questions. (You raised children. You know how annoying a 5 year old can be when they keep asking questions).
So here's what I propose.
Why don't you contract with me and pay me.
Then I will be more than happy to answer all of your questions for as long as I can stand it (or return the money).
Until then, I am afraid you are at the mercy of my good will and limited patience.
Got it?

I pay people! But already have somebody that clean my pool, what else can you do?

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Why don't you contract with me and pay me.

Excellent idea! I'm sure quite a few people here would like to put out a contract on you.

:D

[Diggin' Bear]

Dear Bear
I have not disappeared.
I am just tired of going around and around and around and around....
and around...

No, I don't think that's the case.

I just think some really smart people inside the business aren't buying what you're selling, and it must be difficult to continue to answer those questions.

Hey, you're an entrepreneur. Good for you. But if you're truly the Henry Ford of photojournalism and ready to save the industry single-handedly, you gotta expect some skepticism and hard questioning.

If you don't, then you end up like that Russian guy who actually invented television when old whatsisname from RCA got all the credit.

Hmm....what was his name again?

I forget.

[Rosenblum]

No, I don't think that's the case.

I just think some really smart people inside the business aren't buying what you're selling, and it must be difficult to continue to answer those questions.

Hey, you're an entrepreneur. Good for you. But if you're truly the Henry Ford of photojournalism and ready to save the industry single-handedly, you gotta expect some skepticism and hard questioning.

If you don't, then you end up like that Russian guy who actually invented television when old whatsisname from RCA got all the credit.

Hmm....what was his name again?

I forget.


Dear Bear
If there were one person who was on this site who might be a prospective client, I might be more inclined to do this ad nauseum. But I don't think there is. I don't mind the skepticism and hard questions, but you gotta admit that after a while, enough is enough is enough as this never leads to anything tangible.

[Chicago Dog]

Is that why you feel so safe recklessly accusing people of anti-Semitism when you know it's not true?

[Clever Login Name]

Wow. ...

[SamG]

Dear Bear
If there were one person who was on this site who might be a prospective client, I might be more inclined to do this ad nauseum. But I don't think there is. I don't mind the skepticism and hard questions, but you gotta admit that after a while, enough is enough is enough as this never leads to anything tangible.
That's because you don't ANSWER the questions. Go ahead, show ONE time you answered questions... either here or on b-roll. It's a link. Shouldn't take you more than five minutes, if, AS YOU CLAIM, you've answered the same questions OVER AND OVER again.

Basically although you won't admit it, you've got NO facts to back up your statements. Otherwise you would have already done so. After all, if you had ONE station succeed (in something OTHER than just "saving money") you should be shouting it from the rooftops. Instead it's "pay me and I'll answer your questions". Your nest egg must be drying up.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

I don't mind the skepticism and hard questions, but you gotta admit that after a while, enough is enough is enough as this never leads to anything tangible.
No, our efforts are 'good enough'.:shifty:

[Spike]

If there were one person who was on this site who might be a prospective client, I might be more inclined to do this ad nauseum.

Any time there's a discussion of one man bands, you land on it like a green bottle fly. And if there's no discussion for a while, damned if you don't buzz in and start one yourself.

And now you say that this board isn't worth your time because there aren't any prospective clients here? If that's so, why the hell do you keep coming back?

[adam & doctor drew]

Can you name ONE station that used the VJ model that you promote that a) equaled or surpassed their income AND b) didn't have to layoff personnel.

That's a simple question and not open to opinion. Either the station made more money, less money, or the same money, and either laid people off or didn't.

that seems simple enough.
answer it.

(or stay away from the board).

I think either one would be sufficient at this point.

[Chicago Dog]

And now you say that this board isn't worth your time because there aren't any prospective clients here? If that's so, why the hell do you keep coming back?

That depends. Are you looking for the Michael Rosenblum answer or the Occam's Razor answer?

that seems simple enough.
answer it. (or stay away from the board).

Let me further amend by saying that the answer should consist of a name, that's all. No rhetoric or dissertation, please.

[Nino Giannotti]

If there were one person who was on this site who might be a prospective client, I might be more inclined to do this ad nauseum. But I don't think there is. I don't mind the skepticism and hard questions, but you gotta admit that after a while, enough is enough is enough as this never leads to anything tangible.

You disappoint me Michael I thought you were much smarter. You just don’t get it do you? Do you really believe that I give crap about you and your answers? In my business VJ are invisible, if wasn’t for these boards I wouldn’t know what a VJ is or does. Have you ever wonder why in six years your VJ invasion went as far as 3 stations out of 4 thousand operating in this country? And your promise that VJs will be the major supplier of cable programming was halted after your very own 5 Takes disaster.

Look at numbers, this is what real consultants do. There are over 150 posts on this thread alone but over 2500 unique views. On B roll one of these threads reached the unprecedented 10,000 views mark. “Lurkers” or those who are not active registered participants outnumber registered member 20 to 1. Many of these people are producers, managers and other decision makers that follow these boards as faithfully as they read the daily news. For most managers these boards are the best informational tool they can find, better than blogs or those hundreds of daily newsletter that keep filling my e-mail. I know this as a fact because I get dozens of phone calls from these people asking all kinds of questions about OMB.

We ask you the questions that these decision makers would never think of asking. You are shooting yourself in the foot with your arrogance; this is why you have only converted 3 stations out of 4 thousand. I gave you a friendly suggestion years ago on how VJs or OMB should be phased in, but the great Rosenblum takes no suggestions. Guess what, my suggestion to you is exactly they way that most stations are implementing the OMB, and you are nowhere around to get a piece of that action. This is why you are trying to peddle your services in Europe and now you are going to a third world country to teach the government how to take videos.

[Nino Giannotti]

Dear Nino
I know I shouldn't do this but I just cannot resist.
(You raised children. You know how annoying a 5 year old can be when they keep asking questions)

No Michael, I really don't know.

I raised and educated three successful kids and now that they all adults they are also the best friends that I have. My youngest one is actually working with me and wants to follow in my footsteps. We are one of the very few father and son team and I'm very proud.

Not once in my entire life, not even before I had my own children I found a 5 years old to be annoying because they ask questions. I actually always felt good when a child ask questions, but I felt awful if I did not have a correct answer. What annoys me to no end are self centered grown ups and parents being annoyed when a five years old ask questions.

For the benefit of our society some people should remain childless.

[Jane Craig]

This thread and its ilk are the Middle East of Medialine.

[Roy Hobbs]

More like the Golan Heights.

[Trench Worker]

Here's what I think. We still have a ways to go before we hit the bottom of television news. The VJ isn't the final answer. It's just a way for the medium to survive for now. And it's a good a solution as there is to sell to people looking for answers to the crisis involved with doing more with less.

But I don't think "good enough" is a reasonable fix. And it's not really the American way of dealing with things. Once you have seen "first rate", it's difficult to let it go. Forget how big news field crews used to be (although in my experience it was never more than four including the reporter). Look at the drop off in the stature of the news announcer, in the quality of tele-journalism, in the depth and quality of news reports. That's the shame of it all. The news just isn't as good as it used to be.

Mr. Rosenblum has stated in the past that he thinks news making has been too elite, too exclusionary. He favors the VJ model because it allows everyman to become a reporter. As the internet gobbles up television news by choking off the traditional revenue streams television traditionally fed from, it has produced a concomitant opportunity -- the citizen journalist. Say goodbye to the centralized news agenda, goodbye to vain, bombastic anchors, so long producers cum puppeteers, adieu overpaid crews and camera auteurs. We will fill your places with one person whose efforts can be "good enough" simply because, well...because they have to be. It's all we can afford right now.

This all misses the real point. There is a significant benefit to having network television news organizations with money: they put people in critical positions around the globe and they cover the news where the news is happening. They might also send an intrepid reporter or two into those areas and allow them to uncover, to dig, to report something we might otherwise not know save for their ambitious and heroic efforts. It's great that technology has created opportunity for the dispossessed. Everyone can now create content and share it with people around the globe on Youtube. However, what we've lost is important -- what we're continuing to lose is shameful and might, in the end, be our undoing.

Consider Anderson Cooper. His program is billed as a "magazine show". Really. I thought a magazine show went out INTO THE FIELD and told stories that underscored the human condition. No. Anderson Cooper, by and large, sits behind a desk and he facilitates talk amongst a variety of guests parked on their arses throughout the show. No one is out in the real world. They run the same clips over and over again because...that's all they've got. There's no budget to pay someone to go out and get more. So they dissect a very brief, very lackluster video loop. And they do it ad nauseam.

VJs don't cover a lot of ground either because they have very little funding. They may be a great financial fix -- for now. But any reliance on them is going to shrink peoples' world view in a way that will only harm us. You can hate Dan Rather all you'd like. But he at least moved around from place to place. He crossed international borders. He had a gravitas, a cachet that gave him ACCESS. He -- and his elitist peers -- had access. Important people talked to them -- on camera and off. Now what you get is a bunch of good looking, good talking, always a good hair day chatterboxes sitting behind a desk and breaking down that electronic wall with their high-Q charm. But where's the freakin' beef? Where's the leg work? Where's the reporting? Where's the damn news.

Don't kid yourself Mike. This isn't just about photographers being shocked to discover that most people can be trained to point a camera competently at a moving target. It's more than that. It's almost as if, by championing the VJ, you are calling the market bottom. I say you're wrong. Lack of revenue will make news production virtually unprofitable in the near term. Some stations will go out of the business altogether. A network may fail. A couple of them will consider getting out of news production. Too much effort. And for what? Prestige? That got left behind years ago.

In the chaos -- after the chaos -- hopefully someone will step up and ignore the VJ bottle-stopper. Maybe they'll appreciate the notion that we NEED to be informed. Or at least some of us need to be informed. And that television news is a unique product when it is done right. Yes, I said "right", not "good enough". When it's right, TV news takes viewers places to see things newspapers cannot. It introduces them to foreigners and countrymen dealing with unusual twists of fate and unique circumstances. It shows them quake victims, sunami survivors, wretches of war, children stuck in holes, miners in the same, presidents being shot, warships barreling down on foes, glaciers receding.

I don't want to rely on citizens or multi-taskers for my information. I don't want to cobble together my own blind agenda, detached from the news content grid. I WANT to be helped along by knowledgeable people whose job it is to stay at the tip of the spear, to know what's happening in the world and why one thing is more important -- at least in the long run -- than another. I want people who really freakin' care, who are zealots about being journalists, maybe even kind of nutty, to file that damn report from foreign soil, not some smiling bimbo looking into a TelePrompTer. I want to know from someone who is THERE, from someone who FEELS the import of the moment.

Hopefully someone can rediscover a way to make money doing that. Because without the money, it's all gonna fall apart. I don't want to see Plan "D".

[Diggin' Bear]

One day, when I grow up, I'm gonna be just like TW.

(Hey, it down, stay awhile. Pull out the ol' keyboard more often, will you? I may have to drop you an email or so just to needle you a bit!)

[Rosenblum]

Dear TW and DB
well, you guys give me hope that there is indeed intelligent life here on medialine.
Thanks for taking the time to join in.

I agree that I don't want my news delivered by Citizen Journalists (though they certainly have every right to participate). And I also agree that the current construct of producing television is not going to work in the Internet economy.

That having been said, you may be heartened by the following:

My wife and I teach a vj course at The City University of New York's Grad School of Journalism. Most of our students are eager 22 year olds who have no problem with the technology but limited if any journalism experience.

However, in the course that started on Monday, one of our students was Barbara Raab, Brian Williams' Senior Writer on NBC Nightly News.

NBC News has given her a year's sabbatical both to teach at CUNY and to take courses. So she is taking ours.

As with all the students, we give them the cameras and laptops with FCP and by the second day they are all cutting pieces.

Here is a link the very first time Raab every picked up a camera or touched FCP. And this was after only 2 days.

http://rosenblumtv.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/when-we-come-back/

Of course, it is not perfect, but then again, it's only 2 days in.
But you see the potential when you marry years of journalism experience with these new and simple technologies.

I know that NBC has an enormous interest in this as a way of producing news in the near future. The trick is to focus on the journalists with experience. For the 22 year olds, it will take a bit longer.

[Roy Hobbs]

I'm impressed by anyone who can use "concomitant" in a post. Or Scrabble.

[adam & doctor drew]

So why won't you answer my question? I answered yours. Can you name ONE station that used the VJ model that you promote that a) equaled or surpassed their income AND b) didn't have to layoff personnel.

That's a simple question and not open to opinion. Either the station made more money, less money, or the same money, and either laid people off or didn't.

no answer, apparently.

[Nino Giannotti]

Dear TW and DB
well, you guys give me hope that there is indeed intelligent life here on medialine.

Michael, intelligence is perception, is what your own intelligence perceive as being intelligent, and also an easy word to throw around, but this is a visual profession and intelligence shows not with what we say but with what we do, both as professionals and as individuals.

If after 25 years in this business (as you claim) I would post something like this on my blog or anywhere else it would only mean that in 25 years I wasn't able to learn much; I would therefore be honest to myself and remove my name from the list of intelligent people, but again an intelligent person would know better.

But again, that's what I would do because I have a lot of self respect and pride in my work.

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee197/chicago_dog/four-years-at-picture-college.jpg

[Rosenblum]

If after 25 years in this business (as you claim) I would post something like this on my blog [/IMG]


Nino
I wasn't aware you had a blog.
Can you please post the link?
I would love a chance to comment.

[Chicago Dog]

no answer, apparently.

When it comes to dealing with Mike, keep these five things in mind:

1. He will not answer questions that do not allow him to twist facts -- through use of smoke-and-mirrors -- into unrecognizable tangents.

2. He will not answer questions that do not allow him to link back to his blog.

3. He will not answer questions regarding claims he's made that he knows are outright lies, choosing instead to insult the intelligence of readers on the forum by reaffirming the claim or ignoring it altogether.

4. He will not answer questions that do not allow him to make analogies that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at-hand.

5. He will not answer questions he cannot deflect.

Observe:

Hey Mike: why did you lie about studying photography at Williams College for four years?

[Trench Worker]

Just a question. How could anyone know for certain that a poster had "lied" about studying something in college? Williams offers photography courses in its arts program. Let's say Mr. Rosenblum took one of them. Doesn't that constitute "studying" a subject? For instance, I would never pass myself off as an Art History major. But I took two courses in it in college. One was an introductory class and the other was close to graduate level. I have also read a couple of books on the subject a la Gombrich's The Story of Art. Haven't I studied art history to some extent? Sure I have. I'm not saying I'm an expert, but I have taken a certain amount of time out of my life to focus on a certain interest. I think that qualifies as "studying".

I don't mean to come to Mr. Rosenblum's defense. I disagree with him on much. I also think what he's saying has a fair amount of truth that people seem to ignore in lieu of their personal objections. But I don't like straw arguments either.

[Chicago Dog]

Look at the image I've posted and who others have reposted. Do you honestly think that's the work of a guy who studied photography for four years?

Mike has a vast, consistent history of lying. This is just another example of crap he makes up on-the-fly.

Williams College should be knocking on his door saying, "Don't drag us down with you."

Sold your boat yet, Mike?

[Rosenblum]

Normally I don't respond to such stupidity, but in this case I will make an exception because Alma Mater is at stake.

I got an excellent education in photography and art history as well at Williams. I was, in fact, a double major in Fine Arts and History. Williams, as you may know is also affiliated with the Clark Art Institute in Williamstown, one of the best art institutes in the country.

Not only did I study photography at Williams for four years, but after I graduated I got a Fellowship from the Thomas Watson Foundation which paid my way to travel around the world photographing whatever I wanted, all expenses paid. I spent the next three years doing just that, all paid for by the Foundation.

[Spike]

I got an excellent education in photography and art history as well at Williams.

How excellent could it be for you to make such a ridiculous beginner's mistake like what we see in that still Dog posted? Were you just a terrible student?

[Chicago Dog]

"Not only that, but..."

All the explanations in the world won't make your laughable video look any better.

You can stop lying now, Mike.

[Trench Worker]

Isn't that a still from a low-end video camera being ridiculed? Is that really an appropriate image to use as a vehicle for criticism regarding one's capabilities as a photographer? Moreover, can such an image serve as evidence that casts doubt on an individual's claim that they studied photography while in college?

I point these things out because if there is a body of evidence being developed to hold against this man, it should be substantive. Not speculative. If the argument against his ideas is partially hung on the assumption that he couldn't have done what he says he has (studied photography in college), then those charges should have some kind of foundation in fact. When you assert that someone has a "history of lying", I believe you have to prove the lie.

Not everyone is familiar with Michael Rosenblum. Nor have they kept abreast of every thread where he comes under fire. I fall under the latter classification. If I don't think he's lying regarding studying photography, I tend to believe that those calling him on that charge are frauds because I can't keep up with their indictments. Falsify one of them and the pendulum swings against the indicter. I know one thing. Television news photography is under fire. Management wants the job done more cheaply. What does that mean for staffers? For freelancers? I'd like to think about that because it's important to me. Who out there is willing to discuss this topic rationally? It's seems like no one will because it's too toxic. Too scary. This guy -- Michael Rosenblum -- has something to say. Like it or not. He isn't even the messenger as far as I'm concerned, Use your eyes. Look around. It's already happening. On 20/20 the vast majority of the segments are shot by APs, not freelance or staff photographers. Is there opportunity there for anyone who is an established professional? Probably not. Then what to do next? That's the question.

Debating Rosenblum's college career isn't going to help anyone.

[2:30]

You're right that dumping on him because of his college activity is a waste of time.

Dumping on him for being a cynical idiot consultant, on the other hand, is perfectly appropriate.

He's hawking a particularly toxic brand of snake oil, and some are buying it. Their shops will get poisoned. Lots of innocent professionals will pay.

He'll move on to the next sucker.

It's what he's done before.

[Trench Worker]

I think I sort of did that in my first post.

[Spike]

Isn't that a still from a low-end video camera being ridiculed? Is that really an appropriate image to use as a vehicle for criticism regarding one's capabilities as a photographer?

He set his shot up backlit, against a window. That's a rookie error. It's not something somebody with a serious background in photography would normally make.

I don't doubt that he attended Williams. I don't doubt that he studied photography. I just doubt that he ever gained the least bit of understanding what he was doing. Even good schools sometimes turn out incompetents.

How is that relevant? Here's a guy who is trying to sell his method as being "good enough," as if he actually knows what that means. Such an example of his poor aesthetic would seem to call that knowledge into question.

[Judge]

So what do one man bands typically make nowadays, in relation to other newsroom employees?
Generally the equivalent of a reporter's salary, or less?

I did it for long enough to know I wouldn't OMB for a main anchor salary...especially in a newsroom with a mix of OMBs, photogs and reporters.

OMBs I knew over the years, even the talented ones, were generally the red-headed stepchildren of the newsroom...the lowest pay, worst gear, worst car, and generally rewarded for their hard work with more work, because of their perceived versatility.

[Trench Worker]

Spike, dude...what I see when I look at the Rosenblum still is a shot that really isn't all that important. The guy is just talking into the camera in his apartment probably. I have no idea what for. Maybe he's just riffing to his acolytes, preaching to the choir. And it's cheap video, communicating short-hand. Looking at that still frame and analyzing it for its photographic value is like listening to someone play the kazoo to determine the strength of their musical ability.

Is Rosenblum a good photographer? Some people can study photography all they want and they might not be any good at it. Are television photographers by and large inherently good photographers? I'd say the best conclusion you can make is that they are more interested in photography than your average citizen. Just because they're using a camera day in and out doesn't necessarily make them "good". Competent, maybe. Good is another story.

I think we'd have to see an image that Michael Rosenblum took that he cared about, fretted over, or valued in some strong way to determine whether or nor he's any good at the craft. The lone video still tells one absolutely nothing except that the man has a target on his back. I'm perfectly fine with people taking aim at the target. Just don't tell me you've hit a bulls-eye when I clearly saw it missed by a mile.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

I was, in fact, a double major in Fine Arts and History.

Very impressive. I remember taking an art class in high school to get an easy A.

[SigSauer]

Spike, dude...what I see when I look at the Rosenblum still is a shot that really isn't all that important.


I guess it's "good enough".

[Trench Worker]

Or rather, enough.

[Nino Giannotti]

Nino
I wasn't aware you had a blog.
Can you please post the link?
I would love a chance to comment.

Michael, if you have something to say to me you can say it here or on B-Roll, at least here you might find somebody to support you.

But as you said it, we are all unintelligent, why would a superior intelligent person like yourself want to mingle with ordinary folks like us? We are not political, all we talk about are unintelligent things like lighting, composition, gamma adjustments,.................
....................how to properly control or avoid backlight such as windows in the background. You know, that type of unintelligent and unimportant stuff that you call unnecessary and intrusive.

[Trench Worker]

Read the last line of the article in the original post. The professor Hayden says that colleges need to produce graduates who can do multiple tasks -- writing, shooting, editing -- in order to meet the current demands of the industry. Then he says that he thinks reducing personnel at TV stations is a BAD thing because asking fewer people to do more work only produces poor work. Finally, he predicts that if TV stations make "bad" TV news, news broadcasts will fail and the genre of news itself may go the way of the Dodo bird -- extinction.

THAT's what I'd like to hear someone like Mr. Rosenblum address, not how he stacks up with Ansel Adams. But I don't think he's ever going to tell you what you want to hear. And why not? Because he's here MARKETING himself. He says it in his post: he'd keep arguing if he believed a potential client existed among us.

Attention all TV news photographers: you are working in a collapsing industry. It's the maiden voyage of the Titanic to a large extent. We hit the iceberg a while ago. Now we're finding out there aren't enough lifeboats. The news isn't good. It's obvious to anyone who is analyzing the problem that people need to start thinking about how to save themselves, how to use what they have and morph into something different. Notice I didn't write "something else". I believe you can still do this work, except that, in the future, you will have to do it different. Mr. Rosenblum recommends becoming a VJ. Again, anyone with a brain understands that's not an option for those who aspire to have a real life with real families and real homes. So ignore this guy and dig down into the problem itself. Dissect THAT. That's where the ideas that will lead to real possibilities will come from. Mr. Rosenblum only understands a small corner of the industry. He may have studied the subject, but he is not a "real" photographer in the sense that he relies on the practice of the craft to make his living as YOU do.

I believe television news photography is shrinking. The craft is dying because the money isn't there to do it well or do it right. The VJ isn't the solution. That model is just a short-term, economic fix. Television news production is sicker than people might imagine. There will be far less of it in the future. "Good enough" will soon retract to "cell phone image". I wonder, has the supply of TV photographers exceeded future demand? Will young people being pumped out of colleges offering degrees in a subject some of us pioneered as professionals leverage us out of the jobs at which WE are experts and THEY novices? Can we find enough work in other genres and milieus to sustain us into the future? Will we be viable for as long as we'd like or as long as we need to in order to retire? Will we be forced to compete with people who know far less than we, but who are prepared to do more and do it less competently in pursuit of an adolescent dream?

[PVTVsux]

The guys out of Richmond running Media General have to be idiots. This one man band crap was presented to WKRG several months ago. All the photogs are scared. WKRG has been reduced to one big &*"$# pie. It's been a month and a half since seven people were laid off, four in operations. The Media Content manager can't even take a vacation or time off as the ones who used to be his backup are gone! What a class act and fine piece of work you *******s in Richmond are. If you lay off so many people to where your remaining people can't even have time off, maybe, just maybe you laid off one too many. Duh!
Now today it was announced they were suspending the 401k matching contribution. If after all they have done to save money, this crap is still going on, then it must be the management that sucks- Mr. Morton, Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Cornshafter, and the real brain trust, Mr. Hill!

[Roy Hobbs]

Mr. Morton, Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Cornshafter, and the real brain trust, Mr. Hill!

Mr. Blonde, Mr. Brown, Mr. Black, Mr. White, Mr. Pink!
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/rdogs.jpg

[NYC Street]

"I think the market will eventually compel newsrooms to either emphasize quality or disappear. The phase we're going through now isn't a pretty one."

Trench Worker said it nicely. That line is the critical one. The consultants and cheap equipment purveyors of the world may find managers who truly want to believe that you can produce the shows without producing good content, but they're only deluding themselves.

No VJ operation has ever improved its audience size. No VJ operation has ever lasted. Every manager who's bought VJ has ended up departing quickly after spending all that money on a system that repeatedly failed.

[Clever Login Name]

The problem is the non-VJ newsrooms, by and large, aren't producing quality either (check out the "cold weather reporting" thread). So when a manager sees he can get the same lackluster product for half the cost, naturally they're going to go for it.

[cameragod]

So management’s solution to a bunch of slack lazy workers churning out poor quality junk is to make them VJ’s?
“OK guys you obviously can’t do your own job so let’s get you doing someone else’s job as well as the job you are hardly doing now.”
Oh yeah that’s going to work...

[adam & doctor drew]

So management’s solution to a bunch of slack lazy workers churning out poor quality junk is to make them VJ’s?
“OK guys you obviously can’t do your own job so let’s get you doing someone else’s job as well as the job you are hardly doing now.”
Oh yeah that’s going to work...

the "solution" is to go VJ and then lay other people off, thereby having a smaller amount of people do the same amount of work while saving money.
it has nothing to do with quality.

[SamG]

On the quality issue... do the viewers want (or care) about quality? We used to be the #2 station in town (fighting to stay out of #3). However, we felt we put out a quality product... a couple investigations, hard hitting, in-depth news, etc. New ND and EP come in, we start going to a "every accident/fire/shooting" based newscast. We become #1.

So you can say all you want about the lack of quality and a loss of journalism, but what's more important is what the viewer wants to see.

[Chicago Dog]

On the quality issue... do the viewers want (or care) about quality? We used to be the #2 station in town (fighting to stay out of #3). However, we felt we put out a quality product... a couple investigations, hard hitting, in-depth news, etc. New ND and EP come in, we start going to a "every accident/fire/shooting" based newscast. We become #1.

You're talking about content, not quality.

It's entirely possible to tell quality stories about accidents/fires/shootings. Likewise, it's entirely possible to tell crap stories about the same topics and have your ratings drop.

[BadgerWXman]

This is how we shoot MOS interviews at my station:

http://www.diamond-production.com/imagens/photo.jpg

[PVTVsux]

Ten more people were axed today, some 30 year plus people-photographer, assignment editors, production guy, editor, and get this, building maintenance guy and janitor! Even a long time WX and feature reporter guy. Reports are that the GM is pulling his hair out figuring how they will stay on the air. And the
floundering 9AM show is history. Hey, Mediageneral, if you guys are going to %&*^ on your employees, at least keep someone on board to clean up your %^&* or you may have to eat it! I will name names- Marshall Morton, Jim Zimmerman, Dan Bradley, Ardell Hill, all you guys suck!

[Roy Hobbs]

The important thing is they fought hard to maintain the integrity of their website with the Cates fiasco....pfffffffffffffft.